Popular Post Gray Posted October 31, 2018 Popular Post Posted October 31, 2018 Interesting comment from Sister Nelson about President Nelson finally feeling free to make changes he's wanted to make for years. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/latter-day-saint-prophet-wife-apostle-share-insights-global-ministry Quote “I can fight tears pretty well, but when it comes to … witnessing about the prophet of the Lord, I feel it deeply every time,” said Sister Nelson. “It's quite incredible. It catches me off ‑guard.” “I have seen him changing in the last ten months,” said Sister Nelson. “It is as though he's been unleashed. He's free to finally do what he came to earth to do. … And also, he's free to follow through with things he's been concerned about but could never do. Now that he's president of [the Church], he can do those things.” That would definitely include abandoning the name Mormon, as he has been concerned with that for many decades. Kind of gives you a window into the politics of the senior leadership. Not everyone agrees with everything, but they do present a united front. 8
JLHPROF Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 I have issues with this, but most members wouldn't. 2
Popular Post JAHS Posted October 31, 2018 Popular Post Posted October 31, 2018 I think God reserves certain things for specific prophets according to their talents and gifts and according to how ready the church is to receive those certain policy changes and/or new doctrines. 9
Gray Posted October 31, 2018 Author Posted October 31, 2018 18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I have issues with this, but most members wouldn't. What are your issues?
ALarson Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, JAHS said: I think God reserves certain things for specific prophets according to their talents and gifts and according to how ready the church is to receive those certain policy changes and/or new doctrines. What changes do you believe may actually be "new doctrines"? (Just curious....) I've got to say that from my observations (in my ward), not much has changed regarding using the full and proper name of the church. I've paid close attention (in lessons, talks and also in conversations, etc.) and most everyone still says "the Mormon church" or "they're a Mormon" and still use the term Mormon pretty much as often as prior to this attempted change. The only place I've really seen a difference is in our Bishopric meetings as our Bishop asked us to really make this effort and we have. Edited October 31, 2018 by ALarson 1
HappyJackWagon Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 9 minutes ago, ALarson said: What changes do you believe may actually be "new doctrines"? (Just curious....) I've got to say that from my observations (in my ward), not much has changed regarding using the full and proper name of the church. I've paid close attention (in lessons, talks and also in conversations, etc.) and most everyone still says "the Mormon church" or "they're a Mormon" and still use the term Mormon pretty much as often as prior to this attempted change. The only place I've really seen a difference is in our Bishopric meetings as our Bishop asked us to really make this effort and we have. To be fair, one can hardly expect the general membership to do this when the institutional church is still working to be in compliance with the policy. In church I've always heard "LDS" more than Mormon. At least in my area it seems use of "Mormon" is usually saved for personal conversations with non-members. Of course LDS isn't proper either so...maybe people are just throwing up their hands and going with "Mormon" again. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 50 minutes ago, Gray said: Interesting comment from Sister Nelson about President Nelson finally feeling free to make changes he's wanted to make for years. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/latter-day-saint-prophet-wife-apostle-share-insights-global-ministry That would definitely include abandoning the name Mormon, as he has been concerned with that for many decades. Kind of gives you a window into the politics of the senior leadership. Not everyone agrees with everything, but they do present a united front. I quoted this same section on another thread but it got deleted I've been having problems posting lately. In any case, it seems clear that "revelation" may be synonymous with "agenda". Pres. Nelson has had some long term beliefs about the way things work in the church and only now that he is President, can he make those changes. I'm wondering how he views revelation playing a role. Was it revelation in the 80's when he first spoke about "Mormon" and that revelation is now more important because he's president? Or is it a current revelation telling him that his long-held position needs to be enacted now? It seems to me that he receives revelation just like every other president, but he talks about it differently to make it feel more momentous, or to give the actions greater authority/import. I wonder if he felt the previous presidents didn't receive revelation as they acted in ways contrary to his personal preference, or if he's simply a firm believer in Benson's 14 fundamentals, especially the one about the living prophet being more important than a dead prophet.
