Mormon Future - Cultural Assimilation or Retrenchment?

[hope_for_things]

What does the future hold for Mormonism with an anticipated President Nelson led church?  I enjoyed reading Ben Park's article and thought I'd share.  He speculates that perhaps Nelson will move to canonize the Proclamation on the Family.  Or will a President Nelson be more moderate now once he's in control, like President Benson was.  Only time will tell, what do you think?  

http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2018/01/04/commentary-what-comes-next-for-mormonism-outreach-or-retrenchment/

 

[smac97]

The author of the article is Benjamin Park, "an assistant professor of American history at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas. His work focuses primarily on American religions, including Mormonism."

Quote

If tradition holds, Thomas S. Monson, who died Tuesday (Jan. 2), will be replaced as president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by the most-senior apostle, Russell M. Nelson, within a few weeks. The line of succession within the Mormon church is meant to symbolize stability, as there is no doubt as to who will take over the reins. History shows, however, that the transition between leaders can mean significant change for a global faith still defining its relationship with the wider world.

Like most denominations, the modern Mormon church strikes a complicated balance between cultural assimilation and retrenchment. During his tenure, Gordon B. Hinckley, the LDS president between 1995 and 2008, was known for ushering in a period of outreach and inclusion. With a background in media, he built strong relationships with journalists, including giving a number of engaging interviews with Mike Wallace and Larry King, and often emphasized the similarities between Mormons and their neighbors. His decade in leadership marked an outward-facing image that helped the often-marginalized church appear more mainstream.

 

So far, so good.

Quote

In some ways, Monson built on this trajectory, including on progressive issues. He added “caring for the poor and needy” to the church’s top priorities and spoke out in favor of charitable immigration policies.

Caring for the poor and needy is a "progressive" issue (presumably he means "progressive" in its American political sense)?  Who knew?

Quote

In the midst of the “Mormon Moment,” when Mitt Romney’s campaign for the American presidency and the “Book of Mormon” musical resulted in a blinding spotlight on the faith, the church responded with a media-savvy “I’m a Mormon” promotion that emphasized diversity and inclusion. And under Monson’s watch the church published a series of essays that addressed controversial historical and doctrinal matters in a surprisingly candid way. These developments seemed to fit with what was expected of Monson, who was known for helping widows and other marginalized Mormons and for interfaith outreach.

But there were limits to this inclusivity. Monson’s tenure will also be known as a time of increased schism between the church and the American nation on issues such as LGBTQ rights. One of his first major causes after becoming president was overseeing the church’s effort to pass Proposition 8, a ballot initiative to outlaw gay marriage in California. After the Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay unions in June 2015, the church instituted a policy that November that labeled those who enter same-sex marriages “apostates” and barred their children from full fellowship. These and other initiatives caused many to reconsider the church’s relationship to modern society, as the cultural rift appeared much more stark.

These are fair observations.  However, the article then strays rather heavily into speculative territory:

Quote

These competing trajectories within the past decade were, at least in part, the result of Monson’s physical condition. His health declined quickly after he was ordained as prophet, and by the end of his tenure he had been incapacitated for a few years. This led to a vacuum of authority that others tried to fill. Monson’s two counselors in the First Presidency, especially German-born Dieter F. Uchtdorf, became known for an inclusive approach; on the other hand, several members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles — the second-highest governing body of the church — were vocal proponents of a more traditional stance that refused to bend to contemporary opinions.

Key among those who pushed for retrenchment was Nelson, slated to become Monson’s successor. Trained as a heart surgeon, Nelson has been a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for more than three decades. In recent years, he has presented a firm resistance against any accommodation regarding several cultural issues, most notably homosexuality. It has been reported that he was the leading architect behind the November 2015 policy regarding same-sex families. Regardless of how the policy came to be, Nelson later described it as a “revelation,” removing any chance for revision for the time being.

No citation to sources.  Use of passive voice ("It has been reported...").  Editorializing.  

Quote

Once he becomes the official LDS president, it is possible that Nelson will continue that trajectory. That might include canonizing “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” a document that sacralized heterosexual marriage but has heretofore existed in a quasi-canonical status. Such a move would further cement the faith’s distinctiveness within an increasingly gay-tolerant society.

