Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cinepro

President Nelson and Change

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Well, the prediction was not one that was limited to just a certain portion of members.  I agree that the revelation on the priesthood was "a pretty big change" (and not just for blacks), and we also agree that it was not massive enough to cause the church to become unrecognizable.

Maybe they will bring polygamy back?  Now that would shake things up :) 

Well it certainly made the Church look different, but not unrecognizable.  But again it depends on which era of the Church you use for comparison.

As for polygamy, I'm comfortable saying it will never be part of the LDS Church again.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, JulieM said:

No, certainly not “unrecognizable”.  That would have to be extreme changes.  I’ll bet to those outside the church, these new changes don’t mean that much (if they even know about them.). Even when the priesthood change happened (and it was much more extreme a change), the church was still recognizable, I think.

What major changes would even make the LDS church “unrecognizable in culture and structure”?  I’m not sure that’s really even possible to do.

Change in dress would be one.  I prefer dresses but since you asked :).  And women on the stand.  Why not? 

Also, no more casseroles, and Eliminating the old fashioned terms brother and sister.  That would be something.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/18/2019 at 3:09 PM, cinepro said:

We've talked a lot about the changes President Nelson has made to the Church in the past year, but as I've thought about the recent changes to the missionary communication policy, I feel that there may be something that both the critics and TBMs are overlooking.

Obviously, each change brings a flood of Facebook memes from believers about the latest "revelation", attributing the change to divine intervention.  Conversely, critics immediately write them off as some combination of obvious, lacking, superfluous. 

But both groups failed to see something that perhaps will be obvious in hindsight:

President Nelson is quite possible the first President of the Church in the last 100 years who is an actual "change agent."  Meaning, President Nelson is the first leader we've had that sees his role as one of change, not loyalty to the past and being chained down by policy and tradition.

And why is this?  Because he is the first General Authority that comes from a culture where change was required and respected, and where he excelled at being innovative.  Specifically, his experience as a cutting-edge (pun intended) heart surgeon, where he was instrumental in developing new procedures that revolutionized that area of medicine.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTq0Pht4ybGj7lGO5FF0HY

While I consider previous Prophets to be good and inspired men, they were all brought up in the Church bureaucracy in such a way that they most likely saw themselves as loyal stewards of the past.

President Monson - Worked for Deseret News, the Church Press, called as Apostle at 36.

President Hinckley - Seminary teacher, Sunday School board, various church committees.

President Hunter - Lawyer.  While I have great respect for lawyers, they are trained to honor precedence and argue for their position.  It is not a profession that fosters "change" thinking.

President Benson - Farmer, government worker.

President Kimball - Insurance broker.

and so on...

So my theory is that President Nelson hasn't approached his office as one who has been called to preserve the traditions and policies of the Church (and not step on the toes of those who came before him).

Instead, he is approaching it like an innovative surgeon.  If the Church is a "body", and it is imperfect, then Nelson is going to do what is most needed and effective to help it get better.  He'll do the least necessary, but he's not afraid to use a scalpel and go in and make changes.  And it doesn't matter how precious a policy or tradition was to those who came before him.

The odd thing is, if I'm right, how no one saw it coming.  Both critics and Church members get so hyper-focused in what they want to see, no one said "Hey, this guy comes from a very different culture and has accomplished very different kinds of things, so this could be a very different kind of Presidency..." 

And sadly, I don't know that anyone else in the immediate line of succession has any indication of being this kind of leader. 

Pres. Nelson definitely is a leader and leads big time!

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/18/2019 at 3:09 PM, cinepro said:

We've talked a lot about the changes President Nelson has made to the Church in the past year, but as I've thought about the recent changes to the missionary communication policy, I feel that there may be something that both the critics and TBMs are overlooking.

Obviously, each change brings a flood of Facebook memes from believers about the latest "revelation", attributing the change to divine intervention.  Conversely, critics immediately write them off as some combination of obvious, lacking, superfluous. 

But both groups failed to see something that perhaps will be obvious in hindsight:

President Nelson is quite possible the first President of the Church in the last 100 years who is an actual "change agent."  Meaning, President Nelson is the first leader we've had that sees his role as one of change, not loyalty to the past and being chained down by policy and tradition.

