Ephraim temple announcement revelation or caving to public pressure

[teddyaware]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

In the above 4 hour-old video from the Church News (posted by Tacenda), President Nelson emotionally testifies that much study and prayer went into the final decision and that the Lord inspired him and the other leaders to make the decision. It’s good to know the President of the Church will fudge and stretch the truth a little bit to give the members the false impression that the decision was somehow inspired of God rather than what it actually was — just another run-of-the-mill administrative decision made by Church administrators in order to placate an outraged crowd. Yes it’s good to know the Church leaders can be just like cynical, manipulative politicians. Thanks to this obvious mischaracterization by the Church leaders, I now have more hope someone like me can make it to the celestial kingdom.

[JLHPROF]

24 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

In the above 4 hour-old video from the Church News (posted by Tacenda), President Nelson emotionally testifies that much study and prayer went into the final decision and that the Lord inspired him and the other leaders to make the decision. It’s good to know the President of the Church will fudge and stretch the truth a little bit to give the members the false impression that the decision was somehow inspired of God rather than what it actually was — just another run-of-the-mill administrative decision made by Church administrators in order to placate an outraged crowd. Yes it’s good to know the Church leaders can be just like cynical, manipulative politicians. Thanks to this obvious mischaracterization by the Church leaders, I now have more hope someone like me can make it to the celestial kingdom.

Congrats.

But seriously
- President Nelson emotionally testifies that much study and prayer went into the final decision.  Absolutely.
- That the Lord inspired him and the other leaders to make the decision.  Well...I don't doubt they felt good about it.  Heck I feel very good about it too.

Edited May 5, 2021 by JLHPROF

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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. 

I completely agree.

Quote

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.  

Why not?   And why couldn't both be revelation?

When I read the D&C, I see the Lord doing a lot of about-faces on things that were, according to the scriptures, both revelation.  Not because He didn't know the end game but because He was letting the people be a part of the playbook.

In my experience with revelation, God gets us where He intends to be, but the path there is seldom as straightforward as it could be.

[smac97]

18 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

From the article:

Quote

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.”

A few thoughts:

1. I note that the Trib is paraphrasing Elder Rasband.  I tend to be a bit leery about such things, particularly given that technology has advanced a lot, such that verbatim quotes are usually available.

2. The Trib does not say who conducted the interview with Rasband, nor does it provide a link.  Given that the grousing in this thread seems to be about Elder Rasband's remarks, that omission becomes salient.

3. The Deseret News states:

Quote

Saturday’s announcements were made in a special broadcast for church members in 27 stakes in the Manti Temple District in central Utah. The broadcast originated from the Manti Tabernacle. President Nelson’s video message was prerecorded at church headquarters in Salt Lake City.

In the Manti Tabernacle, Elder Ronald A. Rasband of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles called Saturday’s announcement a divine, revelatory decision, saying he was with President Nelson soon after the church leader received the impression to build the temple in Ephraim, which is named for the Old Testament prophet.

And this verbatim excerpt from Pres. Nelson:

Quote

In the April 2019 general conference, we announced that the Manti Utah Temple would need renovation. This pioneer temple needs mechanical upgrades and other changes to keep it useful and safe. It also needs to be revised to offer the revealed ordinances and covenants to members who speak languages other than English. That will be made possible by filmed presentations, as in other temples. To begin this multi-year project, we will close the Manti Utah Temple around next Oct. 1.

We have continued to seek the direction of the Lord on this matter. We have been impressed to modify our earlier plans for the Manti Utah Temple so that the pioneer craftsmanship, artwork and character will be preserved, including the painted murals loved by so many. We will leave those murals where they are located now, inside the Manti Utah Temple.

Now may we turn our attention to Manti’s neighboring city, Ephraim. After much study and prayer, and with our deep gratitude for the Lord’s respondings to our pleadings, I’m pleased to announce that we have been impressed to build a new temple in Ephraim, Utah.

4. Here's the coverage from The Church News:

Quote

During April 2019 general conference, President Nelson announced the renovation of several pioneer-era temples — including the 74,792-square-foot Manti temple, which requires mechanical upgrades and technology that will allow the ordinances and covenants to be administered in multiple languages. To begin the multiyear project, the Church will close the temple on Oct. 1.

However, he said, as Church leaders sought the direction of the Lord on renovation plans, they were “impressed to modify our earlier plans so that the pioneer craftsmanship, artwork and character will be preserved, including temple murals.” The Church originally planned to remove the historic and valuable murals painted by Minerva Teichert. “We will leave those murals where they are located now — inside the Manti Utah Temple,” said President Nelson.