"The faith’s distinctiveness within an increasingly gay-tolerant society."  That's a diplomatic and reasonable characterization.  I appreciate it.

Quote

But a Nelson presidency could still be much more moderate and conciliatory than expected. One of his predecessors, Ezra Taft Benson, was similarly considered a conservative hard-liner before his ordination in 1985.

Again, the author is importing American political terminology ("conservative") into a discussion about the inner-workings of the LDS Church.  I think it's sloppy thinking to frame the Church's actions in such overtly political terms.  It just doesn't fit.  

Quote

However, perhaps due to a combination of his age as well as the weight of the position, Benson turned out to be much more restrained and even pacifying as prophet. Mormons believe their president to be led by revelation and, notwithstanding personal backgrounds and prejudices, those who have risen to the office often refer to it as a sobering experience that prompted reverence and humility.

Again, a reasonable and fair characterization.

Quote

As has been the case with every president before him, Nelson will have the choice to follow several different, and, at times, competing, trajectories for the church in relation to the surrounding culture. His decisions may shape the movement for decades to come.

The Church's "trajectories" are only "competing" when they are viewed through a political lens.  The Church's actions have overlap with both "progressive" and "conservative" political ideologies, so pigeon-holing the Church into one category or the other, and then speculating about the resulting "competing trajectories," is a mistake.

I think the Church's treatment of social issues does not arise out of political ideologies, but out of the Brethren seeking to apply the Restored Gospel in accordance with the scriptures and with continuing revelatory guidance.

Personally, I would like to see the Proclamation canonized, but I am not emphatic about it.

Overall, I think the article is generally pretty good.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 4, 2018 by smac97

[The Nehor]

I vote neither. Instead we should declare that the Flying Spahetti Monster is the Holy Ghost to confuse everyone and keep them off-balance.

[clarkgoble]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What does the future hold for Mormonism with an anticipated President Nelson led church?  I enjoyed reading Ben Park's article and thought I'd share.  He speculates that perhaps Nelson will move to canonize the Proclamation on the Family.  Or will a President Nelson be more moderate now once he's in control, like President Benson was.  Only time will tell, what do you think?  

I'd imagine a lot depends upon his health. He's extremely old and may be a short term President like say Pres. Hunter.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd imagine a lot depends upon his health. He's extremely old and may be a short term President like say Pres. Hunter.

I think (and certainly hope) he'll be around for a few years.  He's pretty spry.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What does the future hold for Mormonism with an anticipated President Nelson led church?  I enjoyed reading Ben Park's article and thought I'd share.  He speculates that perhaps Nelson will move to canonize the Proclamation on the Family.  Or will a President Nelson be more moderate now once he's in control, like President Benson was.  Only time will tell, what do you think?  

http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2018/01/04/commentary-what-comes-next-for-mormonism-outreach-or-retrenchment/

 

Any predictions on how long it takes before the Boy Scout break up now that Pres. Monson has passed?

I, for one, am extremely excited about our new President.  I have always loved President Nelson, there is a certain light about him that always touched my heart.  I pray that his good health continues.  

Interestingly, he will be the first convert President (that I can think of) since the early days of the church.  His parents were inactive and he was baptized at 16. 

[longview]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think (and certainly hope) he'll be around for a few years.  He's pretty spry.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Agree.  People should not discount the power of God.  If Abraham remained spry until age 120, Pres.Nelson can too!

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, longview said:

Agree.  People should not discount the power of God.  If Abraham remained spry until age 120, Pres.Nelson can too!

Well, as long as we're using that reasoning, let's just make him the new Methuselah.

[clarkgoble]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think (and certainly hope) he'll be around for a few years.  He's pretty spry.  

When you're in your 90's it doesn't take long for things to change. When you're already 93 the probability he'll be around for more than two years is extremely low. Not saying it can't happen. Just that it's not likely. So much of his immune system and the ability to come back from damage is so compromised that it doesn't take much to make one ill. Even with modern technology. He's at the age where genetics is actively working to end his life.

