- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The recent Supreme Court decision had me reflecting on some the past events involving gay issues and the LDS Church. And then, this morning, my wife was watching the 1998 interview between Larry King and Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley. As I watched, I flashed back to the Hinckley years and remembered how much I liked listening to Pres. Hinckley. He always seemed kind, calm, and confident. A kind of “grandfather” figure to everyone. Now I mean no disrespect to Pres. Monson, but Pres. Hinckley’s speaking style and approach always resonated positively with me. I then noticed that he died in January of 2008. That same year began the campaign for California’s Proposition 8 that the Church got involved with (the vote taking place in November of that year). History would seem to indicate that the Proposition 8 fight did not do much to help LDS Church. Not only was that law overturned (and now irrevocably), but the Church received some bad publicity for its involvement (albeit indirect) in the campaign (though one could argue that the backlash within and without of the Church forced the leaders to soften their stance on homosexuality.) I hadn’t made the connection that these two events (Hinckley’s death and the Proposition 8 vote) had occurred in the same year. I wonder now if Pres. Hinckley would have handled it differently. Was the decision to actively oppose the California law the result of an inexperienced new leadership? Or would the outcome have been the same (I believe Pres. Hinckley was at least the “de facto” president during some of the early anti-gay marriage campaigns that were successful)? Would things have been different if the LDS Church (regardless of who as leading it) had stayed out of these campaigns? Every once in a while a leader shows up that takes everyone’s breath away. I have been told David O Mckay was such a man, that the press enjoyed a good relationship with him and LDS energy was at a high point. I see Gordon B. Hinckley the same. I think he knew the high tide wouldn’t last forever, he was pragmatic on those things. I believe he even mentioned it in a General Conference address. He was good with people. PR was second nature to him. It’s not President Monson’s style. He is the quiet neighbor who tends his roses, and secretly rakes your leaves while you are away. Both men’s skills are kingdom builders. I don’t believe President Hinckley would have taken the church through Prop 8. The church had taken a stance on SSM, it is part of why (I believe) the Family Proclamation was written. He was never for fighting against, he was more for redirecting. I have long believed it was PR department that brought about Prop. 8. Yes I know members of Q15 have their vocal opinions on it, but I don’t think they were in sync enough for it to be a full leadership deal. Unwisely PR didn’t look at the impending situation wisely and whether by advisement or lack of wisdom on their part a massive error took place. Part of my belief stems from the fact that my state had SSM on the state ballot far earlier than Prop. 8, yes local leadership took a stance and supported their request through previous leadership quotes, but the church did not, as an organization, jump in. It didn’t pass in my state the first time, it didn’t get on the ballot again until 2012. The church side stepped it and didn’t join the coalition of churches who were opposing it.
Part of me feels bad that Prop 8 lands on President Monson’s watch. I think it undermined his message, style, and some very important gospel principles that he espouses and could have helped everyone, in and out of the church. It’s a tough piece of history to swallow.
The Family A Proclamation to the World ends on a call to action: Quote:We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.
I know I operated under the influence of that sentence for a while. It was a matter of time before someone connected the dots between strengthening the family and fighting SSM and incorporated that into their religious zeal.
Quote:Every once in a while a leader shows up that takes everyone’s breath away. I have been told David O Mckay was such a man, that the press enjoyed a good relationship with him and LDS energy was at a high point. I see Gordon B. Hinckley the same. I think he knew the high tide wouldn’t last forever, he was pragmatic on those things. I believe he even mentioned it in a General Conference address. He was good with people. PR was second nature to him. It’s not President Monson’s style. He is the quiet neighbor who tends his roses, and secretly rakes your leaves while you are away. Both men’s skills are kingdom builders.
I think this is a great description of the differences between the two men. I did wonder why California became the focal point of the Church’s opposition to SSM (as opposed to other states and issues). Or how California became the focal point as far as the public could observe. It does seem indicative of some PR decisions.
You don’t get massive movement without the support of higher-ups, so I think Monson probably had something significant to do with it. Also, Hinckley was a PR man, definitely. I believe he had a history in radio.