Elder Rasband said the “divine announcement” brought two words to his mind — “joy” and “rejoicing.” He said the Manti temple preservation efforts and construction of a new temple for Ephraim came by revelation to President Nelson and reflect the “mind, will and direction of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

5. I have participated in court proceedings where the judge is dealing with obnoxious or untoward behavior from a litigant or an attorney.  There are times when such a person gets his way, not because the judge has been bullied or intimidated, but because the law or procedural rules or equitable or logistical considerations require it.  When that happens, it is fairly common for the judge to acknowledge that the obnoxious person is getting his way, though not because of the obnoxious behavior.

6. I am impressed at the skill with which faultfinders can ply their trade.  The Church makes an announcement that affects the murals in the Manti Temple, and it gets criticized.  The Church later makes an announcement reversing its decision on the plans that would have affected the murals, and it still gets criticized.

There is no satisfying these folks.  Ever.  Ever.  They will always complain and find fault, then move the goalposts and complain and faultfind some more.  Ad infinitum.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

6. I am impressed at the skill with which faultfinders can ply their trade.  The Church makes an announcement that affects the murals in the Manti Temple, and it gets criticized.  The Church later makes an announcement reversing its decision on the plans that would have affected the murals, and it still gets criticized.

I haven't heard anyone complain about the Church reversing the decision and preserving God's temple.

It's the constant refrain that every step they take is performed by direct revelation.  It's the boy who cried revelation - at some point it's just not credible any more.  Not even Joseph Smith claimed this much revelation.
Part of me want this to be revelation.  I'd love to think that they were planning to beige-ify this pioneer temple and God intervened and told them they'd better not - they can build a beige temple in Ephraim.

But what we get was "revelation told us to do A" / "we prayed and revelation told us to do B".  Every move they make is pure revelation apparently.

Edited May 5, 2021 by JLHPROF

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

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. 

I believe this occurs as well, but having 15 people involved in at least sustaining ideas would imo work to diminish error and provide more opportunities to receive revelation. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

But what we get was "revelation told us to do A" / "we prayed and revelation told us to do B".  Every move they make is pure revelation apparently.

A and B may not have been contradictory. Why couldn’t after much study and prayer, they asked for confirmation that their plan A was an appropriate, blessed decision...and they received confirmation from the Spirit that it was. Is that not revelation?

And then for whatever reason, likely the unhappiness of fellow Saints, at least one involved was dissatisfied with the decision and continued to ponder and pray...maybe for another option to be inspired or maybe even to just be able to know that A was not just a good decision, but the best...but whatever the reason for seeking more enlightenment, someone receives inspiration to build a secondary temple instead and that gets taken to the group and studied and prayed about and they receive a confirmation that this is indeed a better decision.  Is this not a revelation as well?

If by pure revelation you mean God fills their head with knowledge and they are essentially empty vessels who do not bring their own ideas to the process, I see nothing like that implied in what has been said in the remarks about revelations in the recent past, that would be a caricature of their descriptions, IMO.  If you mean pure revelation to be something else, please define.
 

Have you not heard of the phrase “living by revelation”?  I haven’t understood that to mean all the bumps and obstacles get moved out of our way and life is magically smooth and no decisions ever get rethought out. 
 

Personal revelation has been in my experience mostly pretty quiet and not that surprising (God blessed me with a decent and creative brain and parents who trained me in practical and effective methods of getting things done, I should not be surprised that such a brain and training is useful in coming up with solutions) and only a few times dramatic wow moments. It seems to me it would be a distraction and ingratitude if I refused to recognize the blah moments as revelation and only promoted the few drama moments as revealed. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

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.  

You are on the right track.  My grandfather was a Methodist minister who believed in prayer, but not to the extent which LDS leaders do.  Mainstream Judeo-Christian congregations seldom generate new Scripture, and that doesn't even happen very often in the LDS community.  The difference with continuing revelation is that the will of the Lord can become manifest here and now, the way it did in biblical times.  That was certainly the case with the Kimball revelation, which was so stark that even Bruce R. McConkie was overwhelmed -- openly declaring that he and Brigham had spoken on race without "light and knowledge" (note the code words).

There is a strong similarity between the Pope and the LDS Prophet when they speak ex cathedra.  However, LDS leaders may speak too casually about such matters, rolling inspiration into notions of revelation.  It may be a matter of degree.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

A and B may not have been contradictory. Why couldn’t after much study and prayer, they asked for confirmation that their plan A was an appropriate, blessed decision...and they received confirmation from the Spirit that it was. Is that not revelation?

And then for whatever reason, likely the unhappiness of fellow Saints at least one involved was dissatisfied with the decision and continued to ponder and pray...maybe for another option to be inspired or maybe even to just be able to know that A was not just a good decision, but the best...but whatever the reason for seeking more enlightenment, someone receives inspiration to build a secondary temple instead and that gets taken to the group and studied and prayed about and they receive a revelation that this is indeed a better decision.  Is this not a revelation as well?