Even Oaks, who's even more spry for his age, at 85, has a reasonably good chance of dying before replacing Nelson. And if both Oaks and Nelson lasts 2 years then Oaks will be 87 and not apt to be President in good heath.

Edited January 4, 2018 by clarkgoble

[strappinglad]

Well , I hope he lives a long time so that I can utilize my tenuous connection. I went to school with his current wife.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The author of the article is Benjamin Park, "an assistant professor of American history at Sam Houston State University in Huntsville, Texas. His work focuses primarily on American religions, including Mormonism."

Yes, Ben is great, he's extremely well informed on Mormon studies, he posts on his own blog and on JI and participates in podcasts and other venues.  If anyone isn't familiar with some of his work, I would recommend checking out his blog here https://professorpark.wordpress.com/

, or his posts at Juvenile Instructor here.  

http://juvenileinstructor.org/author/ben/

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

No citation to sources.  Use of passive voice ("It has been reported...").  Editorializing.  

Its a newspaper editorial, not an essay.  But if you disagree with any particular observations, please feel free to comment on what those are, I think his observations here are accurate.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Again, the author is importing American political terminology ("conservative") into a discussion about the inner-workings of the LDS Church.  I think it's sloppy thinking to frame the Church's actions in such overtly political terms.  It just doesn't fit.  

These terms conservative and progressive aren't solely used in the domain of politics, they are frequently used in religious connotations as well, as I'm sure you are aware.  How was this overtly political, I don't understand your specific criticism.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The Church's "trajectories" are only "competing" when they are viewed through a political lens.  The Church's actions have overlap with both "progressive" and "conservative" political ideologies, so pigeon-holing the Church into one category or the other, and then speculating about the resulting "competing trajectories," is a mistake.

I think the Church's treatment of social issues does not arise out of political ideologies, but out of the Brethren seeking to apply the Restored Gospel in accordance with the scriptures and with continuing revelatory guidance.

Personally, I would like to see the Proclamation canonized, but I am not emphatic about it.

Overall, I think the article is generally pretty good.

I think you're oversimplifying the author's perspective here.  Also, I'm wondering if you're familiar with some of the sociological work that has been done by the likes of Armand Mauss and others that setup these kinds of comparisons for the purposes of making observations about trends and the influencing factors at play.  Things are always more complex when it comes to attributing motivating factors and I wouldn't say it solely political, but I do believe that politics is one of many influencing factors. 

The author didn't come across as overly simplifying the discuss in my opinion, but you're entitled to your take on this as well.  

Edited January 4, 2018 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I vote neither. Instead we should declare that the Flying Spahetti Monster is the Holy Ghost to confuse everyone and keep them off-balance.

What if I feel the influence of the HG when I eat spaghetti?  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd imagine a lot depends upon his health. He's extremely old and may be a short term President like say Pres. Hunter.

Yes, I'm sure it does, but he seems quite healthy despite his old age, perhaps we'll get our first leader in the triple digits, I can't think of any others that I'm aware of that got there.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Agree.  People should not discount the power of God.  If Abraham remained spry until age 120, Pres.Nelson can too!

Its an interesting tradition, this idea that God controls who's in charge by killing them off or letting them live longer.  I'm not a fan of this tradition, and I'm wondering how much longer this will continue in a modern age.  Always came across to me as quite superstitious, even in my orthodox days.  

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

When you're in your 90's it doesn't take long for things to change. When you're already 93 the probability he'll be around for more than two years is extremely low. Not saying it can't happen. Just that it's not likely. So much of his immune system and the ability to come back from damage is so compromised that it doesn't take much to make one ill. Even with modern technology. He's at the age where genetics is actively working to end his life.

Even Oaks, who's even more spry for his age, at 85, has a reasonably good chance of dying before replacing Nelson. And if both Oaks and Nelson lasts 2 years then Oaks will be 87 and not apt to be President in good heath.

I'm thinking to increase his chances of living longer that he should start fist bumping the members instead of shaking hands.  That's got to pay some dividends when it comes to contracting illness.  

[hope_for_things]

24 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

Well , I hope he lives a long time so that I can utilize my tenuous connection. I went to school with his current wife.

