Anatomy of a Modern Prophet
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:45 am
A short 9 months after George W. Bush assumed the presidency of the United States, the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 set the country reeling. In the fall of 2001, not long after the attacks, the US began carpet bombing Afghanistan. Covert and traditional operations began throughout the country. Kandahar fell followed by the decisive battle of Tora Bora which seemed to seal the US toppling of the Taliban. Shortly there after, it became apparent that the Bush administration had their eyes on a bigger target.
The Bush administration immediately began making the case for an invasion of Iraq. The call for war and endless display of evidence against the crimes and aggressions of Iraq were paraded out by the US war machine, culminating in February of 2003 when Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the UN to make the case for the imminent attack on Sadam Hussein’s regime.
Increasing tired of aggressive US policy and posturing, much of the industrial world stood opposed to US action in Iraq. Many nations including most of continental Europe, South America and Russia were against military action in Iraq and instead wished to stay the course of sanctions and containment.
This global emergency compound the declining situation the Church had found itself fighting in recent years. The Church’s missionary action in the Eastern Block countries had not produced the desired results and baptisms lagged behind other American Christian denominations. European Baptisms and baptisms in other industrial countries had been on a steady decline and the Church was anxious to protect its growth rates in South America.
The Church has long tried to combat the perception internationally that it is an American institution and the Church had subsequently increased the PR effort to redefine itself as an international Church. Rhetoric by the brethren had moved away from the bombastic jingoism of the Cold War to try to embrace world cultures and alternative perceptions. Unfortunately, anti-American sentiment had spilled over into the Church’s domain, sometimes in the form of violence. The Church wished to distance itself from further negative effect.
The Church’s world standing was put into a precarious situation by the upcoming war in Iraq.
On 20th March 2003 the invasion began. American troops pushed hard and fast into Iraq territory. The world sat on edge and deeply divided. Surely now was a time the world could use a clear voice of leadership.
A mere three weeks later, the Mormon priesthood would take the stage at their semiannual world general conference. These men, self proclaimed to be not only prophets in the traditional sense, but also the only voice of God on earth among men as well as the sole representatives of Godly authority to act. The LDS conference, translated into more than 80 languages and broadcast simultaneously world wide at huge expense, was the perfect stage to deliver their message to the world. These men, claiming not only to be prophets but also seers and revelators, are revered by their followers to have clairvoyance as to future events, a skill which they themselves tout.
On April 6th 2003, the head of the Church known as “The Prophet” took the stage and millions comprising a worldwide audience listened. Here was his chance to make a difference and give direction to a world embroiled in confusion and darkness. Hinckley began his words:
Hinckley acknowledges the scope of the problem and shows a seeming sensitivity to the nuances of the issues. He continues:
Where indeed? All the pieces are in place to reveal the mind of God, to seize the full mantel of leadership and give direction. Hinckley can uses his ordination of seership to offer suggestion and council to the misguided world leaders who do not bear the priesthood. Instead, Hinckley offers this:
Hinckley attempts to strike the middle road and in so doing only gives a watered down version of the Nuremberg Defense. “Execute the will of the sovereign”? The archaic language thus employed reveals the source of Hinckley’s thinking: antiquated models entrenched in the rigidly hierarchical organization that Mormonism had become. If there is one thing tyrants respect it is the power of other tyrants.
However, more disturbing than the shut up and do as you’re told directive is the deference to power. Here, Hinckley suggests that we should fall in line because leaders have access to more information and thus “intelligence” than the populace. The position is completely understandable from Hinckley’s prospective since the constant droning of acquiescence and obedience to power is the one consistent message in the Church.
Of particular interest is this suggestion by Hinckley in light of the hindsight a few short years gives (2008). For the most part, the national leaders did not have access to greater intelligence than the reading public. And in the cases where they did, the information was systematic inflated and distorted to manipulate the perception of the populace. In retrospect, Hinckley was commanding his followers to believe propaganda and, in some cases, lies. Hinckley’s greatest command here is to believe in the leaders who started a war on false pretense.
Hinckley, in response offers no other principle than nationalism. This is particular telling since Hinckley acknowledges that the leaders of the world were divided. Yet he later goes on to suggest the leader know more than we do. This only makes sense if Hinckley is ignoring the world leaders and suggesting the world wide membership fall in line with the Bush administration.
With all of their God given authority, the brethren—with Hinckley as their mouthpiece, were unable to see through the rhetorical tricks that were recognized by nearly half of all Americans and the majority of Europeans. It is telling that many other religious leaders did not fall for the trap and remained steadfast in their condemnation of the war on Christian principles. As in many of the great social conflicts of the American past: slavery, the civil war, desegregation, equal rights, and Vietnam, the Church’s guidance is the opposite of the progressive leadership offered by others who do not hold the “one true religion.”
What of prophets today? It seems that in most cases, their guidance for a troubled world is no better than the conventional wisdom of an aging generation.
