From My Informant: A Tale of Two Factions

[Guest]

Where does Monson fall in these factions? In his Mormon Stories interview, Brent Metcalf described a meeting with Monson in the 80s in which Monson expressed the point of view that scholars should be allowed to do their thing and the church should be open about its past and let the chips fall where they may. If this is true, then it would seem Monson is firmly in the Eyring camp. Of course, Monson's dementia may make him a non-factor at the moment.

[_Zadok]

And I would add that factions like these are particularly fluid and 'squishy'. As different members of the faction develop pet views, or personal agendas it is more and more difficult to keep everyone seated on the same bus. We need look no further than Washington to see how, as it's said, politics makes strange bedfellows.

This will truly be interesting, at least for me, to watch unfold. I hope you will be able to continue to enlighten us with your 'intel'.

[_cinepro]

Where does Monson fall in these factions? In his Mormon Stories interview, Brent Metcalf described meeting with Monson in the 80s in which Monson expressed the point of view that scholars should be allowed to do their thing and the church should be open about its past and let the chips fall where they may. If this is true, then it would seem Monson is firmly in the Eyring camp. Of course, Monson's dementia may make him a non-factor at the moment.

I think there is pretty good evidence that Monson is in the Eyring camp, especially with the recent essays and imminent release of the records of the Council of Fifty. The last few years of Church openness would no doubt be very different if President Packer were at the helm.

[_dblagent007]

Doesn't the First Presidency run things? If so, and if this intel is true, then it would seem that the Eyring faction has a distinct advantage in implementing its agenda. If Monson dies and Packer ascends to the top, then everything could change on a dime.

[_Zadok]

Where does Monson fall in these factions? In his Mormon Stories interview, Brent Metcalf described meeting with Monson in the 80s in which Monson expressed the point of view that scholars should be allowed to do their thing and the church should be open about its past and let the chips fall where they may. If this is true, then it would seem Monson is firmly in the Eyring camp. Of course, Monson's dementia may make him a non-factor at the moment.

Since Monson selected his counselors, I would say that when he was fully functioning he was in the Eyring camp.

But now, because of his dementia, I would expect that he has been marginalized, and pushed out of any serious decision making. They still trot him out for photo opportunities, but I see even that as slowing until he is functionally under 'house arrest' in his apartment presiding over nothing but is own demise.

[_Zadok]

Doesn't the First Presidency run things? If so, and if this intel is true, then it would seem that the Eyring faction has a distinct advantage in implementing its agenda. If Monson dies and Packer ascends to the top, then everything could change on a dime.

Yes, the first presidency is in charge, but for the very reason that a dramatic change could come at any moment, both sides are loath to head off in a direction totally opposed to the other side.

Just as Joseph Fielding Smith, kept McKay from giving blacks the priesthood, I think that the packer group can still at the very least muddy the water for the Eyring group.

[_Gadianton]

Tim,

I'm a little skeptical about a "15 year plan". That's a long time for society to change direction. Besides, If the hardliners are going to take 15 years to get liberals under control they've already lost the war.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Good stuff. It certainly does feel like some of the 15 are trying to retrench while others are moving away from retrenchment. Either way is good in the long run. If they retrench, they will continue to lose members that are more sympathetic to social issues. If they move away from retrenchment, the church will become even more watered down than it is today. I see benefits in both sides.

Yes, it certainly does seem like it's a lose-lose situation for the Church.

[_beastie]

I don't think it can reasonably be doubted that there are at least two "camps" when it comes to dealing with the mass apostasy that the church currently faces. I think the numbers are probably catastrophic, due to the fact that the brethren had to be really cornered to agree to admit to ANY of this stuff in the essays. They had to feel as if they had no choice. It's not like they're opting for honesty for honesty's sake, else they would have admitted to these things ages ago.

So, yeah, they're desperately trying to think of solutions, and retrenchment versus liberalization are the two most obvious solutions, the ones many other religions have faced as well. And this is not an easy choice by any means. Liberalization means the loss of income because people who feel more able to interpret church teachings in a more open-ended fashion, which liberalization would require, may also be less easily guilted into paying a full tithe when it's not economically wise. And they may be less strict in other ways, as well. And liberalization would also involve some loss of membership, as ultra-conservative members lose faith due to the liberalization. But retrenchment is just as costly. Probably even more members would be lost and those that remain grow nuttier and nuttier.

I almost feel sorry for these guys. Almost.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Where does Monson fall in these factions? In his Mormon Stories interview, Brent Metcalf described a meeting with Monson in the 80s in which Monson expressed the point of view that scholars should be allowed to do their thing and the church should be open about its past and let the chips fall where they may. If this is true, then it would seem Monson is firmly in the Eyring camp. Of course, Monson's dementia may make him a non-factor at the moment.

Per the intel I was given, Monson is virtually out of the picture, given his (alleged) health issues. But as you and others indicate, there are a number of reasons to believe that he'd be supportive of the "Eyring Faction."

Doesn't the First Presidency run things? If so, and if this intel is true, then it would seem that the Eyring faction has a distinct advantage in implementing its agenda. If Monson dies and Packer ascends to the top, then everything could change on a dime.

The impression I was given was that the Packer Faction is utterly radical, and they feel this is really and truly a matter of life and death, and of eternal salvation. They *literally* think that their actions in this matter are directly linked to the Second Coming. They are fundamentalists in this regard, and so therefore they'll stop at nothing to achieve their ends. They apparently think that their actions are necessary in order to "save" the Church from imminent destruction. The Eyring Faction, on the other hand, is supposedly playing the long game--a "slow and steady wins the race" sort of approach. If all of this is true, then I would guess that we can expect to see a lot of damage done by the Packer Faction/apologists before all is said in done. If the reports are true re: John Dehlin's excommunication, then we may be witnessing part of this unfolding as we speak. (And on that note: to what extent was Kate Kelly's ex'ing connected to this 'intel'?)