Ephraim temple announcement revelation or caving to public pressure

[Fair Dinkum]

I was happy to hear that a new temple has been announced for Ephraim Utah what I was not excited to hear was that the church is calling it revelation. 

i wish the church would just be honest and transparent and say, we listened to the plea’s of the Manti saints and have decided that they are right, we should not destroy those beautiful unique paintings and have decided instead to build a new temple in Ephraim. But instead they make the ridiculous claim of revelation and deny they caved to public pressure. 

Add this to the ever growing list of other situations where the church had revelations To abandon polygamy, reverse the priesthood ban, reverse the October ban of children of lgbtq, expanding the roll of women, following public pressure to do so. 

Does anyone seriously think Ephraim would be getting a new temple had the members not complained and questioned the initial revelation to destroy those paintings? i certainly don't 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Duncan]

Where did they say they didn't cave to public pressure?

[Fair Dinkum]

11 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Where did they say they didn't cave to public pressure?

Edited May 5, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[Tacenda]

Just now, Fair Dinkum said:

Whoa, this is hogwash, IMO. If you hadn't shared this I might have not believed it. But it's from Rasband not Nelson,  so that's good. 

[2BizE]

I’m with you Fair.  The too frequent claims of revelation has watered down the respect toward the brethren.  Even everyday business decisions are considered revelation.

Edited May 5, 2021 by 2BizE

[MrShorty]

It seems to me that the public outcry could be seen as part of the revelatory process -- kind of an informal implementation of the principle of common consent? To me, what Pres. Nelson said about "continuing to petition the Lord" after the public outcry seems very similar to what he said was going on before the reversal on the Nov 20-15 policy towards same sex couples and their children. Public discomfort towards announced policies seems to have the ability to cause the leadership to go back to the Lord and seek further understanding.

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

It seems to me that the public outcry could be seen as part of the revelatory process -- kind of an informal implementation of the principle of common consent? To me, what Pres. Nelson said about "continuing to petition the Lord" after the public outcry seems very similar to what he said was going on before the reversal on the Nov 20-15 policy towards same sex couples and their children. Public discomfort towards announced policies seems to have the ability to cause the leadership to go back to the Lord and seek further understanding.

I guess that is conceivable. And we are told that we can have personal revelation, so I guess it's not all hogwash. But I did read an article, partially on Trib, don't have an account so I couldn't finish it, and it didn't mention a revelation, that's why I thought it was hogwash at first. 

[The Nehor]

Assuming the default plan was just to destroy it all is a bit presumptuous.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I take that statement to mean that they didn't decide to retain the art because of the protests, petitions, etc.  But instead, those protests, petitions, etc caused them to go back to the Lord and ask for guidance.  If the Lord had said, "No, don't retain the art and don't build a new temple", then they would have continued.

The protests, petitions, etc "played no roll in the decision" but they played a role in causing the leaders to ask for more guidance.

By the way, what's the source of that quote?  I'd like to see if it has Elder Rasbands actual words.

[webbles]

I found this from https://www.ldsliving.com/Rejoicing-on-both-sides-of-the-veil-12-highlights-from-the-Ephraim-temple-announcement-and-revision-to-Manti-renovation-plans/s/94261

Quote

Church leaders testified about the process of revelation by which the announcement came about. 

Bishop Waddell said President Nelson had been praying about the Manti temple. A variety of options had been presented, and the answer came to build Ephraim and preserve Manti.

“The Lord directed the prophet,” Bishop Waddell said.

We also have articles like https://www.thechurchnews.com/temples/2021-03-24/church-seeking-to-preserve-manti-temple-murals-teichert-207787 from last month.  So it looks like President Nelson and others were seeking guidance on how to preserve the art and still update the Manti temple.

So, I think I would agree that the protests, petitions, etc played no role.

[mgy401]

10 minutes ago, webbles said:

I take that statement to mean that they didn't decide to retain the art because of the protests, petitions, etc.  But instead, those protests, petitions, etc caused them to go back to the Lord and ask for guidance.  If the Lord had said, "No, don't retain the art and don't build a new temple", then they would have continued.

The protests, petitions, etc "played no roll in the decision" but they played a role in causing the leaders to ask for more guidance.