Maybe you can parlay that connection into some sweet calling, like hymn book straightening coordinator for the entire church.  I don't think we've had that centralized before, imagine the possibilities, straightened hymn books in every chapel around the world... 

Edited January 4, 2018 by hope_for_things

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its a newspaper editorial, not an essay.  But if you disagree with any particular observations, please feel free to comment on what those are, I think his observations here are accurate.  

Fair enough.

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

These terms conservative and progressive aren't solely used in the domain of politics, they are frequently used in religious connotations as well, as I'm sure you are aware.  How was this overtly political, I don't understand your specific criticism.  

I think it is flawed to suggest that concern for the poor and needy is a (politically) "progressive" concern.  I know tons of (politically) "conservative" Mormons who are profoundly concerned for the poor and the needy.

I also think Prof. Park sort of shoots himself in the foot when he uses political terminology to describe the Church's actions.  It muddies the water.  "Conservative" and "progressive" are relative to the sphere in which they are used.  For example, many (most?) observant American Mormons are sociopolitically "conservative" (or leaning conservative), but in terms of doctrine and practice, we are profoundly "liberal."

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think you're oversimplifying the author's perspective here.  Also, I'm wondering if you're familiar with some of the sociological work that has been done by the likes of Armand Mauss and others that setup these kinds of comparisons for the purposes of making observations about trends and the influencing factors at play. 

Not sure what you are referring to here.  In any event, "sociological work" will not, I think, have much to say about the inner workings of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve (from whence the Proclamation came).

Again, the LDS Church is not driven by political ideology.  For example, witness the consternation that some political "conservatives" have regarding the Church's stance on illegal immigration.  And then turn around and look at how many political "progressives" view the Church's stance on gay marriage and abortion.  

I think the LDS Church's stance on "social" issues (abortion, gay marriage, addictive substances, pornography, extra-marital sex) are overwhelmingly upstream from the sociopolitical trends.  They are proactive, not reactive.  They derive from scriptures and revelation, not from Facebook and talking heads in the news media.

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Things are always more complex when it comes to attributing motivating factors 

Quite.  Particularly when the attributing appears to be nothing but sheer speculation and guesswork on the author's part.

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

and I wouldn't say it solely political, but I do believe that politics is one of many influencing factors. 

I'm okay with that.  Joseph took Mary and Jesus and fled into Egypt because of political factors (namely, that the political leader at the time wanted to kill Jesus).  

Politics are an influence.  So is culture generally.  And language.  And intercultural exchanges.  And so on.

But the source of the Church's doctrinal positions does is not political.

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The author didn't come across as overly simplifying the discuss in my opinion, but you're entitled to your take on this as well.  

It's not a matter of simplification or over-simplification.  I just don't think he is accurately characterizing the Church's actions, which derive overwhelmingly from doctrinal, rather than political, considerations and motives.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Well , I hope he lives a long time so that I can utilize my tenuous connection. I went to school with his current wife.

I have a letter from Pres. Nelson!

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it is flawed to suggest that concern for the poor and needy is a (politically) "progressive" concern.  I know tons of (politically) "conservative" Mormons who are profoundly concerned for the poor and the needy.

I also think Prof. Park sort of shoots himself in the foot when he uses political terminology to describe the Church's actions.  It muddies the water.  "Conservative" and "progressive" are relative to the sphere in which they are used.  For example, many (most?) observant American Mormons are sociopolitically "conservative" (or leaning conservative), but in terms of doctrine and practice, we are profoundly "liberal."

I think he's speaking to a general public perception when it comes to focus on the poor and needy, that typically is a more progressive cause.  I don't think its mutually exclusive to more liberally leaning people, in other words, someone can align with causes of the poor and needy and also identify as a conservative politically.   

Can you explain what you mean by stating that many American Mormons are profoundly liberal on terms of doctrine and practice?  I'm not sure I've observed that myself being an American Mormon.  I sense that most are quite conservative in terms of doctrine and practice, but I want to understand if you have an example you can share.  

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not sure what you are referring to here.  In any event, "sociological work" will not, I think, have much to say about the inner workings of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve (from whence the Proclamation came).

