large and centralised religious institutions... rarely moderate their views too much...
But the Catholic and Anglican churches are political institutions, and the Catholic Church, in particular, does moderate its views. Frequently, even, relative to the long span of its existence. It did so especially during the times of empire-building, but still does today. For example, Latin American bishops are given wide latitude in dealing with the natives. I have personally stumbled upon some very unorthodox Catholic masses. Once, in the the department of Solola in central Guatemala, I was hiking through the forest and came upon a clearing where I saw fifty or more people around a fire. There was a priest in proper seasonal vestments leading a folk mass in a local language, probably Quiche, Kakchikel, or Tsutujil. Parishoners were throwing stuffed animals into the fires. I don't speak Quiche, but when I inquired a local explained to me--in Spanish but with the lilting accent of those who grew up speaking the local language and learned Spanish in school--that they were making offerings for their ancestors, or to bless a new baby. A few years later, in Peru, I found catholic priests overseeing the blessings to Pachamama. Maybe they weren't overseeing, per se, but they certainly were not looking the other way. Bottles of fermented grain beverages were poured upon the ground in front of buses about to embark upon hazardous mountain journeys over rough roads, and the idea was that the Great Mother goddess would protect them if she gets enough booze in her to put her in a good mood.
Closer to home, we see the changes in the church as well. Just now, I took down from the bookshelf my Handbook for Today's Catholic (Liguori Press, 1978), Baltemore Catechism No. 1 (Tan, 1977), and The New Saint Joseph Catechism (Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1969) and dusted them off. I looked, but I could not find any reference to homosexuals or homosexuality in any of them. Why would I look up such a thing in the index anyway? Why, indeed? Because nowadays the church has a strong position on homosexuality. It took up that position probably--some might even argue smartly--as a political move. For one thing, a number of Irish priests and American priests were suddenly being accused of child molestation. Such things have probably happened for centuries, but only with a free press and a reasonably educated populace do such reports act as a catalyst for political change. For another thing, the Episcopalians were beginning to ordain women and liberal men, many of whom had their own feelings about homosexuality which offended older Episcopalians, and the Catholic church found it a convenient time to stage a coup. I forget the name of it. It had a fancy-sounding name, like, "The Pastoral Reconciliation" or something, but in the 90s a number of Episcopalian priests, many of whom were married, suddenly became Catholic priests. In 1969, you had to dig deep to find the church's position on "homosexuality" (if it had any). In 2012, it's all over the place. This was a calculated political move. A moderation, in fact, by a "large and centralized institution."
Back in 1964, Johnny XXIII decided it was time to offer masses in the vulgar languages of the world. That was pure political expedience. And the college of cardinals that elected him knew he would push for such changes. They simply saw the need for change in order to keep up with the world and stay relevant. Similarly, it decided it needed a liberal pontiff when it elected Karol Wojtyla in 1978.
Of course, by the time old Karol passed away, in 2005, times had again changed. Suddenly we're in an age in which the US, the UK, the Europeans, and others are promoting some values which may destabilize "large and centralized institutions." An age in which "radical Islam" encroaches upon Western values. And an age in which a global economic recession was about to threaten grave destabilization. You can be your last dollar that the college of cardinals won't stand by on the sidelines. They knew it was time for a tougher act, so it elected that old Nazi Joseph Ratzinger as pontiff. In short order, he had laid out the Church's position on Islamic terrorism, moral relativism, and consumerism. In no uncertain terms!
Don't be so quick to dismiss the ability of "large and centralized institutions" to moderate their views. The Catholic Church is a political organization, and it moderates itself as necessary--"pro re nata" if you will--in order to maintain some political power. No, it will likely never have the political power it had in the good old days of the Templars and the Corps du Tiercelet. King Henry VIII saw to that, didn't he, but the church knows how to keep itself afloat, precisely by moderating its politics.
I know all this was a little off topic, but it struck me how demonstrably false the quoted statement was. You're a smart guy, and you know we couldn't let such a glaring inaccuracy go unnoticed.
As for the LDS, I'm not so sure that it's the sort of political body that the Anglican or Catholic churches are. If anything, the LDS has often been on the wrong side of the law. In that sense, it isn't unlike the early hippies of the Christian movement, long before they got mixed up with imperial politics. They're doing their own thing in their own way. True, the LDS has a hierarchy in a way that the Ephesians and the gnostics never had, but I don't see them as trying to run governments, at least not with the tour de force tactics that the Catholic church has employed. Romney is just a guy trying to get elected. You may think him a crook and a liar and a plutocrat. That's fine, but don't drag the Mormon religion into it.
