- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I begin this knowing full well I’m walking into a land mine and may have rocks thrown at me. I also wish to qualify that I am not throwing rocks at anyone. If it comes across that way let me know. These are thoughts I have had for the past 2 days and are meant for consideration and perspective. Agree isn’t necessary. We have a couple of threads that have re energized the Larry King Live/President Hinckley interview. I have been a part of the threads and the experience on a personal level. (My story is on the threads). As I have tried to think about the quote, his response, my response – and my reasoning for the response I have come to some insights that I find interesting.
I wrote a post about stained glass windows and how we as church members in the LDS faith unknowingly build our own. In short we each have a personal theology. The active members as well – not just middle wayers. I believe also that our top leadership has the same personal theology. Though they and we don’t give them credit for it.
With this idea as my foundation I began to try to imagine Gordon B. Hinckley’s theology or stained glass window and how this influenced his words on Larry King Live.
Gordon B. Hinckley became an apostle in 1958 when he was 48 years old. That’s pretty young. He had been a Stake President prior. For how long I don’t recall. In short he was young. I was born in 1964 (yes you can do the math and get my age). I have seen the church through 5 decades. It’s changed a lot. I have been a lay member – not a jet set leader. But in the 1960’s onward – General authorities were constantly traveling from Stake to Stake, conducting leadership and conferences. Sometimes 2 a day. It was cool. I remember being a kid and hoping that it was a GA who would be coming for your Stake Conference. This continued until the 1980’s or so. To me this is important because it illustrates that President Hinckley has likely not been in a traditional church class in 50 years. There wasn’t time.
My dad has been a high councilman since I can remember – when he’s not, he’s in a Bishopric. Rarely does he attend class. Especially Sunday School and often times has to skip Priesthood to take care of other things. Easily he could miss the weeks when a particular theology is taught. For my dad his religious instruction comes from his reading at home. I am guessing Pres. Hinckleys world was similar. This means, if you don’t run across it, you assume it’s not there. Not a hard assumption to make.
Maybe President Hinckley wasn’t a lover of the couplet. In his biography it’s hinted that he didn’t always agree with things, but it kept his mouth shut. I also see Gordon B. Hinckley as a rogue member in some ways. He had a daughter who didn’t like mutual. The family came to an agreement that she attend only on nights when a gospel lesson was taught. The other nights when they were knitting, baking, she stayed home. I add in that he encouraged members to read Charles Dickens – The Life of Our Lord. He said that yes all of it wasn’t exactly like our doctrine, but it was good, and that President Hinckley’s family read as a tradition and loved it.
Since this post is running long – I will try to wrap up, but I also believe President Hinckley may not have known what was in the manuals. If you are interested in my reasons let me know and I will share them.
Long and short, for me, I am beginning to wonder if my issue with this issue – is just that. My issue. The Larry King Live interview was nearly 10 years ago. I don’t remember catching the answer then or being worried about it then. My concern came up 5 years later as I learned that it worried others. Now I knew the couplet caused pain for converts. I had a family friend who joined, then left the church on the couplet. The question now exists in me, if it never bothered me for 5 years after he said it, why does it bother me now? This is a question I still have to answer, but maybe I need to give him some perspective, too. After all it’s what I want the world to do for me.
mom3 wrote:Long and short, for me, I am beginning to wonder if my issue with this issue – is just that. My issue. The Larry King Live interview was nearly 10 years ago. I don’t remember catching the answer then or being worried about it then. My concern came up 5 years later as I learned that it worried others. Now I knew the couplet caused pain for converts. I had a family friend who joined, then left the church on the couplet. The question now exists in me, if it never bothered me for 5 years after he said it, why does it bother me now? This is a question I still have to answer, but maybe I need to give him some perspective, too. After all it’s what I want the world to do for me.
For me it was that I was looking to these things as indicators for where the church is and where it is going. GBH says that whether we teach/emphasize the couplet is indefinite. GBH says that family size is between couple and God. LDS newsroom says that caffeine not prohibited. LDS newsroom says that we don’t believe that we get our own planet. LDS newsroom says that the exact form that becoming “joint heirs with Christ” and “partakers of the divine nature” will take in the hereafter is indefinite. Various modern church statements leave room for a biological component to homosexuality and stress that respect and compassion are paramount. Do these sources speak for the church or not?
But then we find contradictory evidence such that both parts of the couplet are clearly taught in multiple current print manuals. Also that we believe specifically that we will be Gods in the sense of populating new worlds with our children. For those that believe homosexuality is a choice only, they could take umbrage in Pres. Packer’s “Why would a loving Heavenly Father do that?” comment of a few GC’s ago.
