Who's the biggest embarassment for the LDS church today?

[_hobart]

Which high-profile Mormon do you think is the biggest embarrassment to the LDS church today? Who gives Mormons a bad name? Who makes them look stupid?

My thought is Glenn Beck. I listened to him go on and on today about his doom and gloom prophecies for the near future in the US (lately that seems to be all he talks about...some sort of anarchist, chaotic society where money won't be worth anything and everyone will have to fend for themselves). I think he's probably making the financial crisis worse with his words.

For a close second, on the local Utah scene, I'd say State Senator Chris Butters. This week he made news once again for his fanatical remarks (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11731577?source=rv). No wonder Keith Olberman even rated him as the "worst person in the world" once.

The least embarrassing Latter-day Saint, or the person most responsible for portraying a good image for the church. . . .I'd have to say Donny or Marie Osmond.

[_Yong Xi]

Though he isn't claimed by LDS Mormons, Warren Jeffs has brought more embarrassment than any Mormon in recent memory.

[_cinepro]

I don't think Beck or Buttars are closely associated enough with the Church in most peoples' minds to do much damage.

I think Romney did a lot of damage just by bringing some of the more unusual aspects of LDS culture to the forefront. There is a popular SoCal AM radio host who regularly jokes about Mormon underwear now, and he never had before.

[_harmony]

I was thinking Henry Reid. I mean, the man actually thinks he can make decisions without consulting higher authority. What is up with that?

[_bcspace]

Reid for sure. None of the others is embarrassing at all. Perhaps that Buttars cannot communicate his position without censure is an embarrassment but Buttars himself did not condradict LDS doctrine that I can tell. Notice that the Church did not repudiate any of his remarks, rather choosing to say that Buttars does not speak for the Church.

[_The Nehor]

Jesus Christ, belief in him is always getting us knocked down.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Jesus Christ, belief in him is always getting us knocked down.

The Nehor's got it right.

Next question?

[_Yong Xi]

Reid for sure. None of the others is embarrassing at all. Perhaps that Buttars cannot communicate his position without censure is an embarrassment but Buttars himself did not condradict LDS doctrine that I can tell. Notice that the Church did not repudiate any of his remarks, rather choosing to say that Buttars does not speak for the Church.

Do you really believe church leadership would agree with Buttars' remarks? You underestimate most church leaders. As a whole, they are much better men than that. While I don't believe they are inspired, I do not believe them unkind.

[_Gadianton]

Do you really think "embarrassment" matters for the church? Think about it, Hobart, down a notch or two from the highest leaders -- who literally know nothing other than Mormonism -- are very successful businessmen, lawyers, and down a bit more, apologists. Whether it's a matter of money, law, or truth, the real challenge is in making it with a disadvantage. If you've already proven to yourself that you can do something, the next step is -- in the game -- can you do it blindfolded? Or, in other words, can you make the ridiculous seem true, can you make the guilty innocent, and so on. Those of importance in the church thrive on the next "embarrassment". It's the next challenge that can be pursued in a blind rage, where the tables can be turned, where the "weakness can become a strength". No one of importance in the church cares about Christ, at least whether he's "knocked down". In fact, wasn't it Bruce R. who virtually hated Christ because of the Christian "anti-Mormons", the Christians so devoted to him? It's not embarrassing to believe in Jesus. This is still a very Christian nation. No one is, to their eternal shame, giving the Mormons, especially the apologists, opposition for their "belief in Christ", because everyone knows "Christ" is down about 49 notches on their list, and pretty uncontroversial anyway.

What makes the heirarchy, and the apologists, very angry, the most angry, is that they can't pawn off the persecution they get for their ill-gotten gains and their pseudoscientific theories as persecution for Christ, because no one believes for one second Christ matters at all to them.

It really, really infuriates them that they've failed in this regard.

This is their biggest challenge.

[_hobart]

Reid for sure. None of the others is embarrassing at all. Perhaps that Buttars cannot communicate his position without censure is an embarrassment but Buttars himself did not condradict LDS doctrine that I can tell. Notice that the Church did not repudiate any of his remarks, rather choosing to say that Buttars does not speak for the Church.

Do you really believe church leadership would agree with Buttars' remarks? You underestimate most church leaders. As a whole, they are much better men than that. While I don't believe they are inspired, I do not believe them unkind.

This post has nothing to do with people who propose opinions that are or are not in agreement with church policy; it has to do with those who voice their opinions in radical and unkind ways. I agree that no church leader would stand behind Butters' remarks or approve in the way they are said--except maybe the most blatant and rude apostle (maybe McConkie?--who was repeatedly warned and reprimanded by other apostles and President McKay for advancing terribly mean and questionable things as Mormon Doctrine). State Representative Michael Whaddops defended Butters by saying that Butters' views reflect some of his (and some of all of Utah's representatives') constituencies--the more barbaric, uneducated citizens, granted. So, yes Butters' remarks may reflect some Mormons' feelings, but it would be a far stretch that it represents Mormonism in general. I can just imagine Butters alongside the Westboro Baptist Church in protesting Pres. Hinckley's funeral because he didn't hate homosexuals enough--or maybe on a compound somewhere in rural Texas with a stockpile of weapons, ready to either meet the end of the world or have a showdown with the government.

[edited once to comply with forum rules]