Mormon apostle L. Tom Perry dead at 92

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-l-tom-perry-dies-at-age-92

I probably didn't agree with him on quite a few things, but it's sad to see anyone go.

[Mr. Smith]

RIP to a good man.

Always was one of the better speakers at General Conference.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

A brief perusal of what's readily accessible only indicates he was respected, but I got no sense of whether he was a traditionalist or a reformer within the LDS church. Of course, he was around long enough he might well have been viewed as a reformer early in his church career only to later be viewed as a traditionalist despite not changing his own views.

[Zioneer]

A brief perusal of what's readily accessible only indicates he was respected, but I got no sense of whether he was a traditionalist or a reformer within the LDS church. Of course, he was around long enough he might well have been viewed as a reformer early in his church career only to later be viewed as a traditionalist despite not changing his own views.

I would view him as a traditionalist; most of his conference talks were about staying obedient to God's law, taking care to make sure life doesn't get too complicated, and so forth. He was from the older generation of Apostles, and the second-to-last (I think) WW2 veteran in the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. If you want a "reformer" type, I'd look to Dieter F Uchtdorf, the only German Apostle in the history of the church, and an apostle whose speeches are full of tolerance, acceptance, and reaching out to others.

However, Perry wasn't completely traditionalist; he was one of the two apostles sent to the signing of the Utah anti-discrimination law. He had angered LGBT Mormons earlier during the LDS General Conference when he warned against "counterfeit families" (and seeing as how the Church currently believes in one-man one-woman marriage, it's obvious who he was referring to), but decades earlier, he had helped non-Mormons understand the church during the World's Fair. So overall traditionalist, but with some level of tolerance.

He may be replaced by someone from another part of the world (excluding Uchtdorf, all current Apostles are from the US), and will definitely be replaced by someone younger, so we'll see what happens.

As for my own view on Elder Perry, I didn't agree with the "counterfeit families" remark, and his "obedience to law is liberty" theme doesn't sit well with my libertarian side, but overall, I liked his talks and know that he was an honest and stalwart leader in the church.

[Mr. Smith]

A brief perusal of what's readily accessible only indicates he was respected, but I got no sense of whether he was a traditionalist or a reformer within the LDS church. Of course, he was around long enough he might well have been viewed as a reformer early in his church career only to later be viewed as a traditionalist despite not changing his own views.

I would view him as a traditionalist; most of his conference talks were about staying obedient to God's law, taking care to make sure life doesn't get too complicated, and so forth. He was from the older generation of Apostles, and the second-to-last (I think) WW2 veteran in the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. If you want a "reformer" type, I'd look to Dieter F Uchtdorf, the only German Apostle in the history of the church, and an apostle whose speeches are full of tolerance, acceptance, and reaching out to others.

However, Perry wasn't completely traditionalist; he was one of the two apostles sent to the signing of the Utah anti-discrimination law. He had angered LGBT Mormons earlier during the LDS General Conference when he warned against "counterfeit families" (and seeing as how the Church currently believes in one-man one-woman marriage, it's obvious who he was referring to), but decades earlier, he had helped non-Mormons understand the church during the World's Fair. So overall traditionalist, but with some level of tolerance.

He may be replaced by someone from another part of the world (excluding Uchtdorf, all current Apostles are from the US), and will definitely be replaced by someone younger, so we'll see what happens.

As for my own view on Elder Perry, I didn't agree with the "counterfeit families" remark, and his "obedience to law is liberty" theme doesn't sit well with my libertarian side, but overall, I liked his talks and know that he was an honest and stalwart leader in the church.

To be fair, most of the apostles have those viewpoints of moderate-traditional...sans Oaks (really traditionalist), Eyring, Holland, and Uchtdorf ("reformers" as you call 'em).

[Zioneer]

A brief perusal of what's readily accessible only indicates he was respected, but I got no sense of whether he was a traditionalist or a reformer within the LDS church. Of course, he was around long enough he might well have been viewed as a reformer early in his church career only to later be viewed as a traditionalist despite not changing his own views.

