Yesterday, Jana Riess published a short article at Religion News Service, titled “Oh, now I get it: Purging the word ‘Mormon’ is a bid for the mainstream.” Jana always has interesting thoughts to share. You should go read the piece. In it, she cites a few other changes made during the Nelson era (LDS Sunday meetings shortened to just two hours; eliminating what she terms “quaint outdoor theatrical pageants”; missionaries now have a mildly relaxed dress code and can call their families once a week) to argue that making the term “Mormon” verbotten within the LDS community was, in fact, a sign of an ongoing LDS move toward assimilation: “On the whole, President Nelson’s various changes in the church have succeeded in helping the institution exist more comfortably in the world.” I don’t really agree with that observation/conclusion. It doesn’t feel like assimilation to me.
The Assimilation/Retrenchment Model
Before continuing, I need to explain why the terms “retrenchment” and “assimilation” carry such weight in this discussion. In 1994, LDS scholar Armand Mauss published The Angel and the Beehive: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation (Univ. of Illinois Press, 1994). That’s a book you really need to go read if you haven’t yet. In the book, Mauss laid out and supported a model that sees the LDS leadership sometimes guiding the Church and the membership toward less tension and more engagement with the surrounding religious and secular culture of the United States — that’s assimilation — and sometimes toward maintaining or increasing the distance and separation between that surrounding culture and the Church and its membership — that’s retrenchment. That model continues to receive attention and to spur further discussion in LDS quarters in large part because the Church (as guided by LDS leadership) continues a sort of zig-zag approach. Sometimes it zigs toward a more reasonable approach (only two hours in church on Sunday). Sometimes it zags toward strange Mormon quirkiness (one earring is fine; two earrings is a sign of rebellion against God and His Church).
I can’t really expect you to go read the book before continuing with this post, so here’s a short post that nicely review the model: “The Angel and the Internet,” over at Times and Seasons. Like Jana Riess, the T&S author (in 2010) saw signs of assimilation, spurred in part by the blossoming discussion of all aspects of Mormonism and the LDS Church on the Internet. Ironically, the Church setting up a “Mormon.org” site (and the later “I’m a Mormon” campaign) were seen as signs of a move toward assimilation: Hey, we’re not weird, we’re just normal Christians, normal Americans. Now, a decade later, Jana Riess sees the Church’s abandonment of the term “Mormon” as a move toward assimilation. So is it a zig or a zag? You can’t really argue that embracing the term “Mormon” is a sign of assimilation but also that abandoning it, almost condemning it, is also a sign of assimilation.
Does It Feel Like Assimilation?
Keep in mind Mauss’s original metric: whether the LDS leadership is seeking to increase or lessen tension between the Church and its membership, on the one hand, and the surrounding culture, on the other. Which way is the Church heading at the moment, right now? What is the general tone you hear in the last few General Conferences? Is it a move toward involvement with and a certain degree of acceptance of that surrounding culture? Or insistence that the Church and its membership pull back from that approach and maintain LDS distinctiveness, rejecting some or many aspects of contemporary culture?
My gut feeling is we are still in retrenchment mode. By which I mean, of course, that LDS leadership is still in retrenchment mode. They’re the ones with a hand on the rudder. Engaging in the gay marriage fight, then losing it so completely, certainly induced a degree of siege mentality in the leadership. That is evident in the frequent leadership talks on defending religious freedom, which just doesn’t make a lot of sense to many listeners because there is really no aspect of our religious freedom which is under attack or at risk. No, but obviously LDS leadership feels that they and the Church are under attack, because they lost the gay marriage fight (and got burned in the process) and because they can’t figure out how to deal with the ongoing mainstreaming of LGBT issues and rights in American law and culture.
If you go back to that T&S post and read the comments, you will see a couple of comments left by Armand Mauss himself. In one of those comments, he makes an interesting observation which sort of extends his model. Referring to his own 2004 comments in a T&S 12 Questions piece, and opining as to whether the Church (in 2004) was currently in retrenchment mode or assimilation mode, he said (caps in original):
I wrote what is quoted there in 2004, before we started seeing the new Public Affairs thrust now underway. It seems to me that most of what I said in 2004 still applies, even though retrenchment might be on the wane in some respects. In my 1994 book, I did not distinguish adequately between the INTERNAL membership of the Church, where all the retrenchment has been taking place, and the EXTERNAL audience, where an assimilationist posture has been dominant since the turn of the 20th century, in one form or another.
