NOM

Inspired by the question posed by Dubner and his Freakonomics team about the U.S. president (see link below), how much do you think the President of the LDS church influences the direction of the church separate from the aggregate effect of the Q15? Haven't read Quinn's Extensions of Power but I bet it could shed light on this question.

http://freakonomics.com/podcast/freakon ... ly-matter/

Thought I'd also share this blogpost that my non-Mormon colleague shared with me about the probability of who will be the next Prophet. Entertaining. Man I wish Uchtdorf's chances were better. That is, assuming the President of the church really does matter.

http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2018/01 ... ons-death/

I think that the power of the president is readily balanced by the sheer challenge of his inevitable age. Monson started out as a very young apostle at ag 36, but he was still 80 when he go to the head of the line. I think that Gordon Hinckley is the unusual specimen for influence on the direction and policies of the church. His public outreach combined with a number of projects put him as one of the most transformative president we have had in a long time.. For better or worse, his accomplishments include

1. mini-temples
2. dramatic increase in the number of temples
3. the Perpetual Education Fund
4. Interviews on 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace
5. Interviews with Larry King
6. Proclamation on the Family
7. Groundwork for Prop 8
8. Dealing with the 9/11 attacks in conference

I'm sure this list could be expanded. Monson was more of a placeholder although lowering the mission age was pretty big. The essays were also released under Monson's watch, but I don't get the feeling that he was directly involved in these. The November 2015 policy appears to have been Monson's big revelation, but he never got out in front of it like Hinckley would have.

Looks like we'd better start working on our Bednar resistant armor. He might be steering the Good Ship Zion for a long time. Can't wait!

Unlike the U.S. President, the LDS president has no restrictions, checks or balances except their own drothers.

What holds these guys back is the selection process. They were chosen because they are reliable yes men. Put them in charge, and I think most fall back on the status quo, seeing that they no longer have anyone else to follow. Tradition! A living prophet is better than a dead one, except when the living chain themselves to their predecessor's decisions.

Nelson, I fear, may be different. While he doesn't have any new ideas, I get the impression that he's got a very clear picture of how the church should behave, and has no problem forcing his will onto others. I'm expecting a revival like call to orthodoxy this conference, a real goose stepping march into the good ol' days.

Someone making it to the top with new ideas and the gumption to break with tradition are rare, but when they arrive, nothing can stop them. If the prophet orders the twelve to get in line, then they'll line up. If he tells the membership to jump, then they'll jump. Only fear prevents them, fear of running afoul of god, fear of breaking tradition and fracturing the church. But replace that fear with a Donald Trump level arrogance, and who could stop the Corporate Sole from doing whatever they want?

How much do any leaders matter? The Church has always been shaped by its leadership. And its leadership is shaped by the process by which one becomes a leader. The Church would look a lot different if Joseph Fielding Smith had been president from 1951 to 1970 instead of David O. McKay. What if Ezra Taft Benson had been president before Spencer W. Kimball? Would we have had the revelation on the priesthood in 1978? For better or worse, human leaders matter a heck of a lot.

deacon blues wrote: ↑Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:54 am What if Ezra Taft Benson had been president before Spencer W. Kimball? Would we have had the revelation on the priesthood in 1978? For better or worse, human leaders matter a heck of a lot.

This is one of my favorite "alternate history" theories to propose to believers and see their reaction. Their level of orthodoxy quickly becomes obvious. If they get a frightened look on their face then they are a more liberal, and less literal, believer. The strong believers never waiver. They confidently assume that God would set Benson straight in the summer of 1978. I humorously suspect the lds.org does not easily allow perusing conference talks before 1970 because of some of the more excitable topics chosen by Elder Benson during the 1960s.

People who have read Edward Kimball's biography of his father, or Greg Prince's biography of President McKay realize the very human endeavor of undoing the priesthood ban and how long Kimball worked on it. Spencer Kimball was simply one of the few leaders who would have done this. Hugh B. Brown might have done it also. Except for Kimball, I fear that the priesthood ban might have persisted into the 1980s or 1990s when a media savvy Gordon Hinckley probably would have reversed it.

Corsair wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:07 pm I think that the power of the president is readily balanced by the sheer challenge of his inevitable age. Monson started out as a very young apostle at ag 36, but he was still 80 when he go to the head of the line. I think that Gordon Hinckley is the unusual specimen for influence on the direction and policies of the church. His public outreach combined with a number of projects put him as one of the most transformative president we have had in a long time.. For better or worse, his accomplishments include

1. mini-temples
2. dramatic increase in the number of temples
3. the Perpetual Education Fund
4. Interviews on 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace
5. Interviews with Larry King
6. Proclamation on the Family
7. Groundwork for Prop 8
8. Dealing with the 9/11 attacks in conference

I'm sure this list could be expanded. Monson was more of a placeholder although lowering the mission age was pretty big. The essays were also released under Monson's watch, but I don't get the feeling that he was directly involved in these. The November 2015 policy appears to have been Monson's big revelation, but he never got out in front of it like Hinckley would have.

But how significant, really, are any of these items? Or even the whole list together?

Hinckely was more influential and for longer than any other president in decades, but even he didn't really do or change anything significant. The big things where Hinckley really was different was in being personable, being PR savvy, and interested in outreach, but none of those really changed much.

The idea of mini-temples or portable temples had been suggested for a long time. With the Church's finances on a solid, growing footing, mini-temples could be easily expanded to many new locations.