And why is this?  Because he is the first General Authority that comes from a culture where change was required and respected, and where he excelled at being innovative.  Specifically, his experience as a cutting-edge (pun intended) heart surgeon, where he was instrumental in developing new procedures that revolutionized that area of medicine.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTq0Pht4ybGj7lGO5FF0HY

While I consider previous Prophets to be good and inspired men, they were all brought up in the Church bureaucracy in such a way that they most likely saw themselves as loyal stewards of the past.

President Monson - Worked for Deseret News, the Church Press, called as Apostle at 36.

President Hinckley - Seminary teacher, Sunday School board, various church committees.

President Hunter - Lawyer.  While I have great respect for lawyers, they are trained to honor precedence and argue for their position.  It is not a profession that fosters "change" thinking.

President Benson - Farmer, government worker.

President Kimball - Insurance broker.

and so on...

So my theory is that President Nelson hasn't approached his office as one who has been called to preserve the traditions and policies of the Church (and not step on the toes of those who came before him).

Instead, he is approaching it like an innovative surgeon.  If the Church is a "body", and it is imperfect, then Nelson is going to do what is most needed and effective to help it get better.  He'll do the least necessary, but he's not afraid to use a scalpel and go in and make changes.  And it doesn't matter how precious a policy or tradition was to those who came before him.

The odd thing is, if I'm right, how no one saw it coming.  Both critics and Church members get so hyper-focused in what they want to see, no one said "Hey, this guy comes from a very different culture and has accomplished very different kinds of things, so this could be a very different kind of Presidency..." 

And sadly, I don't know that anyone else in the immediate line of succession has any indication of being this kind of leader. 

What's odd is that the changes, it seems, have been worked on for years.  This is just the time that they've come out, the time they've been getting implemented.  If so, one wonders if it's nelson or just the enterprise itself trying to adapt to the changing world.  Everyone thought the missionary age change was hugemungous (I think I made that word up), or something, what about the campaign to raise the bar?  or the Nov 2015 policy change?  Dropping scouts.  Were they all Nelson too?  I know our stake were piloting what came to be the ministering program years before it was out and aobut.  I guess all the changes could have been thought of by him, but I'm guessing he's just the figure at the top, letting the processes previously decided upon play out.  I think that's why he's telling everyone to eat up some vitamins, because he already knows the things that are in the pipeline of change, which pipeline existed and was put in place some time before his reign started.  

I like change.  I'd like to see more of course.  But, I don't know that it has anything to do with from whence the presidents came--although I do think the eschewing the nickname thing was largely a nelson thing.  On this hand, I say, I don't know that Nelson got into his position and felt inspired to cutting it back to 2 hours on Sundays.  it was probably under consideration before he took the helm.  On the other one of these hands, I'd guess he has been a bit ticked that no one seemed to jump on board with his desire to drop the nickname and set 'em all straight when he had the powers to do so.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

What's odd is that the changes, it seems, have been worked on for years.  This is just the time that they've come out, the time they've been getting implemented.  If so, one wonders if it's nelson or just the enterprise itself trying to adapt to the changing world.  Everyone thought the missionary age change was hugemungous (I think I made that word up), or something, what about the campaign to raise the bar?  or the Nov 2015 policy change?  Dropping scouts.  Were they all Nelson too?  I know our stake were piloting what came to be the ministering program years before it was out and aobut.  I guess all the changes could have been thought of by him, but I'm guessing he's just the figure at the top, letting the processes previously decided upon play out.  I think that's why he's telling everyone to eat up some vitamins, because he already knows the things that are in the pipeline of change, which pipeline existed and was put in place some time before his reign started.  

I like change.  I'd like to see more of course.  But, I don't know that it has anything to do with from whence the presidents came--although I do think the eschewing the nickname thing was largely a nelson thing.  On this hand, I say, I don't know that Nelson got into his position and felt inspired to cutting it back to 2 hours on Sundays.  it was probably under consideration before he took the helm.  On the other one of these hands, I'd guess he has been a bit ticked that no one seemed to jump on board with his desire to drop the nickname and set 'em all straight when he had the powers to do so.  