Popular Post The Nehor Posted October 31, 2018 Popular Post Posted October 31, 2018 18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I quoted this same section on another thread but it got deleted I've been having problems posting lately. In any case, it seems clear that "revelation" may be synonymous with "agenda". Pres. Nelson has had some long term beliefs about the way things work in the church and only now that he is President, can he make those changes. I'm wondering how he views revelation playing a role. Was it revelation in the 80's when he first spoke about "Mormon" and that revelation is now more important because he's president? Or is it a current revelation telling him that his long-held position needs to be enacted now? It seems to me that he receives revelation just like every other president, but he talks about it differently to make it feel more momentous, or to give the actions greater authority/import. I wonder if he felt the previous presidents didn't receive revelation as they acted in ways contrary to his personal preference, or if he's simply a firm believer in Benson's 14 fundamentals, especially the one about the living prophet being more important than a dead prophet. Why the division? Why can’t his “agenda” have come via “revelation”? 9
HappyJackWagon Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 6 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Why the division? Why can’t his “agenda” have come via “revelation”? It could, that's why I wondered about how Pres. Nelson sees revelation playing a role. Was it revelation in the 80's when he first spoke about "Mormon" or is it only revelation when he's prophet deciding to act on his previous beliefs. If the agenda came via revelation it would seem the revelation had a post-date far into the future. I suppose that's possible but I've never heard him address how the agenda was revelation, so that's just speculation.
The Nehor Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 10 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: It could, that's why I wondered about how Pres. Nelson sees revelation playing a role. Was it revelation in the 80's when he first spoke about "Mormon" or is it only revelation when he's prophet deciding to act on his previous beliefs. If the agenda came via revelation it would seem the revelation had a post-date far into the future. I suppose that's possible but I've never heard him address how the agenda was revelation, so that's just speculation. He got the revelation before he could use it and had it confirmed now is the time to use it. Happens all the time on the local level of the church. 4
Prof Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 It has been said that "God works in mysterious ways." Perhaps the changing of prophets and there agendas is simply God working. 2
HappyJackWagon Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 1 minute ago, Prof said: It has been said that "God works in mysterious ways." Perhaps the changing of prophets and there agendas is simply God working. When we rely on "mysterious ways" as an explanation, literally ANYTHING is possible. 3 minutes ago, The Nehor said: He got the revelation before he could use it and had it confirmed now is the time to use it. Happens all the time on the local level of the church. How so? Can you give examples of how this happens all the time at the local level? Does a person receive personal revelation about how the ward should be run so that 20 years down the road when he is called as bishop he can implement that revelation? I've never heard that philosophy before.
CV75 Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gray said: Interesting comment from Sister Nelson about President Nelson finally feeling free to make changes he's wanted to make for years. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/latter-day-saint-prophet-wife-apostle-share-insights-global-ministry That would definitely include abandoning the name Mormon, as he has been concerned with that for many decades. Kind of gives you a window into the politics of the senior leadership. Not everyone agrees with everything, but they do present a united front. I had a revelation to join the Church and had to wait 5 years (through no fault of my own) to fulfil that revelation or prophecy. I was happy to finally realize that in the Lord’s timing. An Apostle can likewise have revelations and yet lack the Lord’s timing, the personal preparation or the keys to carry them out. As with me, he waited upon the Lord, may have gained a measure of personal preparation necessary to carry things out, and relied on the proper use of the keys (in this case, those of the First Presidency and Twelve) to make things happen. 3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: How so? Can you give examples of how this happens all the time at the local level? Does a person receive personal revelation about how the ward should be run so that 20 years down the road when he is called as bishop he can implement that revelation? I've never heard that philosophy before. See above... Edited October 31, 2018 by CV75 3
stemelbow Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 12 minutes ago, The Nehor said: He got the revelation before he could use it and had it confirmed now is the time to use it. Happens all the time on the local level of the church. Did his revelation include the part about Satan smiling or whatever it was? Just curious since that wasn't said, it seems, in earlier version of his push to go away from Mormon. I wonder how revelation apologists will view things when in time this particular revelation fades out and no one cares about calling the church Mormon again.
