Retrench or Mainstream: The choice has been made

[_beastie]

For years I've thought that the LDS church is facing a crossroads due to the increased information available on the internet. 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. This is not an easy decision for any religion to make, because each choice has its own cost/benefit ratio. Retrenching and purging has the benefit of having a highly loyal and devoted group of followers, and strong-arm religions will always appeal to certain people who feel comfortable with authority, obedience, and loyalty, so it may not hurt their numbers in the end, even after the purging. However, they will remain viewed as a fringe religion, with cult-like traits (see: Scientology). Becoming more tolerant and not purging divergent voices has the benefit of allowing the church to be seen as acceptably mainstream, but the cost is that the religion becomes a bit diluted and less appealing to those who prefer the strong-arm (ironically, when other religions have chosen this route, their numbers have tended to decline: see Catholicism). The greatest benefit of this road is that the mainstreaming of the religion opens doors to power, and Romney's nomination has allowed the brethren to see the real potential in this road. That's why I think that this apologetic event, although of interest to few, is actually an important sign that they've chose which road to travel. Mainstream.

That's why DCP and his ilk are out. They are part of the retrench and purge movement. For heaven's sake, some of them have even expressed the fervent desire to identify and weed out the wolves in sheep's clothing, and have even imagined they have the gift and right to do so. This could not be a more clear expression of retrench and purge.

But that's not the road the brethren have chosen. They've chosen Mitt Romney and the future Romneys. They've chosen mainstream power rather than ideological purity. They don't want any danites in their midst any more, no matter how useful they were in the past.

The old-school apologists are just going to have to go through a grieving period as they realize they are expendable to the church.

[_Samantabhadra]

I think you're right but there's an important difference between e.g. Catholicism and Mormonism. Namely, the views of a few ideologues with axes to grind aside, no historian and certainly no reputable historian denies the fact that, say, Jesus existed. Mormons love to throw the Bible under the bus but the fact of the matter is that there is a lot of archaeological evidence supporting at least the broad outline of the narrative (Nineveh was a real place; Zarahemla is not) and so on.

To paraphrase sethbag, Christianity may be false, but it is not obviously false. Mainstreaming can only take you so far when what it is that you are "mainstreaming" is a 19th century con as opposed to a major and millennia-old cornerstone of Western civilization.

[_beastie]

I think you're right but there's an important difference between e.g. Catholicism and Mormonism. Namely, the views of a few ideologues with axes to grind aside, no historian and certainly no reputable historian denies the fact that, say, Jesus existed. Mormons love to throw the Bible under the bus but the fact of the matter is that there is a lot of archaeological evidence supporting at least the broad outline of the narrative (Nineveh was a real place; Zarahemla is not) and so on.

To paraphrase sethbag, Christianity may be false, but it is not obviously false. Mainstreaming can only take you so far when what it is that you are "mainstreaming" is a 19th century con as opposed to a major and millennia-old cornerstone of Western civilization.

You are, of course, correct. The LDS church has an impediment due to the fact that it is such a new religion, founded during the age of the printing press. Bad luck.

But it's never politically correct to openly dissect and dismiss claims of a religion (other than on internet boards, of course), so this fact may not be as big of an impediment as we imagine.

[_MCB]

But it's never politically correct to openly dissect and dismiss claims of a religion (other than on internet boards, of course), so this fact may not be as big of an impediment as we imagine.

If critics of a religion expose politically incorrect ideas in the religion, then it becomes fair game.

If one can conceive of Nazism as a religion, it would become politically correct to dissect and dismiss its claims (such as Jewish DNA being only .000001% different from other human DNA). When critics of Mormonism reveal some characteristics of Mormonism that resemble Nazism, the leaders of Mormonism are placed in a position where they have to purge Mormonism of its far right (both ideas and people). Otherwise, their religion would have no chance of survival.

[_sock puppet]

For years I've thought that the LDS church is facing a crossroads due to the increased information available on the internet. 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.

* * *

The greatest benefit of this [mainstreaming] road is that the mainstreaming of the religion opens doors to power, and Romney's nomination has allowed the brethren to see the real potential in this road. That's why I think that this apologetic event, although of interest to few, is actually an important sign that they've chose which road to travel. Mainstream.

That's why DCP and his ilk are out. They are part of the retrench and purge movement.

beastie, I agree that Mormon mainstreaming is the 'why' DCP & Co., retrenchers and purgers, are out. These dots do connect, in my opinion, but Moksha sees the sacking of DCP as the MSR editor as mere coincidence with the Mormon Moment/mainstreaming, not propelled by it.

[_DrW]

To paraphrase sethbag, Christianity may be false, but it is not obviously false. Mainstreaming can only take you so far when what it is that you are "mainstreaming" is a 19th century con as opposed to a major and millennia-old cornerstone of Western civilization.

- a fact that mainstreaming-minded Mormon leadership ignores at its peril.

[_KevinSim]

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.

[_Fence Sitter]

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.

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.

[_Yoda]

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?

[_beastie]

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.