When Thomas S. Monson died last week, I wasn’t surprised. The man was 90, for fuck’s sake. Even with all the premium healthcare I’m sure he’s received it couldn’t have been easy to keep that saggy bag of wind alive. But the death of the LDS prophet caused me to reflect briefly on my own experience of the man and his office.
I was born during the reign of Ezra Taft Benson over the people of Brigham. For those keeping score, yes, I’m old. For those not, let it be understood that I was too young to remember Benson, or his death, OR the ordination of his successor, Howard W. Hunter, or *his* death nine short months later, OR the ordination of *his* successor, Gordon B. Hinckley. Outside of memorizing their names from the primary song, I have no recollection of these men, or their words, or their policies. I DO, of course, remember Gordon B. Hinckley.
When I was a boy, I thought GBH was THE prophet. He looked the part: kindly, white-haired, soft-spoken, wielding his cane humorously to the loud acclaim of his followers. He projected a certain intelligence and charisma I felt appropriate to the mantle upon his shoulders, that of leading the church - and, so the dogma goes, the unheeding world. And though everyone loved and respected GBH, the man we all came to conference to hear was his long-time first counselor (and not-so secret heir apparent) Thomas S. Monson.
Isn’t it odd that the church is so obsessed with initials? When I saw the obituary in the New York Times, I couldn’t help but catch on the liberal use of the monikers “Thomas Monson” and “Mr. Monson.” To the mormon ear, TMB and apostate alike, anything other that the full name pf the leadership with initials intact strikes the ear as rhythmically gauche. “Thomas S. Monson.” Regardless, that’s where I first saw the announcement of Monson’s death. I remembered that I was a senior in high school when Monson succeeded Hinckley. I remember thinking vaguely (already emotionally and mentally done with the church): well, maybe he’ll make some changes for the better, be the more liberal leader so many in the church seemed to want - someone to appeal to the youth and the nostalgia of the old. Clearly, this didn’t happen.
As a kid, I used to perk up in conference when Monson would get up to speak. In retrospect this had less to do with a personal inclination to him, and all to do with feeling I was supposed to find him charming and witty and folksy. Everyone else did. Was I the odd kid out for thinking that, outside of his practiced, soporific cadences and penchant for long, almost rambling stories with little more moral merit than a Grimm fairy tale, Monson was kind of boring? Everyone adored him. He’s had a cult following among the rank and file membership for as long as I can remember. Obviously, I can’t prove it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if his skill with crowds propelled him up into the leadership faster than some of his older colleagues.
The LDS church is nothing if not obsessed with its public image. In the latter days, Zion has managed quite the extraordinary PR reversal - a titanic effort, by any standard - of totally reinventing itself on the American, and the world, stage. The early days of the church saw it’s rise from upstart Great Awakening religious movement, to trouble-making western expansionists in Missouri, to a full-out anti-government rebellious theocratic king-state during the Brigham Young years. And finally, in the last half of the 20th century, the leadership completed in the turn into the camera-friendly, positive, smiling, all-American, red-blooded, conservative, squeaky-clean institution we know today. And who better to lead that brand at the top of the 21st century than the most positive, squeaky-clean man around?
That very image - Monson’s down-home charm and grandfatherly demeanor - helped to sell the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to an increasingly turbulent world. ‘They may be some odd fuckers, but if they’re leader’s so nice, how bad can they really be?’
How bad can they really be. The smile hides the lie. Without mucking around in statistics, anyone with an internet connection can find the facts about Monson’s accomplishments as president. Youth suicides. Draining membership (hidden by inflated baptismal numbers not accounting for retention). Youth leaving the church en masse. Excessive and overwhelming amounts of debt and pornography in Utah. And, among the worst, the upholding of the condemnations of women and non-heterosexuals within the church. His tenure saw the Mormon and Gay movement - the normalization of sacrificing one’s own identity in favor of god’s supposed favor. This is Monson’s true legacy: a trail of rot and hypocrisy. The church is falling apart. It’s history heavily amended, it’s holy book a work of fiction, its policies outdated and anti-humanitarian. And the internet is killing it. The bleeding has begun, and Monson could not - nor can any of his successors - staunch the tide.
My family was distraught at the announcement of Monson’s death. I know plenty of people who engaged in public mourning for the man, their beloved fallen leader. I for one am happy to see Monson die. He was a man out of his time. The old must be swept away, though in mormonism the old is most often replaced with the old. The most senior apostle takes Monson’s place. According to the understood codes, Russell M. Nelson will be the next president of the church. He stands to be, if anything, worse. Older, if anything, more conservative. What can he possibly hope to bring to this failing institution? If the train-wreck is coming, I’m sure as hell going to get a good seat.
Good riddance, Thomas S. Monson. The world is better off without you.