The high-water mark of Mormonism? Romney's charge.

[Guest]

Does anyone remember learning about Pickett's charge when they were doing the Civil War in high school? The precise line on the ridge to which the Confederate infantry made it that day at Gettysburg before their attack was turned back in rout has been called the 'high-water mark of the Confederacy', and marked the definitive failure of what had looked like being a successful attempt to carry the war right into the North.

Somehow I have a sense that the group of conservative white voters with whom Mormons overwhelmingly identify themselves has made its 'Pickett's charge', and that many factors now point to that being as far as they will ever get again. At each election in the future there will be less and less of the socio-ethnic group on which they rely for their core vote, and more and more of the people who will never vote for the GOP as it is presently constituted.

I would not make this post in this forum unless I thought there was a specific relation to Mormonism. That relevance is that we may also be seeing the point at which even TBMs begin to admit that, at least so far as the US is concerned, the rough stone has reached flat ground and rolled to a halt. As the often-quoted Pew survey shows, the proportion of the US population that identifies itself as Mormon has remained static for most of the past decade, despite markedly larger than average family sizes and a big missionary effort. It seems that the distinctive Mormon brand does not appeal to the people who are increasingly determining the future of America. One just has to look at Mormonism's elderly white male leadership (that's three minorities there) to see why.

Maybe the GOP can re-invent itself to appeal to a whole new tranche of voters next time round. But can Mormonism redefine itself and adapt in its turn? In such examples as the recent MDD thread on same-sex marriage, there are tantalizing signs that it (or at least some of its members) may be able to do that. But what are the chances that Thomas S. Monson and his likely successors will feel able to take their core tithe-paying membership in that direction? Not great, I feel. If that continues to be the case, then the CoJCoLDS will more and more become a mutual reassurance club for a shrinking demographic that wants to go on living in the 1950s.

Or won't it?

(Edited to fix typos)

[_DrW]

-- we may also be seeing the point at which even TBMs begin to admit that, at least so far as the US is concerned, the rough stone has reached flat ground and rolled to a halt.

Great metaphor.

The stone described below (having covered less than one tenth of one percent of the Earth) has also apparently stopped rolling and is probably sitting on flat ground not far away from the one you mentioned.

"-- from thence shall the gospel roll forth unto the ends of the earth, as the stone which is cut out of the mountain without hands shall roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth" (Doctrine and Covenants 65:2)

To carry the metaphor a bit further, one could say that the stone cut with no hands had an unintended, but inevitable, collision with the rough stone, which collision left them both stones essentially motionless on flat ground.

[_Kishkumen]

I was surprised by how relatively insignificant the topic of Mormonism turned out to be during the election. Conservative Christians were able to choke down their hatred of Mormonism to vote for Mitt. Lawrence O'Donnell and Bill Maher were the only anti-Mitt people who really went anti-Mormon. I think most people ended up not caring a whole lot.

So, I have a difficult time thinking that this was symbolic of anything for Mormonism other than society's big shrug. Sure, in the minds of older Mormons who grew up during the Cold War and bought into the Benson paranoia about Communism this may have been a huge deal. But, really, everyone in their 30s and younger probably didn't give a rat's ass. Most non-Mormons over 40 don't seemed to have cared much either.

It could be that in constructing our own narratives about Mormonism during this period of time, we will choose to make Mitt significant in some way. For me he reflects the very clumsy and sometimes horribly compromising ways in which Mormonism tried to mainstream its image in the decades on either side of the dawn of the new millennium. President Hinckley said, "I don't know that we teach that." Mitt Romney's campaign slogan ought to have been, "Standing for nothing."

Indeed, the whole period seems to be a betrayal of Mormon identity by key Mormons. My hope is that the next generation of Mormons will do much better in cultivating a meaningful Mormon identity, one that remains distinctive and robust, neither hiding in shame from its teachings, nor turning them into a cult of apocalyptic jingoism.