By the way, what's the source of that quote?  I'd like to see if it has Elder Rasbands actual words.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2021/05/01/breaking-treasured-manti/

Naturally, for purposes of discussion, the succeeding sentence—“The reversal was prompted, he said, ‘by the prayers of the people in this part of Utah’”—was omitted.  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I was happy to hear that a new temple has been announced for Ephraim Utah what I was not excited to hear was that the church is calling it revelation. 

i wish the church would just be honest and transparent and say, we listened to the plea’s of the Manti saints and have decided that they are right, we should not destroy those beautiful unique paintings and have decided instead to build a new temple in Ephraim. But instead they make the ridiculous claim of revelation and deny they caved to public pressure. 

Add this to the ever growing list of other situations where the church had revelations To abandon polygamy, reverse the priesthood ban, reverse the October ban of children of lgbtq, expanding the roll of women, following public pressure to do so. 

Does anyone seriously think Ephraim would be getting a new temple had the members not complained and questioned the initial revelation to destroy those paintings? i certainly don't 

Correct.  All revelation comes in response to a question or need.  Always has.  This has been true biblically, and certainly true for the Jews and for the Christians.  The notion that revelation comes out of the blue, without a request or a reason is not only false, it is even silly and childish.

If we take, for example, the need to refurbish the Manti Temple, or the SLC Temple for that matter, these were clearly practical, engineering decisions -- which were necessary, and which did not require a revelation.  Any reasonably intelligent architect could make that decision and submit it to Church leaders for approval.  These types of businesslike decisions are made within the LDS Church on a daily basis.  To suggest otherwise is an act of deliberate obfuscation.  The details of how such things are to be done is quite another matter.  Some Church leaders have previously destroyed pioneer workmanship and murals (Pres N. E. Tanner was particularly upset in the case of one destroyed tabernacle).  Church leaders are not infallible (despite your extreme need to define them as such) and need to be properly informed.  If not, they can easily fall into error.  That requires humility and a willingness to listen.

When certain proposals for new MTC buildings in Provo were made some years ago, it immediately ignited the ire of neighboring property owners, forcing Church leaders to rethink how the MTC should in fact be enlarged.  A very different proposal resulted, more to everyone's liking.  To an anti-Mormon that sounds like human decision-making rather than revelation, and thus calls for condemnation of those hypocritical Mormons.  For the historian or theologian it looks more like business as usual.  Sounds more like God and Abraham arguing in Genesis 18.

God did not approach the boy Joseph Smith.  The boy approached God and asked for enlightenment.  You seem to have reversed that sequence.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

I’m with you Fair.  The too frequent claims of revelation has watered down the respect toward the brethren.  Even everyday business decisions are considered revelation.

False.

[JustAnAustralian]

Caving to public pressure would just be leaving the artwork there and converting it to multiple single-room endowment rooms with artwork that's irrelevant to most of it. Building a new temple wasn't needed to preserve the artwork.

Edited May 5, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[Islander]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

It seems to me that the public outcry could be seen as part of the revelatory process -- kind of an informal implementation of the principle of common consent? To me, what Pres. Nelson said about "continuing to petition the Lord" after the public outcry seems very similar to what he said was going on before the reversal on the Nov 20-15 policy towards same sex couples and their children. Public discomfort towards announced policies seems to have the ability to cause the leadership to go back to the Lord and seek further understanding.

,Non-sense. God does not make mistakes not does He backpedals on His purpose because of human behavior. These are political, administrative and business decisions made by bureaucrats at the Church Headquarters. Which later are rubber-stamped by the leadership. This is the second time in very recent history where people rejected plans associated with temple development. 

 

[Tacenda]

Pres. Nelson said he was impressed to have the Ephraim temple built, and the very end Elder Rasband said he believes that it was revelation given to Pres. Nelson.

 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Tacenda

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

,Non-sense. God does not make mistakes not does He backpedals on His purpose because of human behavior. These are political, administrative and business decisions made by bureaucrats at the Church Headquarters. Which later are rubber-stamped by the leadership. This is the second time in very recent history where people rejected plans associated with temple development.

Well, of course God doesn't make mistakes, but he is certainly willing to discuss matters with his servants (Genesis 18), a tradition regularly emphasized by the Jews -- often used by rabbis, and even Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof" is depicted trying to get God to see it his way.  God has often altered his initial plans to accord with human demands or flaws, as on Sinai with Moses, or in His prophet Samuel attempting to dissuade Israel from demanding a king.  God has in fact compromised on several occasions.

Dealing with flawed humans is often like herding cats. 