That distinction between internal and external messaging is a great point. That’s more or less what I think is going on: internal retrenchment with a degree of external assimilation, or, as I put it in the title to the post, retrenchment masquerading as assimilation. And to bolster my claim that the Church (and the LDS leadership) is still retrenching, consider this additional commentary by Mauss in that same comment in the linked T&S post from 2010, in which he is uncharacteristically blunt:
We will know that retrenchment is truly in retreat when we are no longer expected to accept the literal historicity of the Book of Mormon; when the Family Proclamation has been modified to make it more assimilationist; when missionary service is no longer considered as the “normal and expected” choice for boys of 19; when Correlation has been loosened to permit local adaptations in curriculum; when the curriculum no longer assumes literal (and near-inerrant) interpretations of scripture; when the mission of CES includes reconciliation of faith and reason, rather than only sheer indoctrination; and when we are no longer told regularly over the pulpit that ours is the only true and living church on earth.
If even just one or two of those things happened, it would certainly be a sign that something has changed. But there has been pretty much no change on those positions. Retrenchment is still the order of the day, punctuated but not meaningfully modified by the occasional public statement or event that sounds a different tone. It’s like a basketball move: fake left, dribble right. Don’t be fooled by the fake.
The Jana Riess article is getting some attention. Over at T&S there’s a new post and discussion responding to her piece as well, “Not Assimilation, But Alliance.” More good points.
What do you think?
- Is proscribing the term “Mormon,” at least for internal LDS discourse, a sign of assimilation or retrenchment?
- More generally, is the Church, as guided by LDS leadership, presently pulling away from engagement and participation in wider American culture (retrenchment) or is it moving for more participation and less disagreement/tension with the broader culture (assimilation)?
- You don’t have to agree that the Church is still in retrenchment mode, but if you do (and even if you don’t) name one or two things the Church could do in the next couple of years that would signal a true shift towards assimilation.
- Remember that one of the points Mauss made was that there is no simple formula like “retrenchment bad, assimilation good” to apply here. As society shifts over time, retrenchment might be the right move at one point (perhaps the mid- to late-19th century), then later assimilation might be (early 20th century). So apart from the more or less empirical question of whether the Church is right now in retrenchment or assimilation mode, there is the larger and more reflective question of what the Church’s position should be and which direction we should be moving right now, in 2022.
Wheat & Tares 
There’s a new FireTag?!
That was a glitch, Hedgehog. Fixed. It’s just me, Dave B., although I’m posting this on Friday instead of my usual Tuesday morning slot.
I mean, what’s more likely to tend towards assimilation: continued use of a two-syllable nickname for the church and its members, or a new insistence on a long, unwieldy formal title that has no adjectival form in English? I’m reminded of the 90s, when many members of American minority ethnic groups started asking to be called “African American” / “Latino American” etc. — whatever one thinks of those titles politically, they’re definitely not a product of assimilationist thinking.
So in short, not sure if I read the whole church name thing as a way to become less “peculiar.” Or if it’s intended as such, not sure if it’s working.
I think its important to point out what the Church is trying to assimilate to, Right Wing American Christianity (usually Evangelical). The Church is not trying to assimilate into the mainstream, otherwise they would be changing things up like the Author suggests (non-literal BOM, mission no longer required, etc.). Instead, they are changing things to try to appeal to Evangelicals such as changing the logo (picture of Christ instead of the angel moroni), ditching doctrine/teachings that Evangelicals find distasteful (we all get our own planets), but not discarding doctrine/teachings that would actually change the Church culturally (patriarchy comes to mind). Visit the Church’s websites, and view their materials and it becomes more obvious who they are trying to appeal to
I think it’s possible that what’s happening is neither assimilation nor retrenchment, but something deeper that we might call reinvention or reformation. Abandoning the “Mormon” identity could mean a deep cultural reorientation away from the identity that stems from pioneer traditions, polygamy, institutional racism, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the centrality of Joseph Smith.
