Ephraim temple announcement revelation or caving to public pressure

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

Or, they are trying to convey that it is the Lord, and not them, who has the final say, and that no amount of protests will get the church to do otherwise. 

Edited May 5, 2021 by bluebell

[jkwilliams]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Or, they are trying to convey that it is the Lord, and not them, who has the final say, and that no amount of protests will get the church to do otherwise. 

They could convey that without insulting everyone's intelligence. 

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

They could convey that without insulting everyone's intelligence. 

Did you watch the youtube I posted? At the very beginning Pres Nelson acknowledged the need to preserve the art etc. So I don't get Rasband denying the fact that it might have led to the revelation/impression to keep the art up and even make it better with preservation.

[let’s roll]

17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

They could convey that without insulting everyone's intelligence. 

I ask that you try to be more precise when commenting.  Not everyone’s intelligence was insulted.  Mine wasn’t and I have an IQ of 147.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Did you watch the youtube I posted? At the very beginning Pres Nelson acknowledged the need to preserve the art etc. So I don't get Rasband denying the fact that it might have led to the revelation/impression to keep the art up and even make it better with preservation.

I don't get it, either. It's like they're saying, "You can't handle the truth. No truth-handler, you. I deride your truth-handling abilities."

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I ask that you try to be more precise when commenting.  Not everyone’s intelligence was insulted.  Mine wasn’t and I have an IQ of 147.

It's quiet possible to insult someone's intelligence without them realizing it.

[CV75]

15 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 

Public pressure may be an environmental constant, but that does not mean it is a constant cause for revelation. And revelation is revelation no matter its etiology.

[rongo]

I don't like the trend of "whatever decision is made is revelation." I think it cheapens and dilutes the concept of revelation into "whatever thoughts I am thinking." 

I think the black and white "nothing else had an impact" explanations show hypersensitivity to the very discussion about things like this. 

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't like the trend of "whatever decision is made is revelation." I think it cheapens and dilutes the concept of revelation into "whatever thoughts I am thinking." 

I think the black and white "nothing else had an impact" explanations show hypersensitivity to the very discussion about things like this. 

We are taught in the Church to pray for any decision that we desire input from God on. Why is it so hard to believe our top leaders actually act in such a fashion and happen to get answers?

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

We are taught in the Church to pray for any decision that we desire input from God on. Why is it so hard to believe our top leaders actually act in such a fashion and happen to get answers?

It's not hard at all to believe that. The Church cultivates an image, though, of infallibility, even with the requisite "we don't believe in infallibility." Every decision, no matter how routine and mundane, is "revelation." 

President Nelson's emphasis, and doubling down, on the November policy as "revelation" (with "all permutations" war-gamed), only to completely reverse it less than three years later because of the outcry ("we had no idea how much pain this would cause" --- missed that "permutation") is a good example of this. 

I agree with the OP. The Ephraim temple is an example of this very thing --- outcry leading to changing the decision, but it must be explained as "revelation" because caving to pressure or making an initial poor decision just can't be portrayed.  

ETA: The usual spin for reversals of decisions is to explain that God did give a revelation, but that He only wanted it to last a couple of years before being reversed. I've heard the same logic here for mission calls that are clearly just made to put them somewhere (the missionary was supposed to learn patience and specific things from never going to his assigned mission, being crammed into missions and areas where they just need to warehouse them, etc.). 

Like @jkwilliams said, the pretzel-twisting explanations can border on insulting intelligence. 

Edited May 5, 2021 by rongo

[bluebell]

51 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

They could convey that without insulting everyone's intelligence. 

I don't think they are insulting anyone's intelligence, but my perspective on it is no more surprising than yours, given our biases. 

When I read the statement, I assumed that's what they were trying to say.  It seemed pretty straightforward (once I was able to read the whole statement and not just the part that Fair Dinkum put up) and not at all 'tricksey'.  It's probably because I don't interpret things from the church with a critical slant so I tend to assume good motives, while others might more often see bad motives at work. 