[_Chap]

...
Indeed, the whole period seems to be a betrayal of Mormon identity by key Mormons. My hope is that the next generation of Mormons will do much better in cultivating a meaningful Mormon identity, one that remains distinctive and robust, neither hiding in shame from its teachings, nor turning them into a cult of apocalyptic jingoism.

Well, I was thinking of the difficulty that the present generation of leaders or the generation of likely leaders after that seem likely to have in seeing it as desirable that the church should move away from the 1950s church that some of them still seem to inhabit. And the structures of the church do invest the people at the top with an awful lot of power to stop change happening.

Isn't there a major possibility that a significant number of "the next generation of Mormons" will find that their most meaningful identity lies outside the church? Indeed, the demographics as well as occasional panicky messages from Salt Lake City do seem to suggest that a lot of them are already doing that.

[_Kishkumen]

Isn't there a major possibility that a significant number of "the next generation of Mormons" will find that their most meaningful identity lies outside the church? Indeed, the demographics as well as occasional panicky messages from Salt Lake City do seem to suggest that a lot of them are already doing that.

Yes. I think that's true. It may be that the LDS Church has a genuine crisis on its hands. For those who value something in being LDS, it is high time to do something about it. That something is not, in my opinion, more of the same Mopologetics in the classic-FARMS style.

[_sock puppet]

With life expectancies longer, the assured gerontocracy is killing LDS Mormonism.

No way those 15 old goats can keep pace with mainstream society's rapid changes.

It was one thing when the prophet was in his 70s and most of the FP/12 in their 60s. It was hard enough for them to be sort of in touch with young Mormons in their teens, 20s and 30s when the mainstream social changes were fairly slow paced. But now the age gap has 15 more years added to it and society is changing, at its core, more rapidly. Four of four states on Tuesday adopted SSM. Colorado's majority chose to favor recreational use of weed.

By 2032, at this pace a 20 year old Mormon, on the precipice of choosing his adult path, will face a much more clear cut choice: enjoy what life has to offer, enjoy and try the differences of a more relaxed way of thinking, or be part of an ever more marginalized fragment of society, more isolated like the Amish.

[_Fence Sitter]

Indeed, the whole period seems to be a betrayal of Mormon identity by key Mormons. My hope is that the next generation of Mormons will do much better in cultivating a meaningful Mormon identity, one that remains distinctive and robust, neither hiding in shame from its teachings, nor turning them into a cult of apocalyptic jingoism.

While I share your hope, I see every indication that the Church is going in the exact opposite direction. It seems to be making every effort to be just like everyone else, never more so than during the Romney election. Outside of the Holland fiasco, I didn't see any public interviews with leadership during this election. President newsroom was left to be the face of the Church. What a great opportunity it would have been to have some one like Uchtdorf or Bednar out in public speaking tours loudly proclaiming our unique teachings! We could have presented a live, vibrant face of a religion looking to move into the future along with Romney, instead we seemed to be afraid of doing anything that would call attention to Mormonism. It is almost like the Kingdom of Heaven got put on hold while the earthly kingdom voted. We acted like a group trying to avoid mistakes rather than one looking to make a difference.

[_Chap]

Isn't there a major possibility that a significant number of "the next generation of Mormons" will find that their most meaningful identity lies outside the church? Indeed, the demographics as well as occasional panicky messages from Salt Lake City do seem to suggest that a lot of them are already doing that.

Yes. I think that's true. It may be that the LDS Church has a genuine crisis on its hands. For those who value something in being LDS, it is high time to do something about it. That something is not, in my opinion, more of the same Mopologetics in the classic-FARMS style.

The problem peculiar to Mormonism seems to me that you can't easily start a reform movement, because of the distinctively Mormon doctrine that the church is supposed to be led by a living prophet of God. Do you obey him or not? It seems that you have three choices:

1. Follow the prophet, however elderly and out of touch he may be.

2. Get yourself a new prophet and follow him instead (which is what Warren Jeffs' bunch did).

3. Start a new brand of Mormonism with no prophet. Even the Communities of Christ (formerly Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) did not go that far.