Why would leaders make this move? Because the Church’s growth has stagnated, and the prospects for future growth are in Africa and parts of Asia where the cultural Mormonism of the Mountain West is and always will be foreign. This pivot would require a transformation over the course of decades, as the old-time traditions of American Mormonism die out, while the new Mormonism—or whatever we will call it—takes root in other parts of the world. It is not a change that would be announced. Simply not talking about the old ways would allow the change to happen gradually. In adopting this plan, Church leaders would hope that they don’t need to apologize for polygamy, racism, or any other past problems. They would just ignore the past. Essentially, they would be starting over.
If we sideline the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith and pioneer ancestors, what will remain to distinguish the Church from other religious movements? That’s an open question, isn’t it? Right now it looks like there are four things that the Q15 wants to emphasize: the apostles’ personal authority, a more generic Jesus who is less defined by the peculiarities of Mormonism, the mid-20th-century American ideal family, and temple worship. I would assume that over time there will be more changes in temple worship to reflect whatever doctrinal changes develop as the Church makes this transformation.
It’s early days. These changes could take very different directions than they seem to be taking now. Or the Church could do another radical change of course and abandon this new plan. Or I could be wrong in my interpretation of what I see happening right now. Either way, it will be interesting to see what happens in the next several years.
I agree that President Nelson is about retrenchment, not assimilation. The “Mormon” thing is his own pet peeve. Using “The Church of Jesus Christ” or “The Restored Church” is NOT an assimilation technique. It’s a religious exclusivity claim. Nelson has doubled down on LGBT issues (in spite of rescinding the November 2015 policy). They’ve quashed the Heavenly Mother talk not because it is a treasured unique Mormon doctrine, but because it threatens the primacy of the patriarchal order. The three-member Godhead is male, and prayer must be directed to the Father as scripture states. Polygamy in the Celestial sphere is still fine (Oaks even cracks jokes about it in conference). Nelson reinforces the expectation that young men are obligated to go on missions while the experience is optional for young women. He reinforced traditional gender roles at his first press conference, finding the principal value of women in their positions as daughters, wives, and mothers (“bearing the souls of men” per D&C 132). Men are obligated to contribute to the Church aside from their familial roles as sons, husband’s, and fathers.
Nelson doesn’t care what anyone else thinks. He’s in charge. If something he does happens to make us look more mainstream, then that is unintentional.
I will agree that he seems to want us to have a better image on the race stuff (with his partnership on the NAACP), but even with that, Nelson is still unwilling to declare the temple and priesthood restriction a mistake. He’s unwilling to admit that there are structural problems with regard to race in the Church, preferring to blame individual members for any problems with racism or white supremacy.
Zwingli, I was going to say the same thing. Mauss’s list of changes would assimilate us into the mainstream, but the things the Church is doing now largely assimilate it into Right Wing American Christianity. Including insisting on a literal interpretation of scripture.
Two words: covenant path. Leaders say that those words all.the.time and every time I am reminded of wacky evangelicals on my mission.
I think RMN yearns for the Kingdom of God on the Earth. Which scares me.
Loursat is very insightful (above). Let me add this:
I have a theory that I can’t prove but one that I see manifest all the time: I believe the Brethren are moving to a “less is more” model. They’d rather have 5 million super TBMs than 20 million lazy learners. That is why they are able to double down on retrenchment moves that seem ridiculous. They are basically separating the wheat from the tares. They know that if they dropped garments, tithing, coffee/tea, most of the Church membership would be happy and the Church would be more attractive. But that’s not what they are after. They are after the few, the proud, the truly TBM. Don’t let 2-hour church and the relaxing of home teaching fool you. I’ve seen this in my own ward. When I left there was NO effort at all to get me back. Nothing. They don’t want my kind around. Literally not one member of the ward /ward leadership has asked me why I left. Not one. And I’m a life-long member with the total Mormon bio (Seminary grad, mission, temple marriage, BYU, every kind of leadership calling). And I had plenty of friends in the ward (I’m nicer in real life than here on W&T :).