In the beginning of his office, he did a number of things to get the church in the public eye — there was more than one interview with him on TV, for example. I think he also learned that putting the church in the public eye with open slate interviews is simply another opportunity for the world to learn about blacks and the priesthood, the role of women in the church, and plural marriage. It’s best if we lay low and let people know nothing about us until the missionaries come to the door. This is looking at it from the naked, single-minded perspective of a church wanting to be as favorable as possible, on average, in the eyes of potential new members. Not from the perspective of what I think is fair — letting people know the full backstory before they commit their retirement funds over the course of their lives in tithing…
SilentDawning wrote:Also, Hinckley was a PR man, definitely. I believe he had a history in radio.
Hinckley not only started the church’s PR department, he
wasthe PR department for some years. I think he was good for the church because he did at least appear to be more open and willing to talk about things. It was he who made the first intimations at apologizing for the MMM and he who first brought some of the more damaging details to light (albeit under great pressure). Monson definitely doesn’t have the same outgoing personality or as calm a demeanor, and he is perhaps a bit more old school. Christofferson seems to be the guy who is willing to banter with the media these days, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. I do think Monson had more to do with the Prop 8 business than Hinckley would have. I have also wondered about why California as opposed to other states. The only conclusion I have reached is that California has a relatively high LDS population (as compared to similar population states) and they were approaching the matter by referendum. The public had no say in the matter in my state, the state legislature did it – it’s easier (and probably less expensive) to lobby the general public than it is to lobby a legislature where it was a foregone conclusion.
Pres Hinckley was great in front of the press and seemed to almost like it – even some of the hard questions. My personal guessing was that it was probably a lot to do with Boyd K Packard becoming the Pres Q12. I still remember him in his infamous “little factories” talk mentioned, “don’t fall for this [homosexual acts]
no matter how tempting they may be.” A 12 year old me couldn’t figure out that statement and it wasn’t until decades later that the statement made me ask, “does he struggle with these thoughts?” Most Hetero guys I know say they have never had such urges. Just makes me wonder. It is interesting that in other state propositions (including New York) that came afterwards, the church was not asking members for time and $.
I do hear that Prop 8 stance and actions requested has been a major issue in many folks either leaving the faith or having a faith crisis. I would love to read a recap of the fallout that upper church leaders may have had created.
Where I am uncertain about Monson is his amount of drive for it. I think, he may have been a bit bulldozed by it. Either that, or he had no imagination for how the process would carry out. I don’t picture him being a super driving force on it. He rarely speaks of political things, he rarely references people’s sins (whatever they are), he has never been a real hell-fire and brimstone kind of guy. I know the first presidency signed the letters and initatives that got Prop 8 rolling. But I don’t think he saw what was heading down the pike. In 2008 he was a man who just stepped into a role no man ever really wants, in the months prior he lost his two best friends(President Hinckley and Elder Faust) and their wives, his own wife was beginning to decline. That’s a lot to deal with. I really imagine a meeting or two where he probably assumed that it would be a letter, an encouragement to support the church’s stand, but from there it left his hands. All the phone banking, the signs, the everything else I don’t see coming from him.
Quote:
I do hear that Prop 8 stance and actions requested has been a major issue in many folks either leaving the faith or having a faith crisis. I would love to read a recap of the fallout that upper church leaders may have had created.I think that is a key reason we didn’t hear any more. They lost in ways they didn’t expect. They divided their own flock. That was not the goal.
On a leadership note, I personally heard Elder Uchtdorf praise the people of Cal-ee-forn-ee-a (very Arnold Schwarzenegger – the German sound) for their efforts. It’s my one ding in my Uchtdorf image.
mom3 wrote:Quote:I do hear that Prop 8 stance and actions requested has been a major issue in many folks either leaving the faith or having a faith crisis. I would love to read a recap of the fallout that upper church leaders may have had created.
I think that is a key reason we didn’t hear any more. They lost in ways they didn’t expect. They divided their own flock. That was not the goal.
I think souring the general public against the church was more of a factor. I kept my political leanings to myself (in those days
I believe the church’s growing negative public image and the impact it had on missionary work was why we never saw a repeat.
LookingHard wrote:My personal guessing was that it was probably a lot to do with Boyd K Packard becoming the Pres Q12. I still remember him in his infamous “little factories” talk mentioned, “don’t fall for this [homosexual acts]
no matter how tempting they may be.” LH, I was thinking about BKP as I read this thread also. You may be onto something.
My dad’s “talk” about where babies come from consisted of him giving me BKP’s pamphlet with the talk about little factories. Dad told me to read it and ask him if I have any questions. Very ineffective parenting technique. I remember reading it and not understanding little factories and “physical mischief.” The plain talk wasn’t easily understood until much later.
