It seems to me that President Nelson’s willingness to push his gospel hobbies idiosyncratic ideas on the Church as revelation really opens up new possibilities for how dramatically the Church might change in the future as other Q15 members take over the top spot. Of course the direction the Church took was always going to depend on who was Church President, but at least to me, it had felt in the past like the range of possible futures was pretty narrow, regardless of who the President was. Now, with President Nelson having opened the door to possibly more dramatic changes, I wonder if future Church Presidents will also jump at the opportunity to push their unique vision on the Church. Of course they might not, but that’s much less fun to speculate about.
One thing this made me think of is that I could put each of the current Q15 members on a spectrum of how they think the Church should look, from the most fundamentalist to the most progressive. I’m not thinking of fundamentalist here as meaning anything specific to polygamy, as it often does in a Mormon context. Rather, I mean more a general black-and-white scriptural literalist pro-gender roles type of view like it means in religion more generally. Also, I’m not thinking of progressive in an absolute sense, like compared to say other churches that might be considered progressive, but rather progressive compared to our recent history and what otherwise might be expected for our future. In the graphic below, I’ve put each member on a five-point scale, based on my sense from what he’s said in Conference and other venues. I’m sure you’ll disagree with me on at least some of them, and I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments. For sure, the men I’ve put in the “status quo” position I feel like I have the least sense of, so perhaps that could better be thought of as a “heck if I know!” category.
I also have some guesses about particular changes some of the Q15 members might make if they became Church President. Again, I’d love to hear your speculations in the comments too.
Oaks
Family Proclamation is canonized. LGBT members face Church discipline if they speak their sexual orientation or gender identity out loud at church. Announcement of new temples is halted until more of the already-announced temples can be completed. “Mormon” nickname is okay to use again.
Ballard
Women and teen girls (anyone old enough to attend YW) are required to wear makeup to church, as “it’s not that hard.”
Holland
Bishops are permitted to perform same-sex marriages in church buildings. Family Proclamation is quietly removed from its most prominent locations in manuals and on the Church website. “Mormon” nickname is okay to use again.
Uchtdorf
Temple recommend question list is reduced to two: Do you love God? and Do you love your neighbor? Q15 issues apologies for polygamy, priesthood/temple ban, and exclusion policy. “Mormon” nickname is okay to use again.
Bednar
Ban on loud laughter is expanded to include all laughter. Each household in the Church is required to track 12 key spirituality performance indicators and submit a weekly report to their bishop or branch president. Members who fail to submit KSPI reports for an entire quarter may face Church discipline. Members who fail to do so for a year are automatically excommunicated. “Mormon” nickname is okay to use again.
Andersen
Family Proclamation is double canonized, being added to both the D&C and the Pearl of Great Price. Church announces the Perpetual Reproduction Fund, which loans money to new parents. Loans do not need to be repaid if children they were used to support marry in the temple by age 25.
Rasband
Church embraces prosperity gospel. Q15 clarifies that tithing must be on gross income. Church members are required to submit financial records such as tax returns at tithing settlement to prove their full tithepayer status. The stories of the widow’s mite and the rich young man are removed from the Church’s version of the New Testament. “Mormon” nickname is okay to use again.
Very fun post, especially with the (unlikely) prospect of each of them having five years to enact their policies before switching to the next man.
I’ve always thought of Bednar as super strict; what led you to put him in the “lean” category?
Good question, HokieKate. I agree that he seems like a hardliner in some ways for sure. But it also seems like he’s more devoted to the ideas of power, authority, and control, than to any particular bad doctrine like say Elder Andersen is. Of course maybe that makes him the most fundamentalist of all. I don’t know.
“Ban on loud laughter is expanded to include all laughter.”
I broke the ban when I read that.
Andersen: having become quite accomplished at quoting the current president of the church, as church president he enters an infinite loop which can only be ended when God finally presses Control-C.
KLC, I’m glad you enjoyed that line!
Quentin, ha! That’s the totally ideal outcome!
Very fun and interesting post, as usual.
Re: Bednar- LOL
Re: Holland – your take on Holland’s view is way different from mine WRT same sex marriages.
Thanks, Rockwell! Regarding Elder Holland, I concede that my point about him authorizing bishops to perform gay marriages is probably more based on hope than observation. I just feel like he’s notably less homophobic than anyone senior to him, and if anyone currently in the Q15 would authorize it, it wouldn’t be anyone before him. But yeah, I’m mostly making stuff up. 😀
Ballard ahahaha!
Very funny. My only quibble with your prognostications, given Oaks’ legal background I doubt he’d allow MORMON so quickly, the idea of legal precedent being too well ingrained in his psyche. But who knows.
I’ve actually been surprised by all of Nelson’s changes and would thus say he is less fundamentalist than you have him. And was impressed and moved (and really quite shocked) by the Oaks I got to know in his new biography and last two GenConf talks. I would also put him more progressive than previously. Thanks for the entertaining and thought-provoking insights!
An instant classic! I particularly love that the “Mormon” nickname is pretty much allowed under anyone other than Nelson.
Thanks for your comments! That’s an interesting point about President Oaks, MTodd. If he’s really good at following precedent, then maybe he wouldn’t change anything at all! Although I guess it’s always a question of *which* precedent he’s going to choose to follow–maybe it wouldn’t always be the most recent one.