Yes, the Church is going hard in Africa, the last gold mine of low hanging fruit baptisms. But overall growth is not the objective. If it was, they wouldn’t be sending our young people to Asia and Europe where they hardly baptize at all. The Brethren recognize that the growth phase is in the past. It’s all about the few chosen ones and their Covenant Path (temples). And they have the money to do it.
Internal retrenchment, external assimilation. Yup, Mauss had that correct. He was a bit off on who the church tries to assimilate with, thinking it would be intelligent mainstream Protestants instead of crazy right wing Evangelicals, but I suppose he hoped the church had more sense.
The church wants it both ways. They want to be seen as Christian and family focused by outsiders, while still threatening members with “sad heaven” if the whole family doesn’t pay, pray, and obey. It is aimed at attracting nonmembers to join, while keeping current member tightly under control and separated from nonmembers. They know that if they don’t keep members seeing the outside world as dangerous, then members will be more tempted to marry outside of the religion, to accept gays as humans, to see women as fully human and deserving of full participation in the church.
They like the idea of teaming up with Catholics and Evangelicals as allies in the cultural war. They want help fighting what they see as common enemies and don’t want to be seen as bigoted, so they like others to be bigoted too.
So, there is a very different message church leaders want to send to both the leaders of other religions and nonmembers than what they want to send to members. There is a lot more external talk about Jesus Christ, and yet still the focus internally is “covenant path” and obey leaders, not “follow Christ.” The whole “I’m a Mormon” campaign was focused on non members, trying to make Mormons look normal. That campaign actually offended a lot of members, because of all the focus of “normal” by the larger society’s standards. It highlighted career women, offending a lot of stay at home mothers who gave up their career because the church told them that was the only way to be a righteous mother. It tried to break up the stereotype of Mormons as …well clean cut cookie cutter Mormon missionaries. That offended some men who had been told to shave off facial hair for their callings. The message was clearly focused on non members, trying to convince them that we are just like them, while still bludgeoning members into NOT being like “them.”
I agree with the Armand Mauss quote. They want internal retrenchment and external assimilation. Which is probably what Scientology is after as well.
I also agree with Zwingli. The bedfellow they are after is the evangelical, not the nones. It’s like watching an episode of survivor where the lone outcast has to choose a side to survive, knowing that whatever side they choose will eventually stab them in the back when the other side is decimated and they are forced to turn on each other. But what choice do they have?
josh h: One of the most frustrating parts of leaving my faith tradition was seeing how little people cared. It truly hurt. I certainly didn’t expect the entire ward to care, but I did expect the family we had weekly movie night with, or my own parents, to care. They didn’t. I eventually got over it. And I don’t at all doubt your niceness and kindness =). Your comments are very thought-provoking.
Can we ditch D&C 89? I have some wonderful Methodist relatives who are practically begging me to join them for a cold and stiff beverage. Telling them that God said no in Ohio in 1833 seems a bit wacky.
The Mormon thing is personal for RMN. Circa 1990 he floated his anti-“Mormon” position in conference. Six months later GBH swatted it down with his “Mormon Means More Good” talk. Nelson has shown an anti-GBH bias in other respects as well.
I like how you distinguish between internal and external audiences. Retrenchment for internal, assimilation for external. Makes sense to me.
I have a few more thoughts, following on my previous comment.
In the four-and-a-half years of Pres. Nelson’s term, we’ve seen many changes. At first, I thought these changes were superficial, and I still think so about some of the changes. Shortening our meeting block, changing from home teaching to ministering, and ending our association with the Boy Scouts were overdue changes that put our official policies more in line with actual practices and the way our lives had evolved. I found it somewhat persuasive to interpret Pres. Nelson’s rejection of the “Mormon” moniker as his personal preference. I thought one could believe that giving up “Mormon” for more of Christ was a generally good idea, but that it didn’t connect up with larger ideas about the Church’s direction.
In recent months, I have begun to think differently about the pace of change. Things are happening that I can’t explain merely as Pres. Nelson’s personal preferences or as routine modernizing of Church policies. Foremost of these is temple-building. This represents an enormous commitment of Church resources. I have come to doubt that the Q15 is just sitting idly, watching while Pres. Nelson spends billions of dollars on his personal legacy project, multiplying temples in places where they aren’t needed. I believe that they have discussed this in great detail and that temple-building is part of a larger plan. Pres. Nelson has convinced them to support a new course of action. We don’t know what that plan is, but I think it must exist.
