Retrench or Mainstream: The choice has been made

[_Fence Sitter]

I agree but they are doing so at the cost of their uniqueness. It's a path the Community of Christ followed also and look at the results there.

What is wrong with the results of Community of Christ?

Nothing as long as one does not insist that the Book of Mormon is actual history.

[_beastie]

Nothing as long as one does not insist that the Book of Mormon is actual history.

That's what I mean about tolerance of diversity. That day is probably inevitable. The Book of Abraham will fall first, then the Book of Mormon.

[_Samantabhadra]

The Book of Abraham will fall first, then the Book of Mormon.

Right but this highlights the problem. As I said above, Mormons love to throw the Bible under the bus because the Historical-Critical Method significantly complicates the received narrative. Except, we know that even if Moses didn't write Deuteronomy, that the Deuteronomical law was a real thing. The Historical-Critical Method succeeds precisely because the Bible is a complex compilation of texts from a wide swath of human history. Once that methodology is turned on the Book of Abraham and the Book of Abraham, the only reasonable conclusion is that they are the products of Victorian spiritualism cross-fertilized with frontier nationalism. Then what?

I appreciate the beliefs of e.g. Kish, and I can see the value in an approach where you say, well maybe this text isn't what it purports to be, nor what its author purported it to be, but that doesn't mean that this text is worthless. Okay, no problem. But TBM's aren't paying 10% of their gross because of the poetic or narrative richness of the Book of Mormon, they are paying 10% of their gross because they believe the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be and what its author purported it to be. The brutal fact is that the Book of Mormon, unlike e.g. Deuteronomy, is not what it purports to be, i.e. a real record of real history (refracted through the Urim and Thummim of culture and thousands of intervening years of redaction).

"Mainstreaming" may be a necessary survival tactic, but like Kerry Shirts said on that other board, LDS engages with real world big boy Biblical scholarship at its own peril.

[_Blixa]

by the way, I'm not trying to predict how successful the church will be at this effort. I'm just saying that I think this latest episode makes it clear that is the choice that has been made. This is what they want to do. The potential for success is debatable.

Point taken, but I liked how KevinSim phrased the current moment as a "balancing act." I'm not sure the "final" (in the sense that anything here is ever final re: "continuing revelation") direction has been chosen. I think a lot of the balls are still up in the air and the wind could change rather quickly depending on the outcomes of this Fall (to mix metaphors horrifically).

[_lulu]

All instititions are faced with the challenge of adapting to changing times. And the times are always changing.

If you don't adapt you will severely limit your potential customer base.

If you adapt too rapidly you will alientate your current customer base.

But at this point in the Mormon Moment, which horse had you best support, Mitt Romney or Dan Peterson?

Sorry Dan. Enjoy Switzerland.

[_Chap]

... TBM's aren't paying 10% of their gross because of the poetic or narrative richness of the Book of Mormon, they are paying 10% of their gross because they believe the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be and what its author purported it to be. The brutal fact is that the Book of Mormon, unlike e.g. Deuteronomy, is not what it purports to be, i.e. a real record of real history (refracted through the Urim and Thummim of culture and thousands of intervening years of redaction).

"Mainstreaming" may be a necessary survival tactic, but like Kerry Shirts said on that other board, LDS engages with real world big boy Biblical scholarship at its own peril.

As the then Living Prophet said in a PBS broadcast interview in 2007:

[Interviewer:] Our film [features] a very strong statement you made. You are talking about the foundational story of Mormonism and why it must be taken literally, that Joseph Smith had the vision he described and obtained the plates the way he did. You said there is no middle ground. Other churches are approaching their foundational stories and turning them into metaphor at times and going perhaps for the essence of the meaning. But that isn't true for you or for this church. I'm wondering if you can develop that idea: Why can't there be a middle ground in the way those foundational stories are understood?

[Gordon Hinckley:] Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [Sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith.

[_Aristotle Smith]

beastie,

Thanks for writing this post. I have had very similar thoughts recently, and I thought about writing something up, but since I pretty much agree with everything you have said, now I don't have to bother.

I do have one question for you. At what level do you think this decision has been made?

I ask because I don't think this decision has been made at the highest levels. Both sides seem to have their supporters in the Qof12 and both sides seem to be able to play "dueling General Authorities" at will. This leads me to believe that at the level of official leadership there is a standoff. The only thing that could break that deadlock would be Thomas Monson stepping forward and taking a side, but I seriously doubt he knows or cares about this whole situation. Plus I have never heard Monson's name brought up as a power player in any of these episodes involving FARMS.

So since there isn't any definitive official leadership, NAMIRS has won and classic FARMS has lost largely on the basis of some control of bureaucracy/correlation at the Church Office Building(COB). In other words, staffers, managers, and bureaucrats have tipped the scales in the direction of mainstream.

The reason I find this fascinating, if true, is that this is a signal that the official leadership is no longer controlling or leading the church. Either through deadlock, neglect, or just not caring, the decisions are now being made at some undefined level at the COB and BYU. The crown jewel of Mormonism, that it is lead by living prophets and apostles, may very well be dead as shown by this episode.

[_Blixa]

beastie,

Thanks for writing this post. I have had very similar thoughts recently, and I thought about writing something up, but since I pretty much agree with everything you have said, now I don't have to bother.

I do have one question for you. At what level do you think this decision has been made?

I ask because I don't think this decision has been made at the highest levels. Both sides seem to have their supporters in the Qof12 and both sides seem to be able to play "dueling General Authorities" at will. This leads me to believe that at the level of official leadership there is a standoff. The only thing that could break that deadlock would be Thomas Monson stepping forward and taking a side, but I seriously doubt he knows or cares about this whole situation. Plus I have never heard Monson's name brought up as a power player in any of these episodes involving FARMS.

So since there isn't any definitive official leadership, NAMIRS has won and classic FARMS has lost largely on the basis of some control of bureaucracy/correlation at the Church Office Building(COB). In other words, staffers, managers, and bureaucrats have tipped the scales in the direction of mainstream.

The reason I find this fascinating, if true, is that this is a signal that the official leadership is no longer controlling or leading the church. Either through deadlock, neglect, or just not caring, the decisions are now being made at some undefined level at the COB and BYU. The crown jewel of Mormonism, that it is lead by living prophets and apostles, may very well be dead as shown by this episode.

Thanks, Ari. This clarifies and develops some of my own hesitancy about beastie's "the decision has been made" argument (not that I entirely disagreed). I suspect your argument could even be strengthened (and my hesitancy perhaps disappear) by carefully contrasting it with other similar moments in recent institutional history where the decision-making process was clearly Q of 12 driven.

Anyway, both of you have given me some food for thought.

[_lulu]

BYU organizational chart

http://saas.BYU.edu/catalog/2011-2012uc ... ration.php

Neither Packer or Oaks are on the Board of Trustee
(which doesn't mean they can't micro manage BYU if they were so assigned or inclined)

Does anyone know who Bradford reports too? Not that this sort of thing follows the chain of command.

[_sock puppet]

They could either choose to retrench and purge (a choice they made post-Arrington) or become more tolerant of divergent views and deliberately choose NOT to purge.

It looks to me like the LDS Church is trying to do a balancing act. It has taken a look at what things have been associated with Mormonism in the past; have divided them into two categories, essential and non-essential; and has tried to go mainstream on the latter while retrenching on the former.

Could you please list out its moves that have been retrenching on essential 'things'?