I was thinking that too, every Presidency be it Church or Politics, inherits stuff, President Snow didn't create a financial crisis, President John Taylor didn't iniate polygamy, President Woodruff didn't start the Salt Lake Temple, President Kimball didn't start the Priesthood ban but all these Presidents inherited what others started and they had to deal with the aftermaths of other's decisions, so where President Nelson is on this continuum is who knows

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/18/2019 at 3:21 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

I've mentioned on this forum about half a dozen times or so how Elder Bednar visited us four or five years ago and told us that massive changes were coming that would leave the Church unrecognisable in culture and structure. Whatever 'it' is, the apostles seem to have known for some years that it was coming.

 

That's what I'm saying.  These changes, aside from dropping the nickname, I imagine, have been considered for years.  I'm sure, Nelson having' been a prominent figure in the 15 had something to do with it, but I don't know it's all because of him.  But this note you offer resonates well with me.  I've said a number of times myself, if a member from 1835 was picked up and planted in the middle of the Church in 1870, it'd be unrecognizable to him.  If one from 1870 was picked up and dropped into the Church in 1928 it'd be unrecognizable to him.  If a member from 1928 was picked up and dropped into the middle of it in 1980, well, he'd likely find nothing recognizable.  Changes come and some go.  Some seem good and others seem bad or useless.  I guess we'll see.  

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

And sadly, I don't know that anyone else in the immediate line of succession has any indication of being this kind of leader. 

The Lord will prepare and choose the individual best fitted to do the work that is required at that time.

Not "sadly", but Hallelujah!

Edited by cdowis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

As for polygamy, I'm comfortable saying it will never be part of the LDS Church again.

The principle of polygamy is practiced in the temples today.

Edited by cdowis

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well it certainly made the Church look different, but not unrecognizable.  But again it depends on which era of the Church you use for comparison.

As for polygamy, I'm comfortable saying it will never be part of the LDS Church again.

You are talking about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints before the Second Coming of the Christ, I presume when speaking of polygamy.

Glenn

Edited by Glenn101
clarification

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, cdowis said:

The principle of polygamy is practiced in the temples today.

True enough I suppose.  I was referring to the temporal Church as we have it today.  Eternity also remains.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

You are talking about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints before the Second Coming of the Christ, I presume when speaking of polygamy.

Glenn

Of course.  When the earthly Church transitions into Christ's directly ruled kingdom over all the earth much will differ from the Church today.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I believe Pres. Kimball was the last Prophet to actually state he'd received a revelation (blacks and the priesthood).  That was a pretty big change.  But not massive enough to cause the church to become unrecognizable.  Once again, I'm not sure what it would take for that to take place.  

If you think that you haven’t been paying attention

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

If you think that you haven’t been paying attention

Then what changes do you believe would need to take place to cause the church to become "unrecognizable in culture and structure"?  

Do you believe that's already happened?  (Trying to figure out what you meant by your post.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What's odd is that the changes, it seems, have been worked on for years.  This is just the time that they've come out, the time they've been getting implemented.  If so, one wonders if it's nelson or just the enterprise itself trying to adapt to the changing world.  Everyone thought the missionary age change was hugemungous (I think I made that word up), or something, what about the campaign to raise the bar?  or the Nov 2015 policy change?  Dropping scouts.  Were they all Nelson too?  I know our stake were piloting what came to be the ministering program years before it was out and aobut.  I guess all the changes could have been thought of by him, but I'm guessing he's just the figure at the top, letting the processes previously decided upon play out.  I think that's why he's telling everyone to eat up some vitamins, because he already knows the things that are in the pipeline of change, which pipeline existed and was put in place some time before his reign started.  

I like change.  I'd like to see more of course.  But, I don't know that it has anything to do with from whence the presidents came--although I do think the eschewing the nickname thing was largely a nelson thing.  On this hand, I say, I don't know that Nelson got into his position and felt inspired to cutting it back to 2 hours on Sundays.  it was probably under consideration before he took the helm.  On the other one of these hands, I'd guess he has been a bit ticked that no one seemed to jump on board with his desire to drop the nickname and set 'em all straight when he had the powers to do so.  

I get your point about the pipeline of change...BUT it still requires someone at the top to pull the trigger. Pres. Nelson doesn't seem hesitant to pull that trigger and seems to feel comfortable identifying the changes as the result of revelation. So perhaps it was the previous 1st Presidency that put all of these things in motion yet Pres. Monson wasn't in a position to be the strong leader to implement the change. That's possible, and if so, it would seem Uchtdorf would be deserving of some of the praise. In any case, change in a large institution doesn't happen overnight, yet it still requires leadership.