I share many people’s concerns about the excessively reverent way that general authorities now routinely refer to Pres. Nelson. I’m open to the possibility that this has something to do with Pres. Nelson’s personal vanity. On the other hand, I also believe that these general authorities are not stupid. I suspect that there is a purpose and a method in this new type of deference to the prophet—something bigger than the short-term personal advantage that comes from virtue signaling.
There is also a subtle move away from traditional, distinctively Mormon discussions of scripture and of Jesus. We see this in the artwork that is approved for use in meetinghouses and temples. I think I’m also hearing it in the way general conference speakers discuss the Book of Mormon and the Restoration. There has been a slight shift toward the authority of living Church leaders and away from the authority of the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and Joseph Smith.
I suspect that these changes reflect the most important questions that the Q15 is struggling to answer: What will the Church be as it becomes a truly global church? What will make the Church both viable and distinctive? Right now, the answer seems to have a lot to do with following the prophet, embracing the “traditional” family, and committing to a particular set of ritual practices (like baptism, the sacrament, priesthood ordination) that culminate in temple worship. Leaders believe (or hope) that this “covenant path” can become something distinctive to our church, something that binds members in their commitment, without connoting the weirdness that Mormonism has traditionally conjured up in the eyes of other Christians. The focus will be less on distinctive, idiosyncratic doctrines and more on a small set of ritual practices that will define our variety of Christianity–not our variety of Mormonism.
The Church’s voice in current American religion and politics clearly matters to its leaders. But I am suggesting that they care even more about the bigger picture. They want to set the Church up for success in fifty or one hundred years. I suspect they are in the process of betting on growth in Africa and Asia, and that means moving away from aspects of Mormonism that are completely foreign to people in those parts of the world. If they can maneuver into a politically stronger position in the United States while they make that transition, then that’s what they will do. They are calculating that traditional “family values” is the way to go. The positive aspects of “strengthening the family” are still there for the taking throughout the world. The negative aspects of that policy—such as endorsing an exclusionary patriarchy and denying queer identities—remain politically viable in an increasingly fragmented United States, and they are a selling point in many traditional societies.
I think it’s possible to see both assimilation and retrenchment in what the Church is doing right now. I like that interpretation. But I suspect that what’s really driving those policies is a set of choices that are being made about the direction the Church will take globally during the next century. For better or worse, there is a lot more to what Pres. Nelson is doing than we can see yet.
One thing that seems to appear in times of stress is the claim that Jesus is about to return. There was quite a lot of this as LGBT rights/gay marriage became legal doctrine. I have sympathy for Dave B.’s points.
Really interesting topic and questions. I figure that what the church is doing constitutes a sort of hybrid of retrenchment and assimilation. And discouraging usage of the word “Mormon” to refer to the name of the church is one such a move. On the one hand, by steering the membership away from using “Mormon,” Mormon leaders are trying to make the church appear less “Mormon” so-to-speak, and more mainline Christian. At the same time, however, the leaders are simply piling on one more sort of ridiculous rule that the rank-and-file will enforce.
The general leadership strategy appears to be, use retrenchment if it will lead to more retention of and gains in membership and use assimilation tactics if those will lead to more retention and gains. The leaders must realize that the membership consists of conservative/traditionalist members who don’t critically think that much and follow whatever the leaders tell them, and the more cosmopolitan/liberal types who may enjoy some core spiritual aspects of the church, seek to maintain a “temple-worthy” lifestyle, but are more adapted to mainline secular culture in the US in their outlooks on history, LGBTQ+ rights, and women’s rights. It tries to throw each group a bone and ends up coming off as contradictory in some ways. But seeming contradiction really doesn’t matter. The success of Trump in the Republican Party has proven as much and I think that has rubbed off on the church in many ways.
In the end, the church leaders are just trying to survive and avoid decline, let alone a rapid sudden decline. And for the past decade it has been implementing a series of seemingly small changes and adjustments that when considered all together do make the church appear and feel different from what it was in the past.
