NPR: surprisingly honest about Monson's leadership style

[crossmyheart]

https://www.npr.org/2018/01/03/57527089 ... dies-at-90

Listened to this on the road to a training conference this morning. Most of the time the AP and other outlets just give a short gloss over. I was honestly surprised. This one really got to the point that Monson led a laissez-faire leadership role over the church with very little to say about anything of importance. Kristine Haglund's piece in this was on point.

[The Beast]

Thanks for sharing that. Get used to leaderlessness.

[Just This Guy]

Interesting take on it. Never really considered it, but it's true. It does make you wonder how bad the dimentia has been that he has not been involved in being the public face of the church basically since he took office.

[Jeffret]

Thanks for sharing that. Get used to leaderlessness.

Mormons should be pretty used to that by now. That's been pretty much the standard state of their organization for decades. Hinckley's reign was the exception, not the norm. The first part of his tenure he was pretty healthy and energetic, though he did slow down some the last few years. Before his ascension to the top, he was basically running the church as the only active, vigorous member of the First Presidency for years. You have to go back to the early years of SWK's tenure, in the 70's to find another energetic leader. By the end of his term, in the 80's he wasn't doing so well. ETB was pretty weak by the time he made it to the top. Hunter didn't even make it a year. Monson really hasn't done anything during his tenure. The news is about how he led the church during it's biggest anti-gay fights, but that's just the most publicly known ones, and there is little evidence he was actively engaged in the whole issue. Some of the stuff, but little of it actually, came out over his signature, but there is no evidence it's something he really cared about or drove. Pretty much everything he was known for was before he got to the top, most of it long, long before. Given his age, Nelson isn't likely to make much of a difference either.

Church members long for a prophet, for a dynamic leader who can bring them new understanding, who can give the church a vision and direction, but they rarely get it and that's not likely to change.

[Not Buying It]

What will President Monson's legacy be? Perhaps it's too soon to say anything less than glowing about the recently departed, so this may be bad form, but he will be remembered mostly for telling stories about visiting widows. Which most members see as evidence of his lifetime of service, but I see as symptomatic of his tendency to blow his own horn all the time. He did preside over the lowering of the mission age, which was a pretty big change, but probably not a change for the better. He had no interest in doctrine whatsoever, but that's fine by me, doctrine is all made up crap anyway.

My personal view is he liked the attention, he liked the adulation, he liked having the most powerful position in the Church, and as long as he was getting the attention, adulation, and power he wasn't too concerned about much else. He wasn't interested in leading so much as being adored.

[oliver_denom]

Thanks for sharing that. Get used to leaderlessness.

Mormons should be pretty used to that by now. That's been pretty much the standard state of their organization for decades. Hinckley's reign was the exception, not the norm. The first part of his tenure he was pretty healthy and energetic, though he did slow down some the last few years. Before his ascension to the top, he was basically running the church as the only active, vigorous member of the First Presidency for years. You have to go back to the early years of SWK's tenure, in the 70's to find another energetic leader. By the end of his term, in the 80's he wasn't doing so well. ETB was pretty weak by the time he made it to the top. Hunter didn't even make it a year. Monson really hasn't done anything during his tenure. The news is about how he led the church during it's biggest anti-gay fights, but that's just the most publicly known ones, and there is little evidence he was actively engaged in the whole issue. Some of the stuff, but little of it actually, came out over his signature, but there is no evidence it's something he really cared about or drove. Pretty much everything he was known for was before he got to the top, most of it long, long before. Given his age, Nelson isn't likely to make much of a difference either.

Church members long for a prophet, for a dynamic leader who can bring them new understanding, who can give the church a vision and direction, but they rarely get it and that's not likely to change.

The other thing that stands out about Monson and the Q15 under his leadership is a certain amount of spinelessness when it comes to addressing problems and making decisions. They want to enact hard line policies like the baptism ban, the excommunication of dissenters, control of information, narrative, and maintaining the expectation of complete unquestioning obedience, but they don't want the membership to SEE them doing these things. Because when the membership SEES them doing these things, they leave.