We all have our baggage and it always colors the message.  But that "color" is our's to claim and can't be laid at the feet of anyone else.

Plus, sometimes people say stuff really poorly and it's difficult to understand what they were trying to say, even without our biases causing havoc.  Just as we all have our baggage, we all have our human weaknesses too, communication being one of the top ones that we screw up on often.

Neither one--biases or sincere but bad communication--add up to someone insulting anyone's intelligence though.

 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I agree with the OP. The Ephraim temple is an example of this very thing --- outcry leading to changing the decision, but it must be explained as "revelation." 

Do you think the prophet and apostles sought God's will on how to handle the Manti temple issue? 

Do you think He answered them?

 

 

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think they are insulting anyone's intelligence, but my perspective on it is no more surprising than yours, given our biases. 

When I read the statement, I assumed that's what they were trying to say.  It seemed pretty straightforward (once I was able to read the whole statement and not just the part that Fair Dinkum put up) and not at all 'tricksey'.  It's probably because I don't interpret things from the church with a critical slant so I tend to assume good motives, while others might more often see bad motives at work. 

We all have our baggage and it always colors the message.  But that "color" is our's to claim and can't be laid at the feet of anyone else.

Plus, sometimes people say stuff really poorly and it's difficult to understand what they were trying to say, even without our biases causing havoc.  Just as we all have our baggage, we all have our human weaknesses too, communication being one of the top ones that we screw up on often.

Neither one--biases or sincere but bad communication--add up to someone insulting anyone's intelligence though.

 

Yeah, you're right. I just thought it was a completely superfluous denial. I could have expressed that less cynically.

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's not hard at all to believe that. The Church cultivates an image, though, of infallibility, even with the requisite "we don't believe in infallibility." Every decision, no matter how routine and mundane, is "revelation." 

President Nelson's emphasis, and doubling down, on the November policy as "revelation" (with "all permutations" war-gamed), only to completely reverse it less than three years later because of the outcry ("we had no idea how much pain this would cause" --- missed that "permutation") is a good example of this. 

I agree with the OP. The Ephraim temple is an example of this very thing --- outcry leading to changing the decision, but it must be explained as "revelation." 

Incremental revelation is how divine revelation comes to the fallible. I think those who receive it are more cognizant and appreciative of this than those who lack experience with the confluence of receiving revelation for an organization and grace in personal fallibility. The D&C has several revelatory "reversals" of what may seem to us to be more far-reaching revelations.

[Tacenda]

47 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do you think the prophet and apostles sought God's will on how to handle the Manti temple issue? 

Do you think He answered them?

 

 

I'm sure they are always praying with mind and spirit, with personal feelings mixed in and then get an answer from God perhaps. I've always believed that the church can and most of the time is, a bottom up religion, and glad that it is. 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Tacenda

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

The Church cultivates an image, though, of infallibility, even with the requisite "we don't believe in infallibility." Every decision, no matter how routine and mundane, is "revelation." 

Revelation is not taught as infallible though, so I don’t see why you think teaching something is revelation is implying infallibility.

[CA Steve]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Revelation is not taught as infallible though, so I don’t see why you think teaching something is revelation is implying infallibility.

What is taught and what is practiced are two different things.

Try expressing any disagreement with a revelation in any church controlled or dominated environment.

 

Edited May 5, 2021 by CA Steve

[Tacenda]

This just in or is it an older video?

 

Edited May 5, 2021 by Tacenda

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

It's quiet possible to insult someone's intelligence without them realizing it.

Well that’s deep.  Reminds me of the time when a reporter asked Danny Ainge if he thought an injury was having a subconscious impact on his play.  Ainge replied to the effect that if there was a subconscious impact, by definition he wouldn’t be aware of it. 😀

Best wishes to you.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Do you think the prophet and apostles sought God's will on how to handle the Manti temple issue? 