ETA- I've seen a lot from Pres. Nelson and Pres. Oaks over the past year but very little from Pres. Eyring. Does anyone know how his health is?

Quote

 

Edited by HappyJackWagon

Share this post


Link to post

I don' t consider any of these changes anything more than tuning.  

On my mission in the 1970s we could call home any time we wanted.   The trouble was that it would cost over $100 for a five minute call.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I get your point about the pipeline of change...BUT it still requires someone at the top to pull the trigger. Pres. Nelson doesn't seem hesitant to pull that trigger and seems to feel comfortable identifying the changes as the result of revelation. So perhaps it was the previous 1st Presidency that put all of these things in motion yet Pres. Monson wasn't in a position to be the strong leader to implement the change. That's possible, and if so, it would seem Uchtdorf would be deserving of some of the praise. In any case, change in a large institution doesn't happen overnight, yet it still requires leadership.

ETA- I've seen a lot from Pres. Nelson and Pres. Oaks over the past year but very little from Pres. Eyring. Does anyone know how his health is?

 

I've never been at the top of an organization, but sitting at the bottom watching the one at the top get the credit for all my efforts is a bit surreal sometimes.  I just think we're crediting him too much with this.  But good for him in letting these little changes happen, at the very least.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don' t consider any of these changes anything more than tuning.  

On my mission in the 1970s we could call home any time we wanted.   The trouble was that it would cost over $100 for a five minute call.

Good point.  It's kind of a silly issue now.  I'm sure the Church decided to make it a rule because some missionaries could call home and the family would happily accept the bill while others weren't willing to accept such a cost.  Its likely they wanted to be fair.  On my mission, the whole can't call home was attributed, every time it was ever brought up, with it would distract us.  I think that's been the reasoning for quite some time now since cost can't possibly be the issue.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I've never been at the top of an organization, but sitting at the bottom watching the one at the top get the credit for all my efforts is a bit surreal sometimes.  I just think we're crediting him too much with this.  But good for him in letting these little changes happen, at the very least.  

I understand.

IMO- the man at the top gets the majority of the criticism so I don't have a problem with him getting a big chunk of the praise. But of course you're right, that a leader doesn't accomplish everything on his/her own.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I understand.

IMO- the man at the top gets the majority of the criticism so I don't have a problem with him getting a big chunk of the praise. But of course you're right, that a leader doesn't accomplish everything on his/her own.

Criticizing Nelson is sinful.  Any criticism he receives is from outside.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/19/2019 at 8:37 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

I believe it's a combination of the 2. Pres. Nelson clearly believes he is receiving inspiration/revelation.

I believe this to be the case as well.  My former bishop who works for the Church and has some close contracts with the apostles gave our Elders quorum some information he received that this is the case.  But I am not to inclined to post it here as I don't know if I should.  But suffice to say if correct he is getting more than we realize.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm sure the Church decided to make it a rule because some missionaries could call home and the family would happily accept the bill while others weren't willing to accept such a cost.  Its likely they wanted to be fair.

I suspect this was a large part of the reason. I served in the 90s, but my mission president had altered the general guidelines in our mission to allow us to ring home for any major holiday or family birthday. This came to an end when a Sister in our mission racked up a US$800 phone bill one month and couldn't pay it. That was towards the end of my mission, though, and to be honest, I was kind of glad to be able to tell my family not to expect as much contact from me. (I served my last four transfers as an assistant, and I just bought a stack of postcards to send out one per week.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

But suffice to say if correct he is getting more than we realize.

As I've noted numerous times on this board in the past, I would be stunned if the apostles were in receipt of less revelation than I am. I remember hearing Pres Packer state about 20 years ago that the vaults of the Church were filled with revelations to the apostles. My own 'vault' is no different.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/18/2019 at 10:55 PM, Broker said:

"loyal stewards of the past"???

President Nelson has made many "course corrections"  in the short time he's been the Church President.  But so far, nothing compared to the major course corrections introduced by President Kimball with the priesthood, scripture revision and the reorganization of the Seventy..

 

 

And it was Russel M. Nelson that saved Pres. Kimball’s life.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...