So under Monson they've adopted a posture of speaking through low level intermediaries when absolutely forced, releasing un-sourced statements through LDS.org or the Deseret News, and refusing to take questions. They stay silent and allow zealous followers who know nothing of what's happening behind the scenes defend them on the internet, not intentionally with lies, but with imagination driven by faith. As long as they are quiet, it allows people to create their own narratives. General conference talks are generally banal and void of substance, local recordings of GA talks are forbidden, written journals have been forbidden, and they have started scripting these weird youth town hall type meetings where they pretend the questions and answers aren't chosen before hand with prewritten and correlated answers. They've invested a lot of time and energy producing a Potempkin Mormonism, because what they actually believe is so unpalatable to 21st century values, openly expressing themselves would destroy the missionary work.

Nelson doesn't seem the type to keep up a front. Monson was a disciple of Hinkley, the real master mind behind the church's media image, and Nelson...well...he's a different sort. My impression is that he chafes under these sorts of pretense. He believes in the absolute truth of his beliefs and expects everyone else to fall in line. I think he's got absolute disdain for the contradictory thoughts and feelings of others, and won't sugar coat his message to anyone.

[crossmyheart]

[/quote]

The other thing that stands out about Monson and the Q15 under his leadership is a certain amount of spinelessness when it comes to addressing problems and making decisions. They want to enact hard line policies like the baptism ban, the excommunication of dissenters, control of information, narrative, and maintaining the expectation of complete unquestioning obedience, but they don't want the membership to SEE them doing these things. Because when the membership SEES them doing these things, they leave.

So under Monson they've adopted a posture of speaking through low level intermediaries when absolutely forced, releasing un-sourced statements through LDS.org or the Deseret News, and refusing to take questions.

[/quote]


exactly- his legacy will only be revelation via "President Newsroom"

[Jeffret]

Oliver, I think you describe the Monson presidency well. Under Monson, they've made a practice out of being fairly invisible, out of not being seen to say or do anything of substance. Much of that existed from long before in Mormonism. Their behind-the-scenes efforts to not be seen as directly involved in Prop 8 had its genesis in earlier actions during Hinckley's tenure. At some points, they had been somewhat open about directly opposing gay rights but had been directly criticized for involving themselves. Most notably, for the Prop 2000 (Knight Initiative) campaign in California in 1999-2000, they really pioneered the approach of masking their activism as grass-roots with secret memos and encouragement from HQ, without direct citation of the prophet, and organization at the SP and bishop level, as all things in Mormonism must be. In 2000, some people tried to get the word out about the under-the-table heavy involvement of the Mormons, but there were few channels to disseminate the info and nobody listened. In 2008, church leaders just returned to the same patterns. However, they didn't realize what had changed. In 2008, the internet was now sufficiently mainstream to get the word out and the leaks and documenters had avenues for collaboration. Not a big success for Monson or a demonstration of visionary power. There is little evidence of direct involvement from Monson, by design, though there also isn't any indication it's something he really cared about.

Under Monson's "leadership", they've taken this lack of direction, this lack of ownership, and raised it to an art-form. Hinckley talked of Standing for Something, though when push came to shove, he didn't really live up to that. Under Monson they've been quite averse to personally standing for anything. It's hard to be long-remembered for being unmemorable.

They want to enact hard line policies like the baptism ban, the excommunication of dissenters, control of information, narrative, and maintaining the expectation of complete unquestioning obedience, but they don't want the membership to SEE them doing these things. Because when the membership SEES them doing these things, they leave.