In trying to define what Mormon Doctrine is for me and how that relates to the church as a whole this becomes very confusing. Was it GBH that spoke inaccurately and off script about LDS beliefs or was it Pres. Packer. It is somewhat scary to acknowledge that a possible answer might be that they both spoke truly according to their personal “stain glass windows”
andwhat a particular segment of the LDS population believes. How can I determine any clear position from such a contradictory mass of opinions? Do we believe in Polygamy? Some say it was never divine and was a mistake. Some that it was commanded for a brief time in the restoration and then withdrawn. Some say that it will come again in the millennium. Some say that polygamy is required for the highest exaltation. Some say that we should be living it now (and not bowing to secular pressure). Some say that men can be sealed to 2 (or more) women at a time (only 1 living) and have polygamy in the afterlife. Some say that women can have this same thing. Some say that God will work it out. GBH says that it is all behind us.
In summary, it can be very difficult to determine if I stand with Mormonism or against Mormonism when just when I thought I had a handle on what the modern church believes, teaches, and stands for it slips away like soft Jell-O through a fork. The good news is that ambiguity can serve to widen the tent. How can people say that my own “stained glass window” doesn’t have a place in the church when the LDS newsroom and recent statements from the living Prophet come to my defense? On the other hand it is hard to feel like I truly belong and that the church is truly “my church” when the views of others that I might see as backwards, strange, and in some places downright offensive have just as much claim to the church as I do.
I really like this perspective, mom3. It feels both accurate and charitable to me – and it squares with my own impressions of Pres. Hinckley over the same decades you have know him. I said this in the other current thread about the couplet, but I believe this is a perfect example of making a good, honest, caring man an offender for a word (“teach”) – a word that he immediately changed to make the statement more accurate (“emphasize”).
GBH’s biggest legacy, without a doubt will be the number of temples he built. It remains to be seen whether this is a good policy or not, but I don’t think such a great number will ever be built again. Whatever the final outcome he made temple worship more local for many members. The truth is that he was a hidden hand long before his presidency influencing Pres. Kimball and Benson’s tenure, probably Pres Hunter too.
In general I see him as a mainstreamer and a moderate. Very much a PR man for better and worse.
Being born in the early 80’s, there no one who has influenced the direction of the church in my lifetime more than GBH. I will remember his optimism and what seemed to be a genuine love for the church and it’s members. Sam is right, he was a moderate and a great PR man for the church. He gave PR answers in a lot of these interviews, but I can’t condemn or criticise for that. In fact, I really appreciate the fact that he was willing to be so open to the media. I can’t see that happening again.
Yes, Kristmace, and as I said, that was both his best and his worst feature. He wanted to make us seem like good, normal people (good), but he also played down certain aspects of our church which I don’t think we should be ashamed of, since they differentiate us from other ones (bad). Although I still maintain temples are going to be his long term legacy. Whatever happens to the church, we’re still going to have to deal with them… either in terms of empty temples or massively increased temple visits.
I don’t see him as a bad man, although he did frustrate me sometimes with his “I don’t believe we teach that” comments. I don’t agree with everything he said, but he never said anything I consider to be outrageous. (One or two of the current GAs have in the past though!)
SamBee wrote:I don’t agree with everything he said, but he never said anything I consider to be outrageous. (One or two of the current GAs have in the past though!)
I’d say more than one or two!!
😆 😯 :crazy: Oh totally. Boy, do we all remember seeing those comments… but GBH never came out with anything like that. I think he said something silly about earrings, but even that isn’t that outrageous.
As usual mom3, I love what you’re saying. Great compassion and consideration for the man in the mantle. I think the process of going through my FC has fundamentally changed my perspectives on who/what a prophet is. I think they are good men who bring a lot of their own perspectives with them. As such, I’m happy for them to give instruction and advice and to share their personally held views – I think they are genuinely sincere views. But I’m also comfortable with the notion that my window might only be 20% similar to theirs. I’ll live with that and make the best of it.
I love Brother Hinckley. See what I wrote heremom3 wrote:I add in that he encouraged members to read Charles Dickens – The Life of Our Lord. He said that yes all of it wasn’t exactly like our doctrine, but it was good, and that President Hinckley’s family read as a tradition and loved it.What‽Shawn – The Life of Our Lord is a very small book. I didn’t even have it in my collection and I thought I had everything of Dickens. When Deseret Book republished it, it was nearly pocket sized. I really love having it. Good luck. I’m sure you’ll find it. It looks like the book is not in the public domain since it was not published until 1934. That’s why it’s not included in the Kindle book I bought. Anyway, it sounds awesome and I want to read it. Btw, there’s no reason to worry about rocks being thrown at you for what you wrote. This forum can be used to share concerns and frustration and
inspirational thoughts. I especially love reading of others here coming to terms with issues, finding more peace, and progressing spiritually. Dickens suffered from childhood poverty and the workhouse, and campaigned with some success against child labor, slums etc in England. For that alone I love him. He seems to have had a genuine spiritual conversion. A Christmas Carol is one of his better known spiritual works, but I’m afraid it is cursed with overfamiliarity. GBH is right about Dickens. (Although sometimes, boy, does he take a long time to say something!)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.