[Fair Dinkum]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, of course God doesn't make mistakes, but he is certainly willing to discuss matters with his servants (Genesis 18), a tradition regularly emphasized by the Jews -- often used by rabbis, and even Tevye in "Fiddler on the Roof" is depicted trying to get God to see it his way.  God has often altered his initial plans to accord with human demands or flaws, as on Sinai with Moses, or in His prophet Samuel attempting to dissuade Israel from demanding a king.  God has in fact compromised on several occasions.

Dealing with flawed humans is often like herding cats. 

God seems all too human in his response to pressure from those who didn't like his initial revelation 

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I was happy to hear that a new temple has been announced for Ephraim Utah what I was not excited to hear was that the church is calling it revelation. 

i wish the church would just be honest and transparent and say, we listened to the plea’s of the Manti saints and have decided that they are right, we should not destroy those beautiful unique paintings and have decided instead to build a new temple in Ephraim. But instead they make the ridiculous claim of revelation and deny they caved to public pressure. 

Add this to the ever growing list of other situations where the church had revelations To abandon polygamy, reverse the priesthood ban, reverse the October ban of children of lgbtq, expanding the roll of women, following public pressure to do so. 

Does anyone seriously think Ephraim would be getting a new temple had the members not complained and questioned the initial revelation to destroy those paintings? i certainly don't 

Why can't it be both?  Why can't the leaders have listened to the pleas of the people and gone to the Lord for further direction, and then the Lord, due to the prayers of His children, revealed a way forward that met everyone's needs?

In an interview, Rasband called the move a divine “revelation” and said that protests, petitions and phone calls — even a march in downtown Provo — opposing the art removal played no role in the decision to retain them.

The reversal was prompted, he said, “by the prayers of the people in this part of Utah.”

 

[2BizE]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

False.

A few examples of business decisions called revelations
1) exclusion of gays, calling gay marriage apostate right after Supreme Court decision. Was called a revelation

2) changing their mind about gays (sort of) = revelation

3) changing missionary age from 19 to 18 for men and 21 to 19 for women. 
4) making phone calls to get people to a temple before it closed for Covid reasons.  This was considered revelation and a miracle by elder Bednar.

[jkwilliams]

13 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Why do they do this? It could be a "revelation" in response to the prophet asking a question prompted by the protests, petitions, etc. It just seems silly to say that none of that mattered. 

[Calm]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

Why do they do this? It could be a "revelation" in response to the prophet asking a question prompted by the protests, petitions, etc. It just seems silly to say that none of that mattered. 

Probably hoping to discourage people from making a habit of protesting, etc. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

Probably hoping to discourage people from making a habit of protesting, etc. 

Makes sense, but doesn't make it true. I would think there are more subtle ways to deny without an explicit denial. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

God seems all too human in his response to pressure from those who didn't like his initial revelation 

I guess you missed my main point, and you put the cart before the horse.  There is no "initial revelation," because it is always preceded by human inquiry, and the humans always seek to modify the divine response.  And, indeed, God is anthropomorphic -- which is a biblical fact often denied by normative Judeo-Christian tradition.  Revelation or inspiration is always a two-way process, and is always part of a learning experience.  God is raising children, a slow and painful process even in the best of cases.  He is not telling us what to do, so much as he is trying to give us experience on the road to independence and godhood.  Like all parents, he is teaching us -- despite our flaws.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

A few examples of business decisions called revelations
1) exclusion of gays, calling gay marriage apostate right after Supreme Court decision. Was called a revelation

2) changing their mind about gays (sort of) = revelation

3) changing missionary age from 19 to 18 for men and 21 to 19 for women. 
4) making phone calls to get people to a temple before it closed for Covid reasons.  This was considered revelation and a miracle by elder Bednar.

You and others might confuse policy decisions (administrative decisions) with revelation.  If everything is revelation, then nothing is revelation.  Fallible leaders can imagine that something is revelatory when it is not.  And you might be too busy to understand that.  Mechanical policy changes on age or length of one's mission are administrative decisions.  They may be guided by inspiration, but do not require a major revelation.  In fact one should use such language with caution.  When everything becomes a miracle or revelation, then there are no miracles or revelations.  Do you understand that logic?

Homosexuals are not excluded from the Kingdom at all.  Active homosexuality is condemned by the Bible, and is an excommunicable offense -- same as heterosexual activity outside marriage.  These are matters of formal covenant.