"Now that he's president of [the Church], he can do those things.”

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, Oliblish said:

 

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.

ETA: emphasis

That would not amount to an exception if the divine intent was that the thing not be implemented until such time as the apostle becomes president of the Church. 

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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?

That assumes that revelation came 20 years ago and no. Not any more then Jesus saying to the Samaritan woman at the well that salvation was in the Jewish faith right now but soon it would not be. He knew what was right then and what would be right in the future. Some revelations are like that.

Edited October 31, 2018 by The Nehor

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

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.

See above...

Good example.

In the case of Pres. Nelson, he would have received the revelation as an apostle. He then would have had access to the other apostles, FP and prophet to share what he believed was revelation from God. So what happened? 1- he never shared his revelation with them or 2- they rejected his revelation  3- they all agreed to wait to implement the revelation until he became prophet

1- if he received revelation I would expect an apostle to share that with the others in top leadership. Would you?

2- If they rejected his revelation, why?

3- If they all agreed to wait, it must not have been all that pressing of a matter

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Knowing who needs to fill a calling before it is even vacant or expected to be vacant and little things like that.

I suppose that could be revelation. But I usually call it "planning". I did it as bishop but I do the same thing at my job. Calling it revelation could apply, I guess, but it seems to import a rather routine activity into a more grandiose one.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I have issues with this, but most members wouldn't.

The only problem that I see with it is if Pres. Nelson was doing things contrary to the will of God and the direction of the spirit.  I don't see that we can make that argument from the quote being discussed.  Is there something else, in your opinion, to take issue with in regards to the quote?

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I suppose that could be revelation. But I usually call it "planning". I did it as bishop but I do the same thing at my job. Calling it revelation could apply, I guess, but it seems to import a rather routine activity into a more grandiose one.

Revelation is often humdrum.

[bluebell]

3 hours 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.

I've noticed most members in my ward working on making the change.  It's a habit that has to be broken but whenever I hear someone use the word 'mormon' or 'lds' they have always corrected themselves.  I think in general that some people will try harder than others to change, and some won't try to change at all.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Knowing who needs to fill a calling before it is even vacant or expected to be vacant and little things like that.

I knew I was going to be the next YW president months before the calling was vacant.  I also knew that I needed to have a certain sister in my presidency two months before I had a vacancy or any way to include her without asking to have some other sister released. I was clearly told not to do that by the spirit, so I waited, and a sister in my presidency unexpectedly moved a few weeks later.

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Well thanks. I do not always explain myself thoroughly. In that particular statement I had in mind only the change from the official use of "Mormons." I have always tended to feel that the use was particularly a sort of badge of honor among members of the Church of Jesus Christ in the intermountain west. Perhaps I am wrong about that. I just think that there is probably less resistance to the change in my home state of Florida for instance. Perhaps I am wrong. Nevertheless, I do not mean to imply that members elsewhere are not resistant to change. If I lived in New England I perhaps might bemoan the loss of the Hill Cumorah pageant more. As it is I have never been to it, nor the Castledale pageant Tacenda mentioned. I have enjoyed the Manti pageant 3 or 4 times. However, I am not privy to Church finances, and don't know how much use these pageants have been in creating exposure or interest in the Church. I know some members spend considerable time in preparing for them - it is like a Church calling.

I hope my comments are not taken as an offense by members in the intermountain west. I do not intend to dishonor the stalwart efforts of the pioneer members of the Church. If it had not been for them, I may not have ever found this Church. I am only speaking to the effect that times change, and what may have been OK at one time, or even promoted, may need to be let go of - that can be hard when it has become part of your identity. And to the extent that members of the intermountain west are willing to do this once again, I praise them - I am really only saying I think it is harder for them on this particular issue of self-identifying as Mormons.

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The only problem that I see with it is if Pres. Nelson was doing things contrary to the will of God and the direction of the spirit.  I don't see that we can make that argument from the quote being discussed.  Is there something else, in your opinion, to take issue with in regards to the quote?

If he is doing things contrary to the will of God and leading the saints astray then we should expect a release.

[Avatar4321]

The amount of grumbling and complaining has shocked me a little. Do we believing in a loving prophet or not?

I do. And I’m not at all shocked the Lord would reveal things earlier. Especially when I’ve had experiences like that myself. I knew who the new elders quorum President would be before he did. If I can learn things from revelation before the changes are implemented why wouldn’t any of the apostles?

[SouthernMo]

2 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Do we believing in a loving prophet or not?

I hope your binary view of faith brings you peace.

[SouthernMo]

I’m more concerned not by when President Nelson received his inspiration, but by how his wife characterizes his leadership: 

“...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.”

Her description indicates less revelation, and more personal opinion. Clearly, one can become concerned about an issue after revelation (they are not mutually exclusive), but her choice of words instills less confidence in me that this is revelation from God.

[MiserereNobis]

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If he is doing things contrary to the will of God and leading the saints astray then we should expect a release.

Can he be impeached? Removed by the other apostles? The pope is supreme -- he cannot be removed.

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

The amount of grumbling and complaining has shocked me a little. Do we believing in a loving prophet or not?

I do. And I’m not at all shocked the Lord would reveal things earlier. Especially when I’ve had experiences like that myself. I knew who the new elders quorum President would be before he did. If I can learn things from revelation before the changes are implemented why wouldn’t any of the apostles?