I think we know enough about the timing and evidence of the family proclamation to deduce that it was highly influenced by outside events, the same sex marriage debates in Hawaii, and that it was written in response to those events.  Recognizing all the influencing social factors I believe brings greater insight to the table.  

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, the LDS Church is not driven by political ideology.  For example, witness the consternation that some political "conservatives" have regarding the Church's stance on illegal immigration.  And then turn around and look at how many political "progressives" view the Church's stance on gay marriage and abortion.  

I agree with your examples, and I've made this same observations on immigration and the LGBT issue in Utah.  You're right that many Mormons in conservative Utah have largely followed the conservative ideology of the Republican party on the immigration debates often putting them in conflict with the church's more moderate positions.  Similarly with those at odds with the church's policies on LGBT individuals.  Yet when it comes to political ideology, because individual church leaders have unique political opinions and are influenced by these positions, and because no opinions can be formed in a vacuum, its impossible for the LDS Church or any other institution to be immune to the forces of political ideology.  They may have seek to operate independently, but a completely uninfluenced independence is not even possible.  

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the LDS Church's stance on "social" issues (abortion, gay marriage, addictive substances, pornography, extra-marital sex) are overwhelmingly upstream from the sociopolitical trends.  They are proactive, not reactive.  They derive from scriptures and revelation, not from Facebook and talking heads in the news media.

As an student observer of history, I completely disagree with your assessment here.  The church has been reactive throughout history and continues to be today.  This is just the nature of how things work for organizations and people.  This ideal that you're speaking to that the church can operate outside of the regular forces at play is completely contradicted by actual evidence to the contrary.  I would be so bold as to say that everything that has ever happened throughout the history of the church has always happened within and in response to the context of the times, and I can't think of any exceptions to that reality.  And this is coming from a person that rarely speaks in absolutes, but I feel that confident in these observations that I'm willing to stick a couple absolutes into my statement.  

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quite.  Particularly when the attributing appears to be nothing but sheer speculation and guesswork on the author's part.

I would call it intelligently informed observations rather than speculation and guesswork.  

 

[Gray]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, the author is importing American political terminology ("conservative") into a discussion about the inner-workings of the LDS Church.  I think it's sloppy thinking to frame the Church's actions in such overtly political terms.  It just doesn't fit.  

 

Conservative and liberal are also common theological terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Christianity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity

Edited January 4, 2018 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Any predictions on how long it takes before the Boy Scout break up now that Pres. Monson has passed?

I, for one, am extremely excited about our new President.  I have always loved President Nelson, there is a certain light about him that always touched my heart.  I pray that his good health continues.  

Interestingly, he will be the first convert President (that I can think of) since the early days of the church.  His parents were inactive and he was baptized at 16. 

Not really a "convert."

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

Conservative and liberal are also common theological terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Christianity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity

I acknowledge that.  The problem, I think, is that these terms ("conservative," "liberal," "progressive") are being used for their political meanings, but are being deployed in a theological context.  Hence Mormons can be socipolitically "conservative," while also being doctrinally "liberal."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

Doug Fabrizio and some knowledgeable guests had an hour-long ciscussion about the Monson legacy and the future this morning on "Radio West," http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/life-and-legacy-thomas-s-monson .  Very much worth listening to.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

I acknowledge that.  The problem, I think, is that these terms ("conservative," "liberal," "progressive") are being used for their political meanings, but are being deployed in a theological context.  Hence Mormons can be socipolitically "conservative," while also being doctrinally "liberal."...................

Actually the so-called "conservative" and "liberal" terminology is not even fit for political discussions.  The terms are incoherent and primarily emotionally loaded.  I know of no one who can adequately define either term.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

What does the future hold for Mormonism with an anticipated President Nelson led church?  I enjoyed reading Ben Park's article and thought I'd share.  He speculates that perhaps Nelson will move to canonize the Proclamation on the Family.  Or will a President Nelson be more moderate now once he's in control, like President Benson was.  Only time will tell, what do you think?  

http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2018/01/04/commentary-what-comes-next-for-mormonism-outreach-or-retrenchment/ 

Pres. Nelson will continue with the dynamism of the modern LDS Church, but there will be no major changes in doctrine or policy.