And acw, I hope you’re right! That would be great if he were!
Hilarious. And terrifying.
Oaks and Bednar will want religious liberty to be their legacy/focus.
Anderson is hitting the pro-choice gong pretty loudly.
Cook was wanting to focus on stamina and tribulation in his early apostolic years. He may want that to be his legacy. Even though one of the 14 points of prophecy is that no personal experience is necessary, adversity is something that is really difficult to speak about vicariously. It just doesn’t have the same gravitas as Holland’s personal struggles with depression, or Kimball’s health burden, etc.
I’m holding my breath for Bednar’s 20-25 year reign of strict obedience and discipleship training. Heaven help me, I don’ think I can run that marathon. I’m looking at that course now and can say without a doubt- I can’t do it.
Interesting assessment. I know much of this is hyperbolic but the piece that makes the least sense to me is placing Elder Holland on the progressive side. I can understand Uchtdorf, Renlund, and maybe Gong. And I also can see your other assessments but I don’t understand why you rate Elder Holland as Liberal. What statements has he made that you can back that up with?
Mortimer, that’s a great point that for some of the Q15, religious liberty will be their top issue (even if it’s just a cloaked way of saying they want to be able to discriminate against LGBT people). And I agree about Elder Bednar. He could be very difficult.
Robert, it’s not so much a thing he’s said as things he hasn’t said and his overall tone. I feel like where people like President Oaks can hardly restrain themselves from quoting the Family Proclamation twice a talk to make clear how important heterosexual cisgender-ness is to them, Elder Holland is happy to largely talk about other things. He also shares with Elders Uchtdorf, Renlund, and Gong, I think, a willingness to talk about church-related topics sometimes in a sort of academic or at least not strictly devotional way. Sorry I can’t give you more than that. I understand if you disagree. Like I said in the post, I pretty much expect that, since I’m just going by my senses of the men rather than any hard criteria.
The only recent change that has the stamp of Pres. Nelson on it, to me, is the need to refer to the Church by it’s full name. The others feel more like changes that could have happened with any President. That is what makes the changes hard to predict, I guess (though I found it a lot of fun).
I also don’t see Elder Bednar being so prescriptive. Didn’t he just give a talk about teaching correct principles and letting people govern themselves?
That’s a fair point about other changes maybe not being RMN-specific, Dan. Regarding Elder Bednar, that’s a great point that his most recent talk was about principles over detailed prescription. I guess I’m thinking that he seems deeply committed to enforcing hierarchy on people, like with how much he loved President Hinckley’s one-earring rule, and lovingly told the story of the boy who broke up with the girl who didn’t take out her second pair of earrings after that talk. But I agree that his most recent talk didn’t fit that mold.
I think you placed Holland perfectly. He is quite moderate when he deals with others and in his approach to academic and social issues. He adheres to principle, often strictly, yet teaches lucidly and gently with an understanding of other perspectives. Definitely a bit more progressive than the “status” quo” and “leans Fundamentalist” categories.
Thanks for the validation, Old Man!
Uchtdorf and Gong. Didn’t they make a series of hilarious pro-marijuana films back in the ’70’s?
Rick, I think that was Keetch and Gong.
Great post. I agree with the other’s though in that you completely missed it with Holland. He is definitely a company man. Not progressive in the least.
People are always a lot more complex than we give them credit for, and a one-dimensional graph is bound to omit most of that complexity. There’s always the tendency to characterize someone by that thing I remember them saying, that one time, that I agree or disagree with. I imagine we would get a different and more accurate picture if we did an actual analysis of all the writings and speeches by each person. That would be a lot of work, but I can’t think of anyone better suited to do it than you.
Thanks, Ryan. I’m glad you enjoyed the post. Regarding Elder Holland, when you say he’s a company man, do you mean that you’d put in “status quo,” or would you put him on the fundamentalist side of the scale?
Great point about the one dimension totally losing all kinds of other ways the Q15 might differ, Left Field. I wish I could come up with some non-subjective way to rate the Q15 on multiple dimensions. Really, what I wish is to get a bunch of people to do blind reads of Conference talks (i.e., I wouldn’t tell them who gave them or when, and would obscure identifying details) and have them rate the talks on a bunch of dimensions. I feel like that could produce some really interesting data! Although of course many or most people who would know enough about the Church to have their ratings be interesting would know at least some of the talks well enough that it would be impossible for me to hide the source from them.
Getting away from subjective or preconceived judgements would be a problem. But I think most conference talks are generic enough that even conference junkies would have difficulty figuring out who gave the talk on repentance, as long as airplanes weren’t mentioned. But some things could be fairly objective. How often do they mention the Proclamation on the Family, and what part do they quote? There would probably be some who never mention LGBTQ issues, or may say things that are relatively welcoming. I imagine there would be some who lean “fundamentalist” on one issue but “progressive” on another, or who are not really as strongly in one direction is as supposed. For example, I think Brother Bednar got typecast by his early comments on earrings and then people have interpreted everything else through that lens, even if he’s not generally that dogmatic. I don’t know how objectively dogmatic he is, but now, even if he makes more “progressive” statements, they are likely to be dismissed because we already have him pegged as “fundamentalist.”