It would be interesting to know some of the life experiences of the Q15 and how they got where they are.
mom3 wrote:I know the first presidency signed the letters and initatives that got Prop 8 rolling. But I don’t think he saw what was heading down the pike.
I know we’ve had this conversation before, and I know Ray will jump in, But why didn’t our “Prophet, Seer, and Revelatory” see this coming? This was a big deal, and it hurt the church from a PR standpoint big-time in California. If there was ever a time that the Lord should be “revealing” something to his Prophet, you would think this would be it! Something as simple as “Pres Monson, this is going to end badly for the church, and SCOTUS will overthrow it anyway, so use your efforts for something else, like temples” If our Prophet can’t receive revelation on the big things like this, what does that say for all the little things that have been “revealed” e.g. No more than two earrings, etc.
Sheldon wrote:why didn’t our “Prophet, Seer, and Revelatory” see this coming?
I take from the scriptures many examples that show the prophet isn’t a fortune teller to see what is going to happen, but is a mouthpiece for God on saying what God wants us to hear, sometimes despite what will happen.In the story of Noah, the prophet was trying to spend resources for what he hoped would be best, even though the efforts were futile. And the Lord didn’t stop him.
The big question is if the Lord told the prophets to get involved in Prop 8 and campaigns to keep marriage as ordained only for man and woman, or if that is coming from the prophets as products of their time using their greatest efforts to do what they think God wants them to
:How do we know if the prophet and the pope are using the same process or if there is a different access to revelation
:Is the judgment in our country in line with God’s will or against it
:Does God care
These events are fascinating to me to see unfold in our time.
There are lots of prophets doing what they were told to do, even when it was unpopular, didn’t stand up over time, or didn’t come true. Actually, way more examples of those than prophets who predicted historical events accurately. This is no different.
[Admin Note]: Sheldon, you are correct; I am jumping in. 
Don’t EVER insult someone here directly with a back-handed swipe. I am not saying that because you swung at me; I am saying it because it is against one of our most important rules. We are a support community, so start supporting, to some small degree, at least.
There is nothing wrong with your comment, in this context, on this site. It is a sincere question and has merit. It’s only problem is that you have asked it multiple times, in multiple threads, in almost the exact same, nearly cut-and-paste wording. You have had responses to that question from almost everyone here. You can continue to ask it, but don’t act surprised or take swipes at us as you do so – and don’t expect different answers than you have gotten multiple times previously. If you don’t like the answers you get here, there are lots of places you can ask questions and get the answers you want; if we can help you and you can help us, we want you here.
Now I am jumping back out.
Old-Timer wrote:[Admin Note]: Sheldon, you are correct; I am jumping in.
Don’t EVER insult someone here directly with a back-handed swipe. I am not saying that because you swung at me; I am saying it because it is against one of our most important rules. We are a support community, so start supporting, to some small degree, at least.
When I read this I re-read Sheldon’s comment and I thought, “I think Ray is over-reacting – or maybe there is some history here.” Then I read the following paragraph and it made more sense (as in Ray was warning, not (over) reacting.
Old-Timer wrote:There is nothing wrong with your comment, in this context, on this site. It is a sincere question and has merit. It’s only problem is that you have asked it multiple times, in multiple threads, in almost the exact same, nearly cut-and-paste wording. You have had responses to that question from almost everyone here. You can continue to ask it, but don’t act surprised or take swipes at us as you do so – and don’t expect different answers than you have gotten multiple times previously. If you don’t like the answers you get here, there are lots of places you can ask questions and get the answers you want; if we can help you and you can help us, we want you here.
Now I am jumping back out.
I will admit I am struggling a bit with what Sheldon expressed. I don’t have an axe to grind against leaders as I fell most are very loving people doing their best. But I do struggle with how the church members give what I wonder is an inconsiderate amount of weight to their statements/points of views. I do see this has some encouragement from leadership – especially the higher up you go.I too want folks like Sheldon here (which I
lovethat character on TBBT) and I do want this to be a place where there are not personal squabbles. Quote:But I do struggle with how the church members give what I wonder is an inconsiderate amount of weight to their statements/points of views. I do see this has some encouragement from leadership – especially the higher up you go.
I too want folks like Sheldon here (which I love that character on TBBT) and I do want this to be a place where there are not personal squabbles.
Amen!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.