I like the central idea of the OP: Retrenching internally while employing a marketing strategy to signal assimilation externally. For the most part, I agree with the author, and with Mauss. And maybe it’s I why I constantly feel like the church (especially BYU) prevaricates on so many issues.
It’s hard not to confuse both audiences by signaling even softly contradicting messages when those differing messages are designed for two discrete segments. It’s a tough challenge not to be perceived as talking out of both sides of your mouth. Certainly BYU’s honor code change affecting its gay students was intended to signal to (presumably) the Big 12 its desire to assimilate, while internally it cracked down hard on its gay students. Another example of the church’s nuanced cross signaling is its alliance with the NAACP and outward statements condemning racism. The church’s public anti-racist statements have not been followed-up on within the church with any further action (i.e. no anti-racism curriculum, no restatement of the church’s racist past, etc.). These actions, despite being confusing to me at time, seem coordinated and planned at the highest levels of the church. There must be some purpose in it.
But I have to question our collective attempts to find reason in the church’s organizational and cultural development. Like Hegel posited, I think we may tend to naturally assume the Geist that drives advancements in history does so through reasoned responses (my apologies to Hegel…its been three decades since I read Reason in History.) I think we make an assumption that the shifts and swings we see are well designed–crisp and well executed tactics that are part of a much larger, long sighted and prophetic strategy. That assumption underpins and seems to frame how we analyze and talk about what we see. What if the phenomena we see are largely unintended consequences of a massive and clumsily organized bureaucracy? I don’t think we really know or understand the church’s decision making methodology, or how they consider what to change, why and then how to execute it. I am stunned the church hasn’t been more transparent about the $100 billion hoard. But what if there isn’t any real CapEx or OpEx plan for those funds? What if it just feels good to have a crap ton of money sitting in the bank, literally for that rainy day (which would seem to me to be the pinnacle of organizational irresponsibility if that is true)?
Most of the time I tend to think there is long strategy involved here, that everything I see is the product of very smart people working methodically and in harmony, but that is biased thinking. I remember listening to a former church employee talk about the Book of Mormon give away program of the late 80’s and early 90’s, and was shocked to learn the program is how the church solved a mistake where tens of thousands of copies of the Book of Mormon were erroneously printed. I fell down. The church had to make up a program to dump a printing overrun. Not exactly an inspired tactic under the umbrella of a brilliant strategy to introduce more of the world to the Book of Mormon.
The Q15 talk about their unanimous decision making, but I think it’s safe to assume they don’t fully agree on anything. What if the church’s perceived progress and what is outwardly manifested as change is simply the church’s boat lurching from the force of currents and the changing shifts of helmsmen and junior officers? And we really don’t know what effect church employees have on these outcomes. Despite plans that receive a majority Q15 vote (maybe some abstain so that unanimity can be achieved?) and the president’s signature, you have to believe there is a significant amount of attenuation as those directives ripple out, and outcomes at times have to be far different than what was intended.
Maybe temple building is a pet project of RMN….and there simply is little other reason behind it.
I struggle to believe my own argument, but I have to give it some thought when I consider the church makes its decisions behind a curtain and I’m not sure how much we really know about that process.
I read a conflicting “assimilation” signal in the new Seminary & Institute (S&I) program that seeks to portray an open engagement with policy issues or doctrinal questions by reenforcing the command to read only LDS correlated material. It’s a three year experiment from good-hearted jackasses in Utah, and it will end up driving more youth away from the Restored Church. Linking S&I to Come Follow Me is an INSTITUTIONAL EFFICIENCY, nothing more. It is evidence to me that leadership doesn’t give a damn about the youth of the church, and has no clue how to move forward. Over 1/2 of LDS youth have been leaving for over a decade and some fools at the pulpit interpret this as the predicted “falling away,” instead of taking responsibility for neglecting and starving the flock.
Travis – Your comment brings to mind this from Abraham Heschel about reasons for religions faltering:
“…When the crisis of today is ignored because of the splendor of the past; when faith becomes an heirloom rather than a living fountain; when religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than with a voice of compassion….”
I also agree with Mary Ann that making “Mormon” a forbidden name is not about assimilation.
I agree with Zwingli – the Church wants to assimilate into the Evangelical mainstream.