I think they're really caught in a lose-lose situation here, of their own making or their own willing acceptance. If they're seen doing these things people leave. But, when they do them, people still leave. I'm convinced that much of the Church's current issues: it's declining conversion rates, the increase in negative stories, and the dramatic increase in members, even active members, being willing to criticize the Church and leaders is because the leaderlessness is so stark. People crow about having a prophet, but don't see him doing anything, much less anything prophetic, so some of them seek out Snuffer, but much more of them start to ask questions and start to accept or seek out more information, which they're certainly not getting at Church.

I doubt pursuing a hard-line stance is really going to improve that, especially at this point. The dissonance between the Church and society (or anything much else), whether it be cognitive, social, informational, or whatever is so great that becoming more hard-line isn't likely to reduce their problems. They can become more anti-gay, but that's not really a growing market. They can become more misogynist, but that's definitely not a growing market. They can become more obsessed with sex, though it's kind of hard to see how that's possible, as they've already reached a state of high obsession. They can become more obsessed with modesty, but that's already a growing gulf, particularly with the young. They can demand more allegiance, but then Leia's famous quote comes to mind, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

They've invested a lot of time and energy producing a Potempkin Mormonism, because what they actually believe is so unpalatable to 21st century values, openly expressing themselves would destroy the missionary work.

But, can they now change that? Specifically, do any of the leaders have the vision and fortitude, the energy, to change that? It seems terribly unlikely.

If they were open about what they actually want, wouldn't they just instigate fewer baptisms and more flight? Without a vision, without good leadership, they've floundered, but if they really showed what they want, that divide would become highly visible and cause issues.

Monson was a disciple of Hinkley, the real master mind behind the church's media image

(A slight rearranging of your comments to pull out a couple of different ideas.)

In some ways, that's true. Monson followed through with much that Hinckley set in place, including the pattern for dealing voter campaigns such as Prop 8. But, as you note, Hinckely was a PR man. He was reasonably skilled at it. He was very focused on that. Monson dropped that entirely. Rather than saying Monson was a disciple of Hinckley, I think it's more accurate to say that Monson just kind of floated along, without any real vision or direction. His message of charity and succor was good, but he never did more than talk about it. He didn't make any changes to increase it. Much of that may have simply been that he lacked the health and energy to do anything different.

Nelson doesn't seem the type to keep up a front. ... , and Nelson...well...he's a different sort. My impression is that he chafes under these sorts of pretense. He believes in the absolute truth of his beliefs and expects everyone else to fall in line. I think he's got absolute disdain for the contradictory thoughts and feelings of others, and won't sugar coat his message to anyone.

It's possible but I'm skeptical so far. The concern over Nelson's hard-line approach pales before the concerns when ETB took the reins. Lots of people were very concerned about what an ETB presidency might mean. Many figured if he ever ended up at the top, they'd be out of the Church. In actuality, once he got there he did little and he was decidedly more mellow than people feared, or hoped. I think this is principally due to two reasons.

One, the system is setup so that once they get to that point, they're advanced in age. Their health and stamina are waning. If ever they could play three-dimensional chess, they certainly no longer excel at it. Hinckley came in at a point where he was still pretty capable and remained that way till near the end, but he's the exception. At 93, it's a near certainty that Nelson doesn't have many years left. I don't know his personal situation but statistically he's unlikely to be a vibrant force.

Two, the system is setup to prevent large, dramatic shifts. Once he got there, Benson seems to have lost his passion for grand changes. Minor focus areas are good and acceptable, especially the more pithy and memorable, "Lengthen your stride", read the BoM, Stand for Something, charitable stories. Big changes are damped out.

I doubt Nelson will really do much. He may manage a little bit of a different focus or message for a little while, but it will likely be soft and relatively pointless. If he still has that energy, there are likely a number of things he'll need to catch up from Monson's years of decline.

And then it's probably on to the next one, who by the time he gets there will be in about the same situation. None of them now fit the pattern of Hinckley or Monson, called at a very young age, rising through the ranks for decades, with the potential for getting to the top before old age sets in. (Not that it necessarily worked in those cases.)