From My Informant: A Tale of Two Factions

[_kairos]

The Mormon church is in serious trouble as a faith tradition. There are serious historicity issues that will only get worse as the internet minded young people become knowledgeble of how the scam started and how it is maintained.

as young people go inactive, future generations are adversely affected as far as church and tithing funds are concerned.

none of the leadership has real answers regardless of "faction" he may align with.

the dribble of inactivity will in 5 years be a flood and parents will look to the church for answers and as usual be given nothing which will help save their posterity.

otoh there is a strong or relatively strong activity level among the early forties to 70's white Mormons in america- this is seen by the leadership as the core membership. why they stay in spite of all the bad news is worth the church doing a survey on. i suggest they are comfortable and have just too damn much invested. but what you do see is a major slowing down of senior couples missions. here to, they feel they have given enough and will just hope God will save them even though the church may be as phony as a 3 dollar nauvoo scrip note signed by Joseph Smith. and these good people are simply tired and wornout trying to be perfect and work their way into heaven. they need a break bigtime!

the demise of a religion is not fun to watch but it is happening before our very eyes.
do what you can to hasten this work.

just sayin

[_ludwigm]

The Bolsheviks, originally also Bolshevists or Bolsheviki (Russian: большевики, большевик (singular); IPA: [bəlʲʂɨˈvʲik]; derived from большинство bol'shinstvo, "majority", literally meaning "one of the majority") were a faction of the
...
A main source of the factions could be directly attributed to Lenin’s extreme stubbornness. It was obvious at early stages in Lenin’s revolutionary practices that he would not be willing to concede on any party policy that conflicted with his own predetermined ideas. It was the loyalty that he had to his own self envisioned utopia that caused the party split. He was seen even by fellow party members as being so narrow minded that he believed that there were only two types of people “Friend and enemy-those who followed him, and all the rest.”
...
The root of the split was centered on a book that Lenin wrote while serving a sentence of exile titled What is to be Done? The book was published in 1902 in Germany; strict censorship in Russia prevented its legal publication and distribution. One of the main points of Lenin’s writing was the view that a revolution can only truly be achieved by the strong leadership of one person or a very select few over the masses.

Sounds familiar?

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsheviks )

[_Symmachus]

In your honor, LudovicusM:

[_malkie]

"they are taking a 15 year communications strategy and have decided to throw this generation's doubters under the bus."

I think they should make it several months short of a 15 year plan and call it "almost 15 years old".

I see what you did there - well played!

[_Markk]

Seasons Greetings, friends and colleagues! I must say, in the weeks following the release of the "Top Ten Happenings in Mopologetics, 2014," the still-incipient year of 2015 is shaping up to be very interesting indeed. In the past few weeks, we've seen the apparently early (or "strongly encouraged"?) retirement of Bill Hamblin, who stepped down at the age of 60, halfway through the school year, and who's stepped up his criticism of the "New Maxwell Institute." We saw heavy attacks by the Mopologists on Ben Park's review essay, which involved accusations that Park is a closet apostate who doesn't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. And now we are seeing the Mopologists slam yet another review-essay in the Mormon Studies Review because the author is apparently sympathetic to anti-Mormon, postmodern concepts like "diversity." (See here as well, along with Prof. Midlgey's rather strange observations in the Comments.) All of this, coupled with the usual unbridled anger over "Smithmas," strongly suggests that something is afoot. But what might that be?

Longtime readers will remember that, for a time, I was receiving regular "intel" updates from anonymous sources who had very deep connections into the Maxwell Institute and Church leadership. This fact led Daniel Peterson to note in his resignation email to Gerald Bradford that, "The Institute leaks like a sieve." The "intel" ranged along a whole variety of things: from the Mopologists' attempts to stifle publication of Rodney Meldrum's book, to budget matters at the MI, to attempts to ferret out a "mole" at the Maxwell Institute, to the text of Greg Smith's "hit piece" on John Dehlin. Again and again, the information turned out to be either accurate, or provocative enough to send the apologists into "Defcon-5" levels of denial and damage control. After the events of June 2012, though, these sources of information largely dried up, and I wondered if I would ever hear anything ever again.

Well, my friends, tis the season for giving, and I have at long last been given an update on the latest goings-on in the corridors of power in the LDS Church. As always, I urge caution and skepticism: I cannot verify any of the information that follows, but one can draw upon a rather large pool of circumstantial evidence. For my money, this intel, if not 100% accurate, is at least highly plausible.

