Viewing Hinckley's presidency as a response to Mormon millennialism

[MikeWaters]

I'm no religious scholar. I'm just a part-time observer. That's my preface.

I saw Hinckley's presidency as an effort to maintain a hopeful, upbeat vision of the future of not only the church, but of the world. Why?

Mormons are millennialists. They believe in Armageddon. They believe the earth will descend into more and more wickedness. Wars and catastrophes will come, unlike any before. And just when all hope is lost, Christ appears, to usher in the millennium. This is not a very hopeful view of society.

I maintain that Hinckley's optimism should be viewed as a counter to the natural tendency of Mormons to harbor these negative views of the future.

I believe there is a battle at the heart of Mormonism. Is Zion now, here on earth, possible? Or is it impossible? Is this world, in 2008, worth saving and redeeming and building?

Those who would say no, would resign Mormonism to a dark vision and a passive stance to the world. Hinckley's presidency is counter to that. The world is worth saving, redeeming, and building.

[Tex]

So, if I understand you correctly, you view the doctrine of the Millennium/2nd Coming and the approach of President Hinckley to the world as mutually exclusive?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

So, if I understand you correctly, you view the doctrine of the Millennium/2nd Coming and the approach of President Hinckley to the world as mutually exclusive?

There are competing ideas in the church: 1) that the world is hopeless and 2) that the world can be redeemed and is worth fighting for.

Hinckley stood for #2.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

There are competing ideas in the church: 1) that the world is hopeless and 2) that the world can be redeemed and is worth fighting for.

Hinckley stood for #2.

You didn't answer the question, and I think you're misframing Hinckley's position.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

You didn't answer the question, and I think you're misframing Hinckley's position.

I don't even know if Hinckley actually had conscious thoughts along these lines.

I'm suggesting, at least at a subconscious level, he was responding to this.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't even know if Hinckley actually had conscious thoughts along these lines.

I'm suggesting, at least at a subconscious level, he was responding to this.

Mormons are running into the same quandry as early Christians did when Jesus didn't return as quickly as they had expected. Uh . . . what now? So much was geared towards lasting until the impending judgment day that there was initially little planning for long-term organization.

Eventually, Christians organized and standardized along Roman political lines (still evident in Catholic terminology today - a diocese was originally a political district in the late Roman Empire)

Some decided to go mainstream, incorporating pagan ideas and festivals into their rites in order to fit in (e.g. Easter, Christmas, veneration of Mary) and appeal to a lot of people.

Some stuck to their guns, preferring martyrdom (a personal apocalypse, if you will) during one of the intermittent and sporadic persecutions.

Some decided to withdraw from society to live either as hermits, since the world sucks anyway, or in a community of monks (an oxymoronic construction if there ever was one).

I'm oversimplifying and cramming hundreds of years of events into a couple of sentences, and the parallels aren't perfect, but it's a basically a similar problem.