I was called into a RS Presidency a few years ago. And the RS president bore her testimony that she had a premonition she was going to be called to be RS president months before and later told me she knew it would be me she would call to help her. But hey, what if you and bluebell and the RS president all had a premonition, I would think that is doable no matter what religion you belong to. 

[Tacenda]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If he is doing things contrary to the will of God and leading the saints astray then we should expect a release.

Well, in all the years the church has been around, God didn't change a prophet that probably should have been dealt with, I can think of the first two. 

[hope_for_things]

4 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.

Makes complete sense, this is how things have always been throughout history and always will be.  Humans are in charge, that is clear.  

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Can he be impeached? Removed by the other apostles? The pope is supreme -- he cannot be removed.

He can be.

Quote

 

D&C 107

82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;

83 And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him.

84 Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.

 

Joseph Smith is the only President to have been tried before the Common Council in 1838.

I think it amusing when people accuse Joseph Smith of being some power hungry religious dictator...  Would a power hungry dictator canonize a way for him to be removed from office?  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Good example.

In the case of Pres. Nelson, he would have received the revelation as an apostle. He then would have had access to the other apostles, FP and prophet to share what he believed was revelation from God. So what happened? 1- he never shared his revelation with them or 2- they rejected his revelation  3- they all agreed to wait to implement the revelation until he became prophet

1- if he received revelation I would expect an apostle to share that with the others in top leadership. Would you?

2- If they rejected his revelation, why?

3- If they all agreed to wait, it must not have been all that pressing of a matter

I suppose that could be revelation. But I usually call it "planning". I did it as bishop but I do the same thing at my job. Calling it revelation could apply, I guess, but it seems to import a rather routine activity into a more grandiose one.

It is very clear to me that he shared his revelation with others. This is what apostles do in general conference (share what the Lord has impressed upon their minds in various ways—dreams, visions, workings of the heart and mind whether quickly or over a lifetime, answer to prayer, etc.).

I have no doubt that as an Apostle he shared his revelation in council when appropriate. I think the topics for discussion are driven by the Lord through the First Presidency who have the keys to do this. I attribute this latest initiative being done after so many years of Elder Nelson feeling impressed about it to the Lord’s timing through someone He had been preparing to do it.

I think this, as with other initiatives, is important enough for the Lord to have on His timetable and at the right time and with those prepared to do so impress upon the First Presidency to obtain unanimous council approval.

We are counseled to incorporate revelation into our planning all the time, whether we plan for temporal or Church-related pursuits.

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You are assuming it will die out.

Aren’t we all?  ‘Course it’ll fade away

[Gray]

53 minutes ago, pogi said:

He can be.

Joseph Smith is the only President to have been tried before the Common Council in 1838.

I think it amusing when people accuse Joseph Smith of being some power hungry religious dictator...  Would a power hungry dictator canonize a way for him to be removed from office?  

Since then we've adopted a corporation sole structure. The President of the Church has absolute legal control over the organization, and could not be removed against his will.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

I’m more concerned not by when President Nelson received his inspiration, but by how his wife characterizes his leadership: 

“...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.”

Her description indicates less revelation, and more personal opinion. Clearly, one can become concerned about an issue after revelation (they are not mutually exclusive), but her choice of words instills less confidence in me that this is revelation from God.

Two-three years ago I received revelation I should do something. It was frustrating that I couldn't get it done. Two weeks ago I found a resource that could help me to do it and I'm thrilled that now I have that help I can finally do it.

It's possible that you are reading the situation correctly. It's also possible that he has been anxious to do things revealed to him that he had to wait on. 

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Revelation is often humdrum.

Ok then but it’s also not in any sense unique to the church.  Every org out there has been running on continuing revelation just as the church, under such considerations.  

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Since then we've adopted a corporation sole structure. The President of the Church has absolute legal control over the organization, and could not be removed against his will.

That's the way I understand it as well but I'm open to evidence to the contrary.

I'm reminded of the OD1 in which Pres. Woodruff states that the prophet will never lead the church astray because it is not part of God's program. He would be removed from his position. I've always thought this to mean death. Since the prophet serves for life, the only way for him to be removed is for him to die. I'm not talking some kind of blood atonement or anything, just a God induced death.

But what are we to make of a prophet's death? Are we to think that he was removed because he was leading the church astray? I don't think so. Especially when we have a 95 year old prophet. Death is inevitable. On the other hand, I've seen arguments that Joseph WAS removed for leading the church astray, since he died at a young age. Same with Brigham Young. Of course that would only be speculation.

In reality, the prophet cannot be removed because as President, he has sole control of the legal entity of the church. I've never seen the legal documents for the Corporation Sole so maybe there is a provision. If there is, I'd be interested in seeing it.

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

Since then we've adopted a corporation sole structure. The President of the Church has absolute legal control over the organization, and could not be removed against his will.

This says nothing of his priesthood office as President of the Church or how/when successorship is handled, or if the President can be removed from office or not.  

From my understanding, corporation sole structure simply means that the corporation can "pass without interval in time from one office holder to the next successor - in-office, giving the positions legal continuity with subsequent office holders having identical powers and possessions to their predecessors."

D&C 107 is still in force as far as his office goes.

 

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours 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.

Alternatively, he has some ideas or views that initially did not come from revelation BUT took the matters in pray and got confirmation by revelation to proceed.   Either way it is still the same.   It is hard to imagine that Nelson would go rogue and do anything without seeking approval from the Lord first.