Retrench or Mainstream: The choice has been made

[_sock puppet]

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.

How do you see LDS Church reconciling for its members the fictionalization of its scripture with a continued claim of divine guidance? Why did the Mormon God need to dupe JSJr, his successors as prophets, seers and revelators, and the LDS following by misleading them into thinking the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon are actual history? How would LDS Church explain that?

[_lulu]

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

And what's essential changes.

And changes at different rates for different people in an organization.

Once polygamy was essential.

Once clearly branding Mormon enemies was essential.

[_sock puppet]

... 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.

Mormonism's truth claims are an l/0 proposition. Its stuck with its claims that the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon are actual history, no matter how improbable science continues to make those claims.

[_RockSlider]

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

Another dynamic to all of this is the "Chapel Mormon", which I assume still constitutes a majority of active members (however, this may be sinking fast). I believe the chapel Mormon effect has been so engrained for the last three generations or so, that the Q12 have not needed to make any particular stand on anything … all they needed to do was stand silently on the pedestals which have been established for them in the eyes of the members.

I assume that the internet and the John Delhin's of the world have had enough exposure to make chapel Mormon's an endangered species and hence the needed balancing act of needing to move from the self supported "essentials" (chapel Mormon faith) to mainstreaming.

[_Yoda]

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

I think the main mainstreaming was done when the changes in the temple were made, and the preacher was done away with. The entire mantra of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints being "the one and only true Church" has been down-played, and, in many cases, completely done away with.

I think that one of the main reasons the Church was so motivated to become active in the Proposition 8 fight was that it was an opportunity to stand united "with our Christian brothers and sisters" of different sects.

The Church is fighting hard to be recognized as simply another Christian sect, like the Lutherens or the Baptists.

Edited to add--The Community of Christ has been very successful at this, which is why it changed its name from The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to the Community of Christ. I would not be surprised if we follow a smiliar path.

[_Aristotle Smith]

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

I think the main mainstreaming was done when the changes in the temple were made, and the preacher was done away with. The entire mantra of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints being "the one and only true Church" has been down-played, and, in many cases, completely done away with.

I think that one of the main reasons the Church was so motivated to become active in the Proposition 8 fight was that it was an opportunity to stand united "with our Christian brothers and sisters" of different sects.

The Church is fighting hard to be recognized as simply another Christian sect, like the Lutherens or the Baptists.

Edited to add--The Community of Christ has been very successful at this, which is why it changed its name from The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to the Community of Christ. I would not be surprised if we follow a smiliar path.

Liz, none of what you cited is retrenching, that's all further attempts at mainstreaming. Changes to the temple in getting rid of the preacher, stopping the ritual disembowlment, and stopping the naked touching are all attempts at mainstreaming. If they were to bring back the old style garments, that would be retrenching.

In terms of pure numbers, which is what the LDS Church cares about, the CofC move to the mainstream has been an unmitigated disaster. It resulted in a schism, the formation of the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and also a loss of I believe 1/3 of the CofC membership. This is an unacceptable outcome for the LDS church powers that be, I'm guessing.

[_sock puppet]

I for one (albeit an apostate) would welcome some retrenching to restore Mormons' "peculiar people" claim. I would not want to see the 1978 'revelation' repealed, but how about embracing the King Follett Sermon, a staple of Mormon theology until GBH crapped all over it when caught off-guard by Larry King's question.

On what LDS Church as retrenched in the last 15 years does not come to mind, unless you consider what TBMs now wear to Sunday meetings counts--it is more 1940s than say, 1970s and 80s.

[_Yoda]

Liz, none of what you cited is retrenching, that's all further attempts at mainstreaming. Changes to the temple in getting rid of the preacher, stopping the ritual disembowlment, and stopping the naked touching are all attempts at mainstreaming. If they were to bring back the old style garments, that would be retrenching.

In terms of pure numbers, which is what the LDS Church cares about, the CofC move to the mainstream has been an unmitigated disaster. It resulted in a schism, the formation of the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and also a loss of I believe 1/3 of the CofC membership. This is an unacceptable outcome for the LDS church powers that be, I'm guessing.

I mistyped. I meant to say mainstreaming. I have changed it in my post now.

[_Yoda]

I for one (albeit an apostate) would welcome some retrenching to restore Mormons' "peculiar people" claim. I would not want to see the 1978 'revelation' repealed, but how about embracing the King Follett Sermon, a staple of Mormon theology until GBH crapped all over it when caught off-guard by Larry King's question.

On what LDS Church as retrenched in the last 15 years does not come to mind, unless you consider what TBMs now wear to Sunday meetings counts--it is more 1940s than say, 1970s and 80s.

I was confused about President Hinckley's answer to that question as well. The plan of salvation is the first thing that is taught by the missionaries, even today.

As far as attire on Sundays, I would like to see that continue to relax. I don't see why women could not wear nice dress pants to Church. I have some dress suits that are much dressier than the skirts I have. They have relaxed this rule somewhat. When I was in YW, we had to wear a dress to Mutual every Wednesday night, and we also had to wear dresses to all Stake dances. Now, the kids can wear jeans to youth dances, and they can wear jeans to mutual as well.

[_MCB]

I mistyped. I meant to say mainstreaming. I have changed it in my post now.

LOL. And here I thought you were an atypical LDS.