A continual narrowing of the environmental borders is one of the indications of a cult mentality.
The application of more and more restraints is designed to keep the membership submissive and, above all , obedient to the whims of the hierarchy.
This needs to be done, as it were, in small deliberate steps so that the mark never realizes it is happening or has happened.
Due to the principle of response repertory the repeated action wants to be repeated by an ongoing reinforcement of similar input.
This borders narrowing can only be done if the mark voluntarily, at least in the beginning, submits.

I can pretty much only consider this topic in the abstract, because I am not a joiner, nor one who feels the need to meet expectations...

In terms of keeping the herd together, heading in the right direction, mormon leadership probably appreciates the existence of the Judas goat, the member who will display all the outward signs and behaviors that leadership requests. The rest of the herd then has a visible goal. And it is probable that such members don't know that they Judas goats. They just want/need approval.

which means you're half-wrong? No offence intended, honestly.

As a separatist movement "matures," it gets pulled in two directions.

First is the conservative direction: it needs those original doctrines (revelations, writings, whatever) that constituted its origins, early energies,and first believers. They don't mind being different--they glory in it--"peculiar people" and all that.There's something that must be preserved, and "narrowing the borders" can accomplish this. Somewhat. And only for a while. This is what you're identifying, but it conflicts with:

(2nd) The, desire, or need, to grow in popularity, public acceptance (legitimacy), recruit new members, and retain the 2nd/subsequent generation(s). Another problem is that the original doctrines (revelations) don't fit the larger public culture after 20, or more, years. This is where your "narrowing the boundaries" thesis falls short.

As an outsider, I see TSCC attempting both. On the one hand, there's the mainstreaming, trying to palm off LDS as an Evangelical variant ("ministers," not HTs/VTs), 2-hour church block, dropping the "Mormon" moniker, etc. On the other hand, they're narrowing the borders: Making missions more accessible to more kids (younger/easier/less risky), promoting temple work, etc.

They want it both ways. There is no truly effective solution for them.

I predict more factional splits in the future, as we've seen go on with some mainstream churches recently over the homosexuality issue.

Honestly I'm surprised there haven't been any major splits from the mainline LDS organization so far.

I think the only question is how far up the pyramid the fracture will go, i.e. whether it will be a local level event or something coming from a GA.

Most likely it'll come from an overseas growth area, such as Africa, or maybe Mexico, something like the "Third Convention" that arose in the 1930s.

xxMo0 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Honestly I'm surprised there haven't been any
> major splits from the mainline LDS organization so
> far.

There have--over polygamy. Perhaps the loss of those sects taught the LDS/SLC leadership a lesson. They had to abandon problem doctrines and practice (Adam-god, blood atonement, temple death vows), so they did it gradually, so that older TBMs weren't alienated, and didn't break away.

Such a de-evolutionary approach may not be so effective in an instant-information age, with hot-button issues such as gay rights and hgh divorce rates.

They're snagged on the horns of a long-term dilemma, Desertrat1. They need to retail the loyalty of the old-timers, so they can't abandon the LDS distinctives (BoM, "forever families," "one true Church" etc.) but they have to accommodate more modern realities (gay rights, lack of archeological evidence, etc.)

So they de-emphasize problem doctrines, slough them off gradually.

An idea for a study, maybe a doctorate: Evaluate the amount of use (references, quotes, etc.) of the Book of Abraham from 1900 to present day--see how the value and use of this "inspired scripture" has (I assume) has dwindled in GC talks, teaching sheets, Ensign articles, etc.

My original point is that one of the indicators that an organization is a cult is the forcible narrowing of the environmental borders. Exercising total control over behavior,information,thought and emotion.
An organization that seeks total control over these borders is very possibly, but not necessarily, a cult