Yes, but I think they often seek God's will how the rest of us do. Revelation doesn't usually work differently at the family, ward, and stake level than it does for the Brethren. They hold keys, and I actually think they don't inquire about things they could inquire about, but I don't believe that they get more "sure thing" or "can't miss" spelling-out than we do. 

When a bishopric or a stake presidency or a young women's presidency prays about things, yes they are seeking God's will, but there are human elements baked in, too. I'm as guilty of this as anyone, but I was also always upfront that I wasn't remote controlled and body-snatched as a bishop. Many callings are made because callings need to be filled, and while we pray about decisions or possibilities, often there isn't revelation given. There are also special moments where God very clearly communicates and makes clear His will. The Church cultivates the impression that all decisions are revelation.

I believe that they prayed about it, but that the PR firestorm about the discontent down in Ephraim, Moroni, and Manti drove the quick decision to build a separate temple and save the Minerva Teichert murals. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Do you think He answered them?

I don't believe He gave a revelation to do an about face from the announced Manti temple renovation (with saving parts of the murals), and to instead build a separate temple in Ephraim. Unless the former decision wasn't a revelation.  

[rongo]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Incremental revelation is how divine revelation comes to the fallible. I think those who receive it are more cognizant and appreciative of this than those who lack experience with the confluence of receiving revelation for an organization and grace in personal fallibility. The D&C has several revelatory "reversals" of what may seem to us to be more far-reaching revelations.

I have experience with dramatic, non-incremental revelation; incremental revelation; no answer; and being wrong. I don't believe that the Brethren are exempt from this, and neither does the Church officially, but heaven help anyone who points out any examples. 

 

[california boy]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

I appreciate your thoughtful explanation on what you and I am assuming Church leadership and members think the definition of revelation is and how it is received.  It certainly is way more broad than what I believed growing up.  When President Kimball announced the end to the ban of the priesthood through revelation, I thought at the time that this was historic.  God once again spoke to his prophet.  

But if as you suggest is true, can I ask, how is that any different than any other church leaders?  Don't they also feel impressed that they are making the right decisions as they govern and guide their congregations?  Do not these leaders ponder questions and decisions by faith and prayer also?

Maybe it is all the same.  But it seems like what once made the Mormon faith so different is their claims of revelation from God and a living prophet.  

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Revelation is not taught as infallible though, so I don’t see why you think teaching something is revelation is implying infallibility.

We're told fairly frequently that our leaders aren't infallible, but there is always furious pushback (and Public Affairs scrambling the jet interceptors) if anything ever gives the impression that our leaders ever simply made a bad or wrong decision. 

 

47 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

What is taught and what is practiced are two different things.

Try expressing any disagreement with a revelation in any church controlled or dominated environment.

Yep. 

I am a faithful, believing member, but I also am able to point out where I think certain non-essentials from our non-dead prophets weren't God's will.

Another example for me: I don't believe that President Nelson's emphasis on avoiding Mormon at all costs is a revelation. I have prayed about it, and that's my personal belief on that. I believe that it was a long-standing personal burr-under-the-saddle for him, and as Wendy Nelson said: “It is as though he's been unleashed . . . 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.”

[CV75]

44 minutes ago, rongo said:

I have experience with dramatic, non-incremental revelation; incremental revelation; no answer; and being wrong. I don't believe that the Brethren are exempt from this, and neither does the Church officially, but heaven help anyone who points out any examples. 

But this only indicates that your relatively limited experience predisposes you to interpret the Ephraim temple decision as the Brethren caving in to public pressure.

PS I think non-incremental revelation comes to the particularly fallible and inexperienced (with attendant grace), and yes, I know that from experience

Edited May 5, 2021 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

Oh for pete's sake.  None of this was "revelation".

This was all administrative.  I don't doubt there was prayer.  I am sure they felt good about the decisions they came to.
But none of this was God parting the veil and clearly revealing his will.

God is guiding his Church.  God is giving revelation when needed.  This is not one of those situations.
And I still wish the people of Salt Lake had raised as much a stink over their temple as the people of Manti did.
Perhaps another "revelation" would have been received.