- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
What would this forum group say will be the thing Monson will be remembered for?
I would hope it would be his message of love. In the days when I was not a Monson fan it was mostly because I found him boring and uninteresting. He would tell all these stories about the old widows when he was a 21-year-old bishop and other stories about ‘little Tommy” and I often found myself asking what his point was at the end of his talk and wishing I had the 15 minutes back. He also used to speak with a lilt that annoyed the heck out of me. After taking over the big chair, he lost the lilt and talked more directly about what those stories were supposed to be about – love. And he recently gave a very direct talk on the subjecthttps://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/love-the-essence-of-the-gospel?cp=eng-gb&lang=eng ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/love-the-essence-of-the-gospel?cp=eng-gb&lang=eng https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865694633/President-Monson-changed-mission-ages-and-altered-the-church-forever.html ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865694633/President-Monson-changed-mission-ages-and-altered-the-church-forever.html Quote:What would this forum group say will be the thing Monson will be remembered for?
Genuine, person to person, service. He tried to create a platform for it. He lived it. He verbalized it. He just wasn’t a PR guy. His soft, grandfatherly style lacked the pop to make a platform.
I will remember him for humor. We didn’t get to hear it much in GC and Prophet settings, but he could tell some humorous, self deprecating stories that made my sides ache.
I will always remember him for Dieter Uchtdorf. He brought balance to a deeply entrenched conservative church when he pulled Eyring and Uchtdorf up the ladder to be his counselors. I believe history will show that was his best move.
I stole this comment from BCC – It matches mine in a different and better worded way. Quote:Twenty-some years ago I saw a different side of President Monson and learned a lesson about leaders and leadership. I attended a regional priesthood leadership meeting at the Provo Tabernacle, where President Monson was the concluding speaker. He spoke for a long time, at least as long as the other speakers combined. I don’t think there were any heartwarming stories. In fact, I don’t remember any stories at all. What I do remember is how different his manner was from his style in general conference. He spoke without a script. There were no cameras. The tempo of his speech was faster and more focused, like a person in an intense conversation. He was more fluent and, in a sober way, more expressive than I had ever heard him before. It was clear that this was not an aberration; this was Thomas Monson in all-business mode. He spoke about what it means to be committed to our callings and to fulfill our responsibilities. He spoke about being organized. He was deadly serious about all of it.
We are unwise to set general authorities on a pedestal. They are fallible people, just like the rest of us. However, most of them are also unusually accomplished. They have many abilities that we seldom glimpse. I am glad that I got to see this other side of President Monson. Even in a private room full of driven and competitive personalities, he must have been a commanding presence.
Quote:… However, most of them are also unusually accomplished. They have many abilities that we seldom glimpse. …
I hear RMN is really good at cutting people’s hearts out.
:shifty: I do think Monson was a kind and gentle soul who truly loved others and believed in giving meaningful service. Unfortunately, I wonder if at least part of his legacy will be his stance on LGBT policy, given that both the Prop 8 campaign and also the November 2015 policy were under his leadership. I get the impression that by 2015 he had already started to fade a bit, so I’m not sure how involved he was in the November 2015 policy, but I fear it will still be a part of his legacy. On a side note, as I was reflecting on Monson’s passing, a friend of mine pointed out that he is the very last president of the church to pass away that I will at one time have believed to be God’s Prophet on the earth in the traditional and literal sense. Given my current beliefs, I don’t see myself ever having that viewpoint again of another president. Yes, they can be good and inspired men who move the church in a more positive direction, but I won’t have that awestruck feeling of believing the church is led by a true Prophet again. I’m feeling a bit nostalgic about when I used to believe in that way.
The LGBT thing is the definite downside to his presidency. There were signs that progress was being made. I partly blame the extreme end of gay activism – the people who went and smashed up chapels etc. They set back gay rights in the church by years.
Any time a really old prophet dies, I feel this sadness that they have to spend their elderly years with the weight of the church admin on them. And the fact that the membership doesn’t get a vibrant leader who isn’t tittering off the stage at conference, having memory lapses, slurring their speech, and sometimes, not even attending conference. I have no real feelings about TSM. I liked all the other prophets generally, and to him as well. Each had their own minor or sometimes major legacy….under TSM (if you can even credit some of this to him), you get:
a) females serving missions at the same age as the men
b) more leadership say-so and directive presence in the church for women (although not enough for many women, I know). there are quite a few examples like making Ward Council the main input-giving body rather than PEC.
c) he added “caring for the poor and needy” as a purpose of the church, although I think everyone’s afraid to disseminate that!!! (for obvious reasons, if you know the church).
What am I missing regarding changes that occurred during his leadership?
The main negative that I am hearing being expressed is that if he is a prophet, why did he never utter a word on Ordain Women, LGBT issues within the church, Faith Crisis, etc. Stuff along the lines of, “if he is a prophet, what did he prophesy and did he even say anything substantive about the big issues during his term?” I understand and don’t disagree in theory, LH, but it depends entirely on how someone defines “the big issues”. Also, not all prophets should have to speak or prophecy about all issues, especially when an organization believes in up to 15 prophets being alive at any given time. Even in the Bible, no prophet addressed every issue faced by the people and/or the governments of their time. Most of them focused on one or two things and pounded it/them obsessively – which, ironically, is exactly what Pres. Monson did (but in a gentle way, through stories, that didn’t fit the common stereotype).
Again, I understand, but that sounds like an argument designed specifically to reject someone out of personal disagreement. It boils down to, “He couldn’t have been a prophet, because I disagree with him and he didn’t address my top issues.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.