I don't believe God confirms bad decisions.  A was a bad decision.
There's an old saying...we don't pray to change God, we pray for God to change us.  God didn't change his mind just because they prayed about it some more.
If anything I'd say that B was the revelation to correct the error in judgement from A.  God does sometimes correct our mistakes.  We just shouldn't put our mistakes on him.
 

[Robert F. Smith]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I haven't heard anyone complain about the Church reversing the decision and preserving God's temple.

It's the constant refrain that every step they take is performed by direct revelation.  It's the boy who cried revelation - at some point it's just not credible any more.  Not even Joseph Smith claimed this much revelation.
Part of me want this to be revelation.  I'd love to think that they were planning to beige-ify this pioneer temple and God intervened and told them they'd better not - they can build a beige temple in Ephraim.

But what we get was "revelation told us to do A" / "we prayed and revelation told us to do B".  Every move they make is pure revelation apparently.

It is easy to get cynical, but it seems apparent to me that LDS leaders often have to feel their way, not getting it quite right the first time.  Richard Bushman is a stake patriarch who gives his own blessings on his own recording device.  He later types them up himself and mails them to his subjects.  However, while typing them up he says that he sometimes edits them to get the message better (not having quite gotten the wording entirely right the first time).

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Quote

6. I am impressed at the skill with which faultfinders can ply their trade.  The Church makes an announcement that affects the murals in the Manti Temple, and it gets criticized.  The Church later makes an announcement reversing its decision on the plans that would have affected the murals, and it still gets criticized.

There is no satisfying these folks.  Ever.  Ever.  They will always complain and find fault, then move the goalposts and complain and faultfind some more.  Ad infinitum.

I haven't heard anyone complain about the Church reversing the decision and preserving God's temple.

Hence my reference to moving the goalposts.

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's the constant refrain that every step they take is performed by direct revelation. 

This is simply not so.  This is a patent and flagrant mischaracterization.  

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's the boy who cried revelation - at some point it's just not credible any more.  Not even Joseph Smith claimed this much revelation.

There is a palpable contempt in your remarks.  You are only proving my point.

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Part of me want this to be revelation.  I'd love to think that they were planning to beige-ify this pioneer temple and God intervened and told them they'd better not - they can build a beige temple in Ephraim.

I hope the day comes when you listen to that part.  Hope is a good thing.

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

But what we get was "revelation told us to do A" / "we prayed and revelation told us to do B".  Every move they make is pure revelation apparently.

The Brother of Jared was guided by revelation when building the barges, but not in every whit.  Hence the sixteen stones.

Nephi was guided by revelation when he went to retrieve the plates, not not in every detail.  He "was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which I should do."  (1 Nephi 4:6).

Pres. Nelson, I believe, received revelation regarding the need to renovate and update the temples.  He and others in authority developed plans for this, with the understanding that everything they do is subject to further light and knowledge from the Lord.

And when that further light and knowledge comes, segments of the Church complain and find fault.

The habit of faultfinding, particularly when manifested publicly and acrimoniously against the Lord's anointed by those under covenant to not do such things, is a pretty sad things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

  A was a bad decision.

Yea....that is your opinion. I would be really wary of using my personal bias to rate others’ experiences with revelation myself.  
 

It wasn’t the best decision...but revelation doesn’t always provide the best decision from what I have seen. The Lord lets us struggle to figure things out a lot even when pointing us in the right direction.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Calm

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't believe God confirms bad decisions. 

Are you sure?  Not ever? 

Then how did Martin Harris end up with the 116 pages?

Quote

Harris continued to have doubts about the authenticity of the manuscript,^[14] and he "could not forget his wife's skepticism or the hostile queries of Palmyra's tavern crowd." Smith's mother, Lucy, "said that Harris asked Joseph for a look at the plates, for 'a further witness of their actual existence and that he might be better able to give a reason for the hope that was within him.' When that request was denied, he asked about the manuscript. Could he at least take it home to reassure his wife?"^[15] After denying his request twice, Smith, with a great deal of uneasiness, said that the Lord had given permission, and he allowed Harris to take the manuscript pages back to Palmyra on condition that he show them to only five named family members. He even made Harris bind himself in a solemn oath.^[16]

...

 

14. Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005), 66: "Yet uncertainty still beset Harris."

15. ^ Bushman, 66.

16. ^ Bushman, 66; (Smith 1853, p. 117); (Roberts 1902, p. 20); (Smith 1853, pp. 117–118).

(Emphasis added.)

Is it possible that the Lord let Joseph Smith and Martin Harris err?  That He consented to their request, "bad" though it was, as part of helping them learn and grow?