Kenngo1969 Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 (edited) Gray, How sure are you that what you have in mind when you think of "those things" and what Sister Nelson has in mind when she uses that clause are the same things? Isn't this whole discussion rather moot without knowing the latter? Do you doubt or discount the proposition that several of the recent changes that have been made in the way the Church of Jesus Christ operates actually have been under consideration for some time? If so, why? Just wonderin'! -Ken Edited October 31, 2018 by Kenngo1969 4
The Nehor Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 30 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Did his revelation include the part about Satan smiling or whatever it was? Just curious since that wasn't said, it seems, in earlier version of his push to go away from Mormon. I wonder how revelation apologists will view things when in time this particular revelation fades out and no one cares about calling the church Mormon again. You are assuming it will die out. 1
The Nehor Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 41 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: How so? Can you give examples of how this happens all the time at the local level? Does a person receive personal revelation about how the ward should be run so that 20 years down the road when he is called as bishop he can implement that revelation? I've never heard that philosophy before. Knowing who needs to fill a calling before it is even vacant or expected to be vacant and little things like that. 3
Popular Post MiserereNobis Posted October 31, 2018 Popular Post Posted October 31, 2018 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: He got the revelation before he could use it and had it confirmed now is the time to use it. Happens all the time on the local level of the church. So he got the revelation 20 years ago to stop using the word Mormon... then the prophet at the time instituted the "I am a Mormon" campaign. Wouldn't Nelson's revelation contradicted the current prophet at the time's revelation? Wouldn't that be seen as problematic? 5
JAHS Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 2 hours ago, ALarson said: What changes do you believe may actually be "new doctrines"? (Just curious....) Like, instructions on how to resurrect someone. Most likely a future prophet.
Popular Post cinepro Posted October 31, 2018 Popular Post Posted October 31, 2018 (edited) Even though I was young, I remember my dad mentioning that when President Benson became prophet, there were some who feared his history as a far-right firebrand would compromise his presidency or his ability to lead the Church (or influence him to lead the Church in a direction that would alienate more moderate or left-leaning members). Now that he was Prophet, he could "canonize" his views on anything he wanted. But that didn't happen. All anyone remembers him for is his talk on "Pride" and emphasis on The Book of Mormon. No anti-evolution rhetoric. No overt politics. I'm sure President Benson had decades worth of pet peeves and ideas on how to make the Church better, but that didn't happen. To the degree that my memory and impressions are correct, that is a stark contrast to what Sister Nelson is describing. Honestly, I hope it doesn't create a precedent where each succeeding Prophet feels like he's had decades of revelation that he now gets to implement. Maybe someone should make a nice framed cross-stitch to hang in the Prophet's office that says "It's not about you." Because frankly, I'm not sure I want to find out what's been bugging Elder Bednar all these years. Edited October 31, 2018 by cinepro 8
RevTestament Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 2 hours ago, Gray said: Interesting comment from Sister Nelson about President Nelson finally feeling free to make changes he's wanted to make for years. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/latter-day-saint-prophet-wife-apostle-share-insights-global-ministry That would definitely include abandoning the name Mormon, as he has been concerned with that for many decades. Kind of gives you a window into the politics of the senior leadership. Not everyone agrees with everything, but they do present a united front. This has been true from the beginning. Apostles disagreed, got excommunicated, etc. It's not like you are revealing some new truth. Paul disagreed with Peter. Orson Pratt disagreed with Brigham Young, etc. Actually, our very law recognizes that the apostles will not always agree, but that to move forward on new "decisions" they must be in agreement. This is an attempt to ensure that the Lord's will for that particular time is being followed. It doesn't mean it will never change. The scout program was chosen for many years as the maturation program for young priesthood members, but the scouting program changed, and the Church changed. They have grown apart. While using "Mormon" may have been OK in frontier America, when the whole world starts calling us the "Mormon Church" maybe it's not so OK anymore, and is finally time to change. I wish the Church had gotten over its persecuted ethos a long time ago, and taught to respond differently - then maybe we would not be faced with the issue now - but I am glad that Nelson is taking it more seriously, and personally believe it is about time that the leaders lead the way rather than kowtowing to the habits and norms of the intermountain west membership. We will see how long the membership is willing to follow. 3