So, to refresh a bit on the background. We know, of course, that the Mopologists were unseated from the Maxwell Institute in June of 2012, and they've been most displeased ever since--frothing with rage, even. In the wake of those events, I was told that the apologists personally went to Salt Lake City to speak to top Church leaders in an effort to get themselves re-instated at the MI; they also apparently staged an aggressive letter-writing campaign, including one particularly long and angry letter from (to quote my "informant") "some guy from Canada" (probably Greg Smith). Meanwhile, John Dehlin and others have consistently argued that the apologists have fallen out of favor with the Brethren--there were even reports that Apostle Jeffrey Holland personally ordered the pulling of the Greg Smith "hit piece" from the old Review. The apologists have denied this, however, insisting instead that exactly the opposite is the case--i.e., that the Brethren are incensed over the "new direction" of the current Maxwell Institute. So what's the truth?

It turns out that, per my "informant," both observations are true. According to my informant, there is currently something of a schism with Church leadership. One of the biggest challenges faced by the Brethren today is the Internet, and apparently heavy defection amongst the membership--particularly among the youth. We all know the story: a loyal TBM goes online, learns about problems related to polygamy, historicity of the Book of Mormon, translation of the Book of Abraham, etc., and loses faith. Church leadership, it seems, has been at a loss to figure out how to counteract this. And perhaps part of the reason lies in this alleged "schism." Per this new "intel," there is one faction, headed by the physically-debilitated but mentally adroit Elder Packer, who favors retrenchment and draconian conservatism. At the far right-end of this faction, the Brethren believe that the greatest evils confronting the Church are still "the feminists, the gays, and the so-called intellectuals." The other faction, on the other hand, apparently helmed by President Eyring, would prefer to "let the scholars do their thing." This faction--the Eyring Faction--has, per my informant (again again, take this with a grain of salt), hired a "big shot" PR firm to help guide changes to Church culture and doctrine over the course of the next ten years--including, most interestingly, a decreased emphasis on "the centrality of the Book of Mormon." On the one hand, if true, this seems wise: problems with anachronisms, lack of evidence, and etc. pertaining to the Book of Mormon is arguably one of the biggest problems confronting the Church. On the other hand, it's pretty easy to see how the more conservative elements in the Church would respond in very reactionary ways to such a change. My informant also indicated that this segment of Church leadership is seriously considering a complete removal of the PoGP out of the canon altogether. (This seemed suspect to me, for what it's worth.)

So how does this relate to the Mopologists? As you may have guessed, per what I was told by this "informant," the classic-FARMS apologists count the "Packer Faction" as their allies--and this includes Elders Packer, Oaks, Bednar, Perry, Nelson, Holland, and Cook. The "new Maxwell Institute" people, on the other hand, are supported by the Eyring Faction, which includes (obviously) President Eyring, along with President Uchtdorf and Elders Christopherson, Scott, Hales, Ballard, and Andersen. The Packer Faction favors retrenchment, and a driving out of the "apostate element"--my informant even went so far as to suggest that Packer, Bednar, et al. view these events as key events "prior to the Second Coming." The Eyring Faction, on the other hand, has been urging patience, instructing the New MI to "lay low" while they slowly and carefully implement the "10-year Plan." Meanwhile, with Elder Oaks acting as the key operative, the Packer Faction is looking to re-establish "classic FARMS" at BYU/the Maxwell Institute.

But is any of this true? As I noted at the outset, I cannot (for pretty obvious reasons) verify any of this, beyond some rather circumstantial tidbits that have surfaced. E.g.,:

--The aggressive attacks on "Sic et Non" and "Enigmatic Mirror" aimed at anything that remotely seems like a de-emphasis of the Book of Mormon, or a questioning of the Book of Mormon's historicity.
--Note that, if my "informant's" comments are true, the old "Packer Faction" and "Oaks Faction" have united. Long-time readers will recall that, a few years back, these two elements regarded each other antagonistically on the issue of apologetics--something that came to a head in the form of FAIR/FARMS's conflicts with Rodney Meldrum and FIRM. (See here.) But that was 5 years ago, and as Dean Robbers recently observed, classic-FARMS seems to have seriously reconsidered its stance vis-à-vis Meldrum and the "Heartland Model." Perhaps they've decided, on advice from the "Packer Faction," that *any* historical model of the Book of Mormon is preferable to a situation where that text is "de-emphasized"? When you think about it, this move is *incredibly* suspect. For classic-FARMS to suddenly turn around and make friends with Meldrum, however subtly, after years of conflict? Very interesting, in any event. Gaining Meldrum and his many followers as allies in the war agains the "New MI" could very well be a highly effective strategy.
--In this thread, Everybody Wang Chung directs readers to a comment on "Sic et Non" where Daniel Peterson claims to have "AWFULLY well-placed" contacts who are "displeased" with the new MI. Who is more "well-placed" than the Apostles mentioned by my "informant"?
--Brand-new posts from Hamblin and Peterson have targeted another review-essay in the MI as being sympathetic to "liberal" concerns like diversity, feminism, and problems inherent in the "white-male gaze." On the one hand, we might dismiss this as "business as usual," but on the other hand, it's worth bearing in mind that just this last year, Mormon Interpreter established a new essay prize meant to encourage more female contributions to the flagship Mopologetic "journal."
--Some of Bill Hamblin's criticisms of the revisions to BYU's curriculum were *incredibly* brazen. It may have been that he was doing this purely on account of his own feelings; then again, if he felt that doing so would score points with the "Packer Faction," it perhaps helps to explain the levels of aggression that we saw in his criticism.

In any case, as always I urge skepticism. In the past, a lot of the "intel" I've received has turned out to be true in one way or another, but still--without clear verification, this information should be treated cautiously.

Hey doc,

I am jumping waaaay ahead assuming (hoping) this will all pan out...

What avenue would likely be taken to tone down, or justify the the Book of Mormon as less than it currently is?Even if it is "arguably one of the biggest problems," which I certainly believe, it is also Mormonism. It would be like taking the Ring out of the Lord of the Rings.

I've been searching hard for a rational scenario of how this could be presented or assimilated to the folks? The only logical way to me would be to do it quickly and suddenly with a revelation...but if there is a division in the hierarchy I am not sure how that would happen?

Also...side note...

One of the biggest challenges faced by the Brethren today is the Internet, and apparently heavy defection amongst the membership--particularly among the youth.

Maybe this is just me, you guys are much brighter than I...but I always picture seasoned TBM members searching and finding issues, not the zit faced chubby kid with a IPhone. I really can see now, how this is so huge. I know at 15,16... along with my buddies, we would have been all over this. We would sneak out of MIA and smoke a cig...if we would have had IPhones and the web...it would have been crazy...I would have been all over my folks with questions and accusations?

Anyway great post and great hopes.

Merry Christmas

[_moksha]

Oddly, that article in the Review appears to be written by this guy:

He is presently researching and writing on Martin Luther King, Jr. and the age of religious pluralism, and Hip Hop as an indigenous religious category.

I don't think he's even LDS.

The rebuttal of this could make for an entire issue of the Mormon Interpreter and the Friday lunch time presentation at FAIRMormon Conference 2015.

[_moksha]

Good stuff. It certainly does feel like some of the 15 are trying to retrench while others are moving away from retrenchment. Either way is good in the long run. If they retrench, they will continue to lose members that are more sympathetic to social issues. If they move away from retrenchment, the church will become even more watered down than it is today. I see benefits in both sides.

Wouldn't you Thalmor benefit more directly from the Stormcloak Rebellion winning, thus weakening the Empire?

[_Gadianton]

Hi Tim,

Yeah, I mean, if you have some kind of a reference about the time needed to create cultural change in a large organization spread across the globe, I guess that would be interesting. I just have a hard time seeing it.

I think the apologists have far less than 15 years to win. Heck, Packer must feel some urgency here, knowing he won't be around much longer. I think the apologists will need to buckle down and pull out every trick in the book. They might need to host L-Skinny offshore and upgrade to a sophisticated messaging platform for proper coordination. They will need to increase the censorship in their media and go "no holds barred". I think uniting with Meldrum is a great idea, but they've got some work to do to succeed. Namely, as in the 2004 blockbuster Alien Vs. Predator, the apologists will need to convince the Heartlanders that, as the humans united with the Predators against the "Aliens", that they must unite against the liberals. Both groups espouse extreme right-wing doctrines and so I think there is some hope here.

I think they need to increase the intensity of the letter-writing campaign and if they haven't done this already, employ a threatening tone in the letters. It's getting to the point where it's all or nothing. A stalemate is a win for the liberals, in this case.

[_moksha]

Both groups espouse extreme right-wing doctrines and so I think there is some hope here.

Wasn't this the basis of BYU Professor Robert L. Millet's award winning strategy in working with Evangelicals? It brought us Mitt, so it might rid us of this Apostate menace as well.

[Guest]

The swan was black.