I would view him as a traditionalist; most of his conference talks were about staying obedient to God's law, taking care to make sure life doesn't get too complicated, and so forth. He was from the older generation of Apostles, and the second-to-last (I think) WW2 veteran in the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. If you want a "reformer" type, I'd look to Dieter F Uchtdorf, the only German Apostle in the history of the church, and an apostle whose speeches are full of tolerance, acceptance, and reaching out to others.

However, Perry wasn't completely traditionalist; he was one of the two apostles sent to the signing of the Utah anti-discrimination law. He had angered LGBT Mormons earlier during the LDS General Conference when he warned against "counterfeit families" (and seeing as how the Church currently believes in one-man one-woman marriage, it's obvious who he was referring to), but decades earlier, he had helped non-Mormons understand the church during the World's Fair. So overall traditionalist, but with some level of tolerance.

He may be replaced by someone from another part of the world (excluding Uchtdorf, all current Apostles are from the US), and will definitely be replaced by someone younger, so we'll see what happens.

As for my own view on Elder Perry, I didn't agree with the "counterfeit families" remark, and his "obedience to law is liberty" theme doesn't sit well with my libertarian side, but overall, I liked his talks and know that he was an honest and stalwart leader in the church.

To be fair, most of the apostles have those viewpoints of moderate-traditional...sans Oaks (really traditionalist), Eyring, Holland, and Uchtdorf ("reformers" as you call 'em).

Oh definitely. Oaks is definitely the one cultural liberals in Mormonism fear to have, while they love Uchtdorf (to be fair, if you measure popularity of apostles, Uchtdorf would probably "win" most groups in the church). Eyring is also one of the more tolerant ones (probably comes from growing up in New Jersey), and Holland's tough rhetoric is balanced by his thoughtful talks (especially the one on mental health, the "Like a Broken Vessel" talk).

I would characterize Elder Nelson as apolitical in the cultural sense (neither a reformer or traditionalist type), though as he's now the second most senior and will probably become president of the Quorum, that'll be interesting to see. Oaks is of course ultra-traditionalist, though he's a good church history guy. I don't know how to characterize Ballard, moderate-traditionalist? Scott and Hales seem to be moderate-ish as well, and as you said, Eyring, Holland, and Uchtdorf are the most "reformist" types. Bednar seems to be a bit of a student of Packer's ultra-traditionalist talks (plus he's the chastity talk guy now, like Packer was), while Cook, Christofferson, and Andersen are hard to characterize in terms of church culture.

Whoever the new apostle is will probably be younger than even Bednar, so it'll be interesting to see how they "fit" the cultural dynamic. Either way, I'll sustain them as I did Packer, Perry, President Monson and all the rest.

[Zioneer]

Also, as a side note, the entire Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency must agree on a major policy or doctrinal change for it to happen (like ending the ban on black men having the priesthood). One person objects, and nothing happens. Supposedly, back when ending the ban was discussed in 1969, one Apostle said that they should wait for a revelation from God to make sure that ending it was the right course of action. Since it wasn't unanimous, nothing was changed until 1978, when after years of frequent prayer and fasting about the issue, LDS prophet/president of the church Spencer W Kimball brought all of the apostles together in the Salt Lake Temple to ask the Lord about it again, which brought forth the revelation that the ban should be ended.

Interestingly enough, there is just one apostle left who could actually tell you whether the 1969 story is true or not. That would be President Monson, current prophet and president of the church, who was made an Apostle in 1963.

And with Perry's passing, only Monson and Boyd K Packer are left to tell the story of the 1978 revelation (if they so chose), as they are the only apostles alive that were apostles before 1978.

[afleitch]

Supposedly, back when ending the ban was discussed in 1969, one Apostle said that they should wait for a revelation from God to make sure that ending it was the right course of action. Since it wasn't unanimous, nothing was changed until 1978, when after years of frequent prayer and fasting about the issue, LDS prophet/president of the church Spencer W Kimball brought all of the apostles together in the Salt Lake Temple to ask the Lord about it again, which brought forth the revelation that the ban should be ended.

1978.

The reality is that pressure from President Carter who was ready to bring down the weight of the IRS on their 501(c) non profit status probably had more of an effect than a clique of white men praying...