The PotF naturally grew out of the Church's actions against gays. They needed a political position statement to back their actions. There is no indication that Hinckley had much to do with it other than approving it. It hasn't really accomplished much. Nor did their opposition to Prop 8. A lot of that, also, is more due to Oaks than anyone who has been president.

I'm unclear on how Hinckley really did anything significant to deal with the 9/11 attacks.

The mission age thing is a natural way to simplify policy. It doesn't take any particular insight and hasn't had any significant results.

It's very unlikely the essays originated in any fashion from the church president. They were forced by circumstances and grudgingly allowed.

The November Exclusion Policy was totally expected and completely in line with past behavior by the Church and its leaders. I see no reason to think Monson played any significant role in it.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:08 pm But how significant, really, are any of these items? Or even the whole list together?

Hinckely was more influential and for longer than any other president in decades, but even he didn't really do or change anything significant. The big things where Hinckley really was different was in being personable, being PR savvy, and interested in outreach, but none of those really changed much.

I agree with you overall. Whom do you think is the most influential prophet of the last 100 years? Kimball has to be near the top with the 1978 revelation, but who else made a distinct impact on the church or world?

not sure the head guy matters much, it's the structure and culture that matters. The system is now set up to perpetuate orthodoxy and conservatism. It's all old white men, with the social attitudes of old white men. The 12 and FP will recruit like minded individuals, so the echo chamber will go on and on, meanwhile the church will become less and less relevant, and even more kookie and weird as the world keeps turning - but they'll still be a pool of like minded devout mormon males to choose from. There's no revelation and no answers to turn the ship, so it's just going to be a case of someone at the helm leading the church further and further into obscurity.

To think I originally came to this site hoping the church could become a progressive entity and thrive in the modern world

Corsair wrote: ↑Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:34 pm I agree with you overall. Whom do you think is the most influential prophet of the last 100 years? Kimball has to be near the top with the 1978 revelation, but who else made a distinct impact on the church or world?

That's a good question. I don't think I have enough historical expertise to really answer that. Looking over the list of presidents over the last 100 years I think they've all been pretty forgettable.

I think the most influential people in Mormonism over the last 100 years have been N. Eldon Tanner and Harold B. Lee. Tanner brought financial stability and success to the Church, introducing it to corporate money management and set it on the path for the financial success it enjoys today. Lee started the Church on its path to Correlation. Tanner was never president and Lee did most of his significant work before becoming top dog. I'm not sure that Lee really did much as president. Perhaps we could say that McKay was the most significant president since these things happened under his tenure, though I'm not sure really how much had to do with him.

Corsair wrote: ↑Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:22 am

deacon blues wrote: ↑Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:54 am What if Ezra Taft Benson had been president before Spencer W. Kimball? Would we have had the revelation on the priesthood in 1978? For better or worse, human leaders matter a heck of a lot.

This is one of my favorite "alternate history" theories to propose to believers and see their reaction. Their level of orthodoxy quickly becomes obvious. If they get a frightened look on their face then they are a more liberal, and less literal, believer. The strong believers never waiver. They confidently assume that God would set Benson straight in the summer of 1978. I humorously suspect the lds.org does not easily allow perusing conference talks before 1970 because of some of the more excitable topics chosen by Elder Benson during the 1960s.

People who have read Edward Kimball's biography of his father, or Greg Prince's biography of President McKay realize the very human endeavor of undoing the priesthood ban and how long Kimball worked on it. Spencer Kimball was simply one of the few leaders who would have done this. Hugh B. Brown might have done it also. Except for Kimball, I fear that the priesthood ban might have persisted into the 1980s or 1990s when a media savvy Gordon Hinckley probably would have reversed it.

Interesting.

What about the anecdotal murmuring that "undoing" the priesthood ban was a political move, and not necessarily "inspired revelation"?

Would Benson have given up his racism and bigotry to further the church's PR / political clout if he had come before Kimball?

(Yes, I know there are no real answer to those questions...)

Corsair wrote: ↑Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:22 am

deacon blues wrote: ↑Wed Mar 07, 2018 8:54 am What if Ezra Taft Benson had been president before Spencer W. Kimball? Would we have had the revelation on the priesthood in 1978? For better or worse, human leaders matter a heck of a lot.

This is one of my favorite "alternate history" theories to propose to believers and see their reaction. Their level of orthodoxy quickly becomes obvious. If they get a frightened look on their face then they are a more liberal, and less literal, believer. The strong believers never waiver. They confidently assume that God would set Benson straight in the summer of 1978. I humorously suspect the lds.org does not easily allow perusing conference talks before 1970 because of some of the more excitable topics chosen by Elder Benson during the 1960s.

People who have read Edward Kimball's biography of his father, or Greg Prince's biography of President McKay realize the very human endeavor of undoing the priesthood ban and how long Kimball worked on it. Spencer Kimball was simply one of the few leaders who would have done this. Hugh B. Brown might have done it also. Except for Kimball, I fear that the priesthood ban might have persisted into the 1980s or 1990s when a media savvy Gordon Hinckley probably would have reversed it.

What an interesting way of finding out people's views. I think one of the problems, is the only way a Hugh B. Brown or Dieter Uctdorf becomes an apostle is by special appointment, or special inspiration. Such cases are few. Almost all apostles make it by climbing the "yes man" ladder. The Church university administrator rungs are obviously helpful, as are faithful lawyer rungs.