The Bush administration immediately began making the case for an invasion of Iraq. The call for war and endless display of evidence against the crimes and aggressions of Iraq were paraded out by the US war machine, culminating in February of 2003 when Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared before the UN to make the case for the imminent attack on Sadam Hussein’s regime.
Increasing tired of aggressive US policy and posturing, much of the industrial world stood opposed to US action in Iraq. Many nations including most of continental Europe, South America and Russia were against military action in Iraq and instead wished to stay the course of sanctions and containment.
This global emergency compound the declining situation the Church had found itself fighting in recent years. The Church’s missionary action in the Eastern Block countries had not produced the desired results and baptisms lagged behind other American Christian denominations. European Baptisms and baptisms in other industrial countries had been on a steady decline and the Church was anxious to protect its growth rates in South America.
The Church has long tried to combat the perception internationally that it is an American institution and the Church had subsequently increased the PR effort to redefine itself as an international Church. Rhetoric by the brethren had moved away from the bombastic jingoism of the Cold War to try to embrace world cultures and alternative perceptions. Unfortunately, anti-American sentiment had spilled over into the Church’s domain, sometimes in the form of violence. The Church wished to distance itself from further negative effect.
The Church’s world standing was put into a precarious situation by the upcoming war in Iraq.
On 20th March 2003 the invasion began. American troops pushed hard and fast into Iraq territory. The world sat on edge and deeply divided. Surely now was a time the world could use a clear voice of leadership.
A mere three weeks later, the Mormon priesthood would take the stage at their semiannual world general conference. These men, self proclaimed to be not only prophets in the traditional sense, but also the only voice of God on earth among men as well as the sole representatives of Godly authority to act. The LDS conference, translated into more than 80 languages and broadcast simultaneously world wide at huge expense, was the perfect stage to deliver their message to the world. These men, claiming not only to be prophets but also seers and revelators, are revered by their followers to have clairvoyance as to future events, a skill which they themselves tout.
On April 6th 2003, the head of the Church known as “The Prophet” took the stage and millions comprising a worldwide audience listened. Here was his chance to make a difference and give direction to a world embroiled in confusion and darkness. Hinckley began his words:
“The nations of the earth have been divided over the present situation. Feelings have run strong. There have been demonstrations for and against. We are now a world Church with members in most of the nations which have argued this matter. Our people have had feelings. They have had concerns.”
Hinckley acknowledges the scope of the problem and shows a seeming sensitivity to the nuances of the issues. He continues:
“There have been casualties in this terrible conflict, and there likely will be more. Public protests will likely continue. Leaders of other nations have, in no uncertain terms, condemned the coalition strategy.
“The question arises, ‘Where does the Church stand in all of this?’”
Where indeed? All the pieces are in place to reveal the mind of God, to seize the full mantel of leadership and give direction. Hinckley can uses his ordination of seership to offer suggestion and council to the misguided world leaders who do not bear the priesthood. Instead, Hinckley offers this:
“But as citizens we are all under the direction of our respective national leaders. They have access to greater political and military intelligence than do the people generally. Those in the armed services are under obligation to their respective governments to execute the will of the sovereign. When they joined the military service, they entered into a contract by which they are presently bound and to which they have dutifully responded.”
Hinckley attempts to strike the middle road and in so doing only gives a watered down version of the Nuremberg Defense. “Execute the will of the sovereign”? The archaic language thus employed reveals the source of Hinckley’s thinking: antiquated models entrenched in the rigidly hierarchical organization that Mormonism had become. If there is one thing tyrants respect it is the power of other tyrants.
However, more disturbing than the shut up and do as you’re told directive is the deference to power. Here, Hinckley suggests that we should fall in line because leaders have access to more information and thus “intelligence” than the populace. The position is completely understandable from Hinckley’s prospective since the constant droning of acquiescence and obedience to power is the one consistent message in the Church.
Of particular interest is this suggestion by Hinckley in light of the hindsight a few short years gives (2008). For the most part, the national leaders did not have access to greater intelligence than the reading public. And in the cases where they did, the information was systematic inflated and distorted to manipulate the perception of the populace. In retrospect, Hinckley was commanding his followers to believe propaganda and, in some cases, lies. Hinckley’s greatest command here is to believe in the leaders who started a war on false pretense.
Hinckley, in response offers no other principle than nationalism. This is particular telling since Hinckley acknowledges that the leaders of the world were divided. Yet he later goes on to suggest the leader know more than we do. This only makes sense if Hinckley is ignoring the world leaders and suggesting the world wide membership fall in line with the Bush administration.
With all of their God given authority, the brethren—with Hinckley as their mouthpiece, were unable to see through the rhetorical tricks that were recognized by nearly half of all Americans and the majority of Europeans. It is telling that many other religious leaders did not fall for the trap and remained steadfast in their condemnation of the war on Christian principles. As in many of the great social conflicts of the American past: slavery, the civil war, desegregation, equal rights, and Vietnam, the Church’s guidance is the opposite of the progressive leadership offered by others who do not hold the “one true religion.”
What of prophets today? It seems that in most cases, their guidance for a troubled world is no better than the conventional wisdom of an aging generation.