[Torie]

Supposedly, back when ending the ban was discussed in 1969, one Apostle said that they should wait for a revelation from God to make sure that ending it was the right course of action. Since it wasn't unanimous, nothing was changed until 1978, when after years of frequent prayer and fasting about the issue, LDS prophet/president of the church Spencer W Kimball brought all of the apostles together in the Salt Lake Temple to ask the Lord about it again, which brought forth the revelation that the ban should be ended.

1978.

The reality is that pressure from President Carter who was ready to bring down the weight of the IRS on their 501(c) non profit status probably had more of an effect than a clique of white men praying...

That really was in play at the time? I never heard of that. Carter would have lost that one in court if he had tried to go there, but the litigation would have been disastrous for the LDS.

In looking into it further, I can see that BYU (as opposed to the LDS itself) might have lost its tax exempt status, because its policies provided for expulsion for those who engaged in interracial dating. I was unaware that such a ban as part of the LDS theology, as opposed to its racist tenets at the time  about the priesthood, and celestial kingdoms and so forth.

[Zioneer]

Supposedly, back when ending the ban was discussed in 1969, one Apostle said that they should wait for a revelation from God to make sure that ending it was the right course of action. Since it wasn't unanimous, nothing was changed until 1978, when after years of frequent prayer and fasting about the issue, LDS prophet/president of the church Spencer W Kimball brought all of the apostles together in the Salt Lake Temple to ask the Lord about it again, which brought forth the revelation that the ban should be ended.

1978.

The reality is that pressure from President Carter who was ready to bring down the weight of the IRS on their 501(c) non profit status probably had more of an effect than a clique of white men praying...

I'm just pointing out the official story. Also, there were other reasons. For example, the church was going in numbers in Brazil, which is of course heavily mixed ethnically. It was beginning to be impossible to tell whether someone had African heritage, and in fact, back in the late 1950s or early 1960s, the policy became "unless it can be proved they have African heritage, let them have the priesthood and be baptized".

 Additionally, there had been independent converts from Africa and heavily African-American inner cities in the US who had found the Church and wanted to be baptized, but couldn't be under the policy. They formed the Genesis Group to petition the Church for the right to be baptized and to become as Mormon as they could without officially being Mormons.

And as I said, it might have been removed 9 years early if not for the interference of one Apostle (supposedly it was Harold B Lee, who later became Prophet but suddenly died in less than 2 years as Prophet despite good health).

I'm not excusing it; I think the ban was horrifically racist, ungodly, and I condemn Brigham Young for starting it (Joseph Smith ordained several black men to the priesthood before his death), I'm just pointing out that there were other internal reasons for the lifting of the ban. Externally, President Carter's IRS may have been an issue, but it wasn't the only reason.

Supposedly, back when ending the ban was discussed in 1969, one Apostle said that they should wait for a revelation from God to make sure that ending it was the right course of action. Since it wasn't unanimous, nothing was changed until 1978, when after years of frequent prayer and fasting about the issue, LDS prophet/president of the church Spencer W Kimball brought all of the apostles together in the Salt Lake Temple to ask the Lord about it again, which brought forth the revelation that the ban should be ended.

1978.

The reality is that pressure from President Carter who was ready to bring down the weight of the IRS on their 501(c) non profit status probably had more of an effect than a clique of white men praying...

That really was in play at the time? I never heard of that. Carter would have lost that one in court if he had tried to go there, but the litigation would have been disastrous for the LDS.

In looking into it further, I can see that BYU (as opposed to the LDS itself) might have lost its tax exempt status, because its policies provided for expulsion for those who engaged in interracial dating. I was unaware that such a ban as part of the LDS theology, as opposed to its racist tenets at the time  about the priesthood, and celestial kingdoms and so forth.

It was a part of the theology at the time, but I'm firmed convinced that it never had any divine approval, and was merely a racist policy that had been entrenched for years and was thus considered doctrine. And there were LDS leaders who were opposed to the ban. Again, if the 1969 story is true, all but one apostle was willing to give the ban up in 1969, a time when a lot of Americans were still pretty racist. 1978 was too late (about... one hundred and thirty or so years too late, the ban started soon after Joseph Smith's death).