I thought you would be interested to know I finally got my (very cheap) copy of The Politics of Religious Apostasy. I just started on the introduction and have to finish the last few pages of The God Delusion before I really get into it, so I don't have much to say now, other than to share a tidbit from Bromley's introduction regarding whether or not Mormonism is still a subversive religion.
In reference to one of his own later essays in the volume, Bromley offers definitions:
(page 5)In Chapter 2, Bromley places apostasy in comparative perspective by identifying it as a particular kind of exit and juxtaposing apostates to two other types of exit role, "defector" and "whistleblower". The way that disputed exits are organized and the narratives that are constructed about the process, Bromley argues, is a function of the social location of the organization. Allegiant organizations have high legitimacy, a favorable balance of allies to opponents; as a result, these organizations are extended great latitude in resolving disputes internally. Conflicts are suppressed and defectors typically exit in a fashion that does not seriously challenge organizational legitimacy. Contestant organizations operate in an environment containing both allies and opponents; their agendas are deemed legitimate but they are also subjected to challenge and constraint. External regulatory units of some type form to mediate the claimsmaking that arises between the organization and groups representing competing interests. The existence of regulatory agencies reduces the capacity of the organization to maintain internal control over disputes. The whistleblowing role is one in which the exiting individual allies with the regulatory unit and an adjudicated conflict ensues over the whistleblower's character and evidence. Organizations are labeled subversive when their organizational practices and objectives are deemed illegitimate; that is, the organization is confronted by a heavy preponderance of determined opponents. Under these circumstances the organization has limited capacity to defend itself when disputes arise. Individuals are actively recruited in various ways to ally with the oppositional coalition and reconnect with conventional networks by playing a variety of pivotal support roles within the oppositional coalition. Apostates construct their prior affiliations as involuntary, recounting their organizational careers as captivity narratives.
Then, commenting on Mauss' essay in the introduction, page 6, Bromley states:
In developing his arguments, Mauss draws on nineteenth- and twentieth- century Mormonism for illustrative case material. The Mormon case is an unusually instructive one since Mormonism was deemed subversive in the last century and has since moved towards an allegiant position in recent decades, but continues to occupy a contestant position in some social locations. Mormonism thus demonstrates an important point - a variety of exit roles may be associated with the same organization at different times and at the same time in different locations. Mauss features the case of William McLellin in the nineteenth century and Jerald and Sandra Tanner to exemplify apostasy, and Fawn Brodie and Sonia Johnson to illustrate twentieth- century whistleblowing.
I won't make a final judgment until I read the later essays, but I would say that, at this point, there is very good evidence that neither Bromley nor Mauss consider Mormonism to be currently a subversive organization.
I'll come back with a fuller report later, after finishing the book. It does look like a very interesting read.