However, it wants to be nicer and less confrontational than Evangelicals, who can be pretty in-your-face about telling you you’re going to hell. The Church phrases it more like: “We really love you and will treat you kindly even though we still absolutely believe you’re a corruption and will go to hell. Here’s a plate of cookies!” I listened to DHO’s talk at the last GenConf, and his kindness is slipping – his insistence that he loves his LGBTQ brothers and sisters sounded more obligatory than sincere, and then he got right to the point – only procreative sex is acceptable to God.
josh h is right on – the Church wants the faithful few and appears to be willing to let the rest of us go.
I actually think this could be a really good shift. The scriptures say that “strait is the way and narrow is the path and few there be that find it.” DHO’s Gen Conf talk actually said that there will be lots of different places and people will be happy there. Here’s how it should go: “Brothers and Sisters, the truth is that not many people are going to be happy in the Celestial Kingdom. Rather than try to guilt trip and manipulate everyone into trying for the CK, we’re going to admit that the CK is designed for men who want to have a billion orgasms (to populate their own planets) and the women who are willing to be impregnated for eternity. For everyone else, go forth, find your own path and be happy.” Then the Mormons kind of turn into an Amish-like community but with Internet because family history work. If the Church would just stop pushing the teachings that you’ve got to believe everything and follow all the rules or you’ll be miserable in the next life, it could take a lot of pressure off of both itself (for withholding happiness from those who want it) and its faithful members (who are heartbroken when their kids find a different path).
And a second thumbs up for Anna’s comment.
The comments on mixed signaling are very interesting. If you want to look at it through the lens of marketing instead of sociology, I would recommend you listen to the recent Rameumptom Ruminations podcasts with an ex-church employee in the correlation research department. The church understand that it basically has two main market segments, the hardcore LDS group and the happy to be there group that want the church to be nice. You could think of the mixed messaging as an attempt to send appropriate marketing to their main two market segments. Another interesting way to look at the data that has brought up the retrenchment / assimilation question.
Regarding internal vs external messaging, the church’s website now forces you to an external-facing page if you don’t log in. You’ll get a brief glimpse of the main page before it switches you to the external page, but once it switches you’re stuck navigating links that have a non-Mormon/generic Christian feel. It seems a bit insincere in how the church presents itself, and I suspect the differences in the main and external pages will grow over time. If you want to see the external page (without logging out of the main page) simply navigate there using incognito mode of your browser.
In our experience, the rebrand away from the term “Mormon” has functioned as a quick and simple litmus test to identify and nullify “outsiders,” with a concrete (net-negative) impact on the way our non-LDS kids are perceived in Utah County. My perception is one of retrenchment.
When it comes to assimilation, I agree with other commentators that if there is assimilation it is toward the Christian Right. With the deaths of Apostles Merrill and Widtsoe, BRM and JFS led the Church to the right. This trend was continued by BKP and BYU’s religion department. Unfortunately, I’m not interested in the Christian Right
To some degree, Pres Nelson has continued this trend. But I’m not convinced by Jana Riess. The Church’s new logo looks decidedly Catholic. I don’t understand the obsession with the Church’s nickname. The leadership’s obsessive attitude toward LBGTQ+ community and woman may well be an accommodation to the Christian Right.
But with Oaks, Holland (only lately), and Nelson, I get the impression that they don’t care about “Big Tent” Mormonism. It’s their way or the highway. But for me, “the covenant path” is not one path, we each have our own route through mortality.
I agree with the above commenters about internal retrenchment and external (specifically evangelical and conservative right) assimilation.
It’s dawning across the bloggernacle, in the LDS journals, news, etc. what RMN’s strategic direction has been and is. We’re beginning to figure out the ride we were advised to prepare for by taking our vitamin pills. I wonder how long he and the Q15 have known about this shift, and why it took us- even collectively – so long to figure it out.
I sound like a squeaky wheel, but RMN’s cultural changes – the way that he has harnessed symbolism, controlled art (in the temples, in chapels and visitors centers), and music (the new hymnal), and speech/stories (curriculums, the word “Mormon”, etc. ) will powerfully and permanently shift our course, internally and externally.
Like the murals in the SL Temple that he had destroyed in the “preservation turned renovation”, it’s been done in the night without our awareness.