Oliblish Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: He got the revelation before he could use it and had it confirmed now is the time to use it. Happens all the time on the local level of the church. According to Dallin H. Oaks only the president of the church can receive revelation to guide the entire church. Maybe there is an exception for apostles who will become the president later. Quote We should understand what can be called the principle of "stewardship in revelation." Our Heavenly Father's house is a house of order, where his servants are commanded to act in the office in which [they are] appointed (D&C 107:99). This principle applies to revelation. Only the President of the Church receives revelation to guide the entire Church. Only the Stake President receives revelation for the special guidance of the Stake. The person who receives revelation for the Ward is the Bishop. For a family, it is the priesthood leadership of the family. Leaders receive revelation for their own stewardships. Individuals can receive revelation to guide their own lives. But when one person purports to receive revelation for another person outside his or her own stewardship--such as a Church member who claims to have revelation to guide the entire Church or a person who claims to have a revelation to guide another person over whom he or she has no presiding authority according to the order of the Church--you can be sure that such revelations are not from the Lord. If a revelation is outside the limits of stewardship, you know it is not from the Lord, and you are not bound by it. I have heard of cases where a young man told a young woman she should marry him because he had received a revelation that she was to be his eternal companion. If this is a true revelation, it will be confirmed directly to the woman if she seeks to know. In the meantime, she is under no obligation to heed it. She should seek her own guidance and make up her own mind. The man can receive revelation to guide his own actions but he cannot properly receive revelation to direct hers. She is outside his stewardship. (Dallin H. Oaks, "Revelation," Speeches of the Year, 1981, p. 25) ETA: emphasis Edited October 31, 2018 by Oliblish
Popular Post halconero Posted October 31, 2018 Popular Post Posted October 31, 2018 My sense is that the Lord will give revelations to his future Presidents in preparation for their ministries, with the caveat of "not yet." I have no problem with a "leashed" President Nelson receiving revelations in preparation for his ministry now. It doesn't make the old presidents wrong, nor does it mean the revelations not valid. 8
Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 (edited) From time to time we see the phrase “raised up” applied to prophets and leaders, as in “the Lord has raised him up at this time to accomplish such and such a purpose.” If one accepts the idea that the Lord operates in this way, one can reasonably and easily accept the likelihood that He in His foreknowledge has planted in the minds of President Nelson and others certain ideas and intents that would be ripe for implementation about the time that the leader was given authority to implement them. That said, Kengo made a good point about the changes having been under discussion among the Brethren for some time. President Nelson does not work in a vacuum. Edited October 31, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 4
Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2018 Posted October 31, 2018 15 minutes ago, RevTestament said: This has been true from the beginning. Apostles disagreed, got excommunicated, etc. It's not like you are revealing some new truth. Paul disagreed with Peter. Orson Pratt disagreed with Brigham Young, etc. Actually, our very law recognizes that the apostles will not always agree, but that to move forward on new "decisions" they must be in agreement. This is an attempt to ensure that the Lord's will for that particular time is being followed. It doesn't mean it will never change. The scout program was chosen for many years as the maturation program for young priesthood members, but the scouting program changed, and the Church changed. They have grown apart. While using "Mormon" may have been OK in frontier America, when the whole world starts calling us the "Mormon Church" maybe it's not so OK anymore, and is finally time to change. I wish the Church had gotten over its persecuted ethos a long time ago, and taught to respond differently - then maybe we would not be faced with the issue now - but I am glad that Nelson is taking it more seriously, and personally believe it is about time that the leaders lead the way rather than kowtowing to the habits and norms of the intermountain west membership. We will see how long the membership is willing to follow. A pretty good post here is marred by your making it an issue of not “kowtowing to the habits and norms of the Intermountain West membership.” What resistance I have observed to President Nelson’s changes has not been geographically limited. Within the past couple of days, for example, I’ve observed someone on this board who lives on the East Coast fussing over the announced discontinuance of the Hill Cumorah Pageant.
Recommended Posts