Also, what are your thoughts about Moses at Meribah?  From Numbers 20:

Quote

7 ¶ And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
8 Take the rod, and gather thou the assembly together, thou, and Aaron thy brother, and speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water, and thou shalt bring forth to them water out of the rock: so thou shalt give the congregation and their beasts drink.
9 And Moses took the rod from before the Lord, as he commanded him.
10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the congregation together before the rock, and he said unto them, Hear now, ye rebels; must we fetch you water out of this rock?
11 And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also.
12 ¶ And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

See also here:

Quote

(18-13) Numbers 20:2–13. Why Was Moses Not Allowed into the Holy Land?

Rebellion among the children of Israel was not at all uncommon in their desert wanderings. The rebellion described in these verses, however, was especially serious because it apparently led Moses, the prophet of God, to momentarily forget what the Lord had commanded him to do. The Lord had told Moses to provide water for murmuring Israel in a special way. Pointing out a certain rock, the Lord told Moses, “Speak ye unto the rock before their [Israel’s] eyes; and it shall give forth his water” (v. 8). But Moses was weary and angry with Israel. “Hear now, ye rebels,” he said. “Must we fetch you water out of this rock?” (v. 10; emphasis added). Then, instead of speaking to the rock as God commanded, Moses “smote the rock twice” and water gushed forth (v. 11). The Lord then chided Moses and Aaron for their failure to sanctify Him in the eyes of the people and told both men that neither of them would be allowed to bring Israel into the promised land (see v. 12). Not only did they not follow the Lord’s instructions carefully but they also suggested by the use of we that they were the ones who provided the water.

(Emphasis added.)

How is it that the Lord affected a miracle through Moses - water out of a rock - despite the failure by Moses to follow the instructions he had received?

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

A was a bad decision.

There's an old saying...we don't pray to change God, we pray for God to change us.  God didn't change his mind just because they prayed about it some more.
If anything I'd say that B was the revelation to correct the error in judgement from A.  God does sometimes correct our mistakes.  We just shouldn't put our mistakes on him.

I'm not sure the decision was per se a bad one.  And the Brethren sought and received further light and knowledge, and changed course.  I'm glad of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

19 hours 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.

Well, that's a switch from all the folks (not necessarily you) who are all bothered because the church doesn't claim enough revelation.

[mgy401]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you sure?  Not ever? 

Then how did Martin Harris end up with the 116 pages?

(Emphasis added.)

Is it possible that the Lord let Joseph Smith and Martin Harris err?  That He consented to their request, "bad" though it was, as part of helping them learn and grow?

Also, what are your thoughts about Moses at Meribah?  From Numbers 20:

See also here:

(Emphasis added.)

How is it that the Lord affected a miracle through Moses - water out of a rock - despite the failure by Moses to follow the instructions he had received?

I'm not sure the decision was per se a bad one.  And the Brethren sought and received further light and knowledge, and changed course.  I'm glad of that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Pshaw.  This is a forum about Mormonism.  What’s scripture got to do with anything?

[Stargazer]

17 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. 

 

You seem to think that God never considers the desire of His people.

Well, I invite you to consider the issue of Judges vs. Kings in the Old Testament. The people demanded a King, so they could be like other nations. God advised them, through the prophet, that it would be a bad, bad idea, but if that's what they wanted, He'd let them have it. They demanded, and that's what they got. 

Joseph got refused when he asked God to let Martin Harris take the 116 manuscript pages to show his wife. He persisted in asking, until God finally said OK, if that's what you want. And then Harris lost the manuscript. 

It's also happened to the good side as well. When Spencer W. Kimball finally got God's approval to lift the priesthood ban, it was after the question had been raised several times with the Lord, without approval. Until finally it was.

God does not make mistakes, but sometimes he does seem to backpedal. He sent Jonah to pronounce doom upon Nineveh. But Nineveh repented, so the doom was lifted. 

DC 58:31-33 -

31 Who am I, saith the Lord, that have promised and have not fulfilled?
32 I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.
33 Then they say in their hearts: This is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. But wo unto such, for their reward lurketh beneath, and not from above.

[Stargazer]

5 hours 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?

Possibly because we are projecting our own doubts and foibles upon others.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are on the right track.  My grandfather was a Methodist minister who believed in prayer, but not to the extent which LDS leaders do.  Mainstream Judeo-Christian congregations seldom generate new Scripture, and that doesn't even happen very often in the LDS community.  The difference with continuing revelation is that the will of the Lord can become manifest here and now, the way it did in biblical times.  That was certainly the case with the Kimball revelation, which was so stark that even Bruce R. McConkie was overwhelmed -- openly declaring that he and Brigham had spoken on race without "light and knowledge" (note the code words).

There is a strong similarity between the Pope and the LDS Prophet when they speak ex cathedra.  However, LDS leaders may speak too casually about such matters, rolling inspiration into notions of revelation.  It may be a matter of degree.

Thanks Robert.  Basically you are saying that the