What is Boyd K. Packer's legacy going to be in the Mormon history books?

[MikeWaters]

I honestly have no idea. It seems he is viewed by the Mormon left as one that was least inclined to their point of view. In particular to openness about Mormon history. And a vanguard against intellectuals, feminists and gays (his choice of words).

This gets to the inner workings of the FP and the Q12 which I don't think we know at this point. And may never know. We know somewhat about the past inner workings in the time of David O. McKay. Due to the notes that were kept.

Perhaps one of the best ways to tell will be to see how the church changes (if at all) now that he is gone. Were there things that he supported or was opposed to, that will now go in a different direction?

Perhaps in his old age he did not hold as much influence. In fact, I don't know what degree of influence he had in his prime. No idea.

Down here on the ground, it's hard to understand what's going on in the clouds. It's opaque.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I honestly have no idea. It seems he is viewed by the Mormon left as one that was least inclined to their point of view. In particular to openness about Mormon history. And a vanguard against intellectuals, feminists and gays (his choice of words).

This gets to the inner workings of the FP and the Q12 which I don't think we know at this point. And may never know. We know somewhat about the past inner workings in the time of David O. McKay. Due to the notes that were kept.

Perhaps one of the best ways to tell will be to see how the church changes (if at all) now that he is gone. Were there things that he supported or was opposed to, that will now go in a different direction?

Perhaps in his old age he did not hold as much influence. In fact, I don't know what degree of influence he had in his prime. No idea.

Down here on the ground, it's hard to understand what's going on in the clouds. It's opaque.

I think he'll mostly be forgotten just like most apostles who don't become President, or even a member of the First Presidency. I have read that his approach to leadership within the 12 was very autocratic. I obviously don't know for sure if that's true, but it would seem to fit how he came across in his tone. I can't imagine he would have been very comfortable with any changes, so whatever influence he would have had would have been on the side of keeping the status quo on pretty much everything, if not pushing a little toward the direction of even more conformity and top-down direction. So with him not there and even the more conservative ones not seeming to be as hard line, I would think the pendulum starts to move a little more in the other direction now, albeit slowly.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BlueK

I think he'll mostly be forgotten just like most apostles who don't become President, or even a member of the First Presidency. I have read that his approach to leadership within the 12 was very autocratic. I obviously don't know for sure if that's true, but it would seem to fit how he came across in his tone. I can't imagine he would have been very comfortable with any changes, so whatever influence he would have had would have been on the side of keeping the status quo on pretty much everything, if not pushing a little toward the direction of even more conformity and top-down direction. So with him not there and even the more conservative ones not seeming to be as hard line, I would think the pendulum starts to move a little more in the other direction now, albeit slowly.

I have heard much the same, though my anecdotes are so limited they may be inaccurate. OTOH, if others learned and adopted his management style, then it could be continued. Obviously, given the secrecy within this sanctum we may never know until the next tell all book is written decades later.