From My Informant: A Tale of Two Factions

[_Doctor Scratch]

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 SLC 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-a-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.

[_cinepro]

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

http://religion.sdsu.edu/faculty/whitaker.htm

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.

[_Zadok]

Fascinating, and frankly exciting to get this glimpse 'behind the curtain' if you will of the inner workings and machinations. It is no secret that there has always been 'factions' with in the leadership over various issues, but to have the factions exposed is, at least to me, rare and compelling.

You mentioned the main driver's of the respective buses, but I wonder what affect, if any, Elder Packer's imminent demise will have on the group dynamic? And while this would be rank speculation, who might be tapped from the 70 to replace Elder Packer? How would that affect the dynamics of the factions. Do you care to speculate?

Thinking out loud here, I think removing the PoGP from the Cannon, De-emphasising the Book of Mormon, and putting some distance between the modern church and Joseph Smith, Brigham Young group is the only way that Mormonism can hope to survive. Retrenching and digging in, requires the Second Coming to make it all work, and that will just make them look like crazies over time.

This is the kind of 'palace intrigue' that helps me keep my mind off of other things where I should not go mentally.

[_Bazooka]

Come on Scratch....

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33349&p=796536&hilit=Schism#p796536

...keep up!

[_Doctor Scratch]

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

http://religion.sdsu.edu/faculty/whitaker.htm

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.

Yeah, an important fact to note, Cinepro. It could be that this is a case where the Mopologists see the article as an "infiltration" of outside, liberal views into the Church. That's been a key part of their position all along: that the new Maxwell Institute is going to "cave in" to pressures from outside of the Church.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Fascinating, and frankly exciting to get this glimpse 'behind the curtain' if you will of the inner workings and machinations. It is no secret that there has always been 'factions' with in the leadership over various issues, but to have the factions exposed is, at least to me, rare and compelling.

You mentioned the main driver's of the respective buses, but I wonder what affect, if any, Elder Packer's imminent demise will have on the group dynamic?

My impression is that, if Elder Packer were to pass away, the leadership role would be filled by Elder Oaks, who isn't as strident or conservative as Pres. Packer, even if he is, on the whole, sympathetic to the faction's goals. Per what I was told by my "informant," some of the younger members of this faction are particularly, uh, "enthusiastic" in their support of the faction's aims. Elder Bednar, in particular, has seemed like he was given special attention from Packer, and was possibly "groomed" as a kind of successor. He is outranked by Oaks, though.

And while this would be rank speculation, who might be tapped from the 70 to replace Elder Packer? How would that affect the dynamics of the factions. Do you care to speculate?

I have no idea.

[_Sanctorian]

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.

[_CameronMO]

Elder Bednar, in particular, has seemed like he was given special attention from Packer, and was possibly "groomed" as a kind of successor.

[_Tim]

-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."

I have a friend who is studying Global Communications in graduate school. He took one look at the beta Mormon.org site and its description of polygamy as "inappropriate" and said "they are taking a 15 year communications strategy and have decided to throw this generation's doubters under the bus."

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.

This is the part I'm the most skeptical of. Factions rarely line up this cleanly, particularly in voluntary organizations.

[_Doctor Scratch]

-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."

I have a friend who is studying Global Communications in graduate school. He took one look at the beta Mormon.org site and its description of polygamy as "inappropriate" and said "they are taking a 15 year communications strategy and have decided to throw this generation's doubters under the bus."

That's really interesting, Tim. Can you elaborate? Particularly re: your comment that "this generations doubters [are being tossed] under the bus"? Further, I can't find the bit on polygamy. I followed the link on the "Beta page for Mormon.org," but I'm not seeing anything that deals with polygamy, and a search only turns up items that were apparently written by the "I'm a Mormon!" crowd. Could it be that the page was taken down?

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.

This is the part I'm the most skeptical of. Factions rarely line up this cleanly, particularly in voluntary organizations.

That's a good point, and I was skeptical of this, too. I was given the impression that Packer, Bednar, and Cook are the real "hardliners" in that particular faction. And I was particularly struck by the inclusion of Holland on the list. Wasn't he the one who allegedly ordered the Dehiln "hit piece" to be pulled? And if so, wouldn't that suggest that he'd be on the other side of the fence? Or is this indicative of something else--i.e., ideologically he's in alignment with the "Packer Faction," but he's personally friends with the Dehlin Family and did them a favor? Who knows--the point, in any case, is that I agree with you, and would imagine that the various loyalties and alignments aren't totally strict.