by

How do you take the measure of a prophet? Is it by the prophecies he delivers? By his leadership in building the kingdom? The way he exemplifies Christ and treats those around him? Is such an exercise even appropriate, or does faith require us to assume that every prophet is a successful prophet?

Thomas S. Monson gave his life to church service and to the Lord in a way that very few have been asked to. In his public addresses, he was more a poet than a theologian, but I also think of him as the world’s foremost hometeacher—the funny old guy who can wiggle his ears, tell a good yarn, share a brief message that leaves the family feeling good, and help out during times of trouble. And he was more than that, of course—he could be audacious, organized, charismatic, private.

Above all, I think he’ll be remembered for caring about people, and he implemented that compassion and Christ-like charity as the fourth mission of the church: Care for the poor and needy.

He was a beloved leader who was in the Mormon spotlight almost all his adult life.

But gosh, the 10 years of his presidency were difficult. I’ll probably look back on this era not as one of increased compassion and charity, but as a divisive period when so many friends and loved ones left the church. I don’t know if that’s fair to President Monson. The world changed so fast during his tenure, and I may never know which church actions and policies should be attributed to him. There isn’t a lot of information about his deteriorating mental faculties, the mechanics of how specific decisions were made, or his views on crucial issues.

From the outside, it does seem like after so many decades of witnessing church administration and contributing his considerable talents to it, when it was his turn at the helm the seas turned choppy and the wind was against him. I have no idea if that’s due to church structures, his leadership skill, his age, his infirmities, societal shifts toward secularism, or anything else.

Prophets shouldn’t be evaluated like corporate CEOs, and these are likely the wrong ways to measure a committed servant and a faithful man like President Monson.

But from what I can tell, church growth has slowed, member retention is tough, and I’m not sure our public visibility and perception are particularly glowing right now. The kerfuffle yesterday over the New York Times headline was a reminder that we don’t always get to frame the narrative, that others might not see us or our leaders the way we do.

However Mormons view ourselves, we aren’t necessarily viewed by others as an inclusive, nurturing church. Not by the “liberal elites” at The Times, but also not by many of the rank-and-file members who’ve left over the past decade. The “needy” (ugh that word) includes members who are suffering from faith crises; our LBGTQ brothers and sisters and their family and friends; those of us seeking further wisdom about Heavenly Mother and the role of women in the kingdom; minorities who still, in the 21st century, don’t feel welcome in their ward. We can dismiss these as edge cases, but so was the lost sheep (only 1% of the flock!). Our institutional (in)ability to welcome people, include everyone, and care for the poor and needy became a reason for my friends to leave. It became a subject of divisiveness instead of a reason to stay engaged and excited about the church.

The sustained exodus of people I care about is a difficult thing to get past, and whether or not it’s a trend that’s felt church-wide, it’s a personal tragedy to me. It will always color my perception of the Monson Era, though perhaps not President Monson himself. Have we lived up to that fourth mission of the church that he espoused?

It’s difficult for me to think of a Zion that doesn’t include the friends and family who’ve drifted away, especially because inclusion, care for the needy, and seeking out lost souls should be what we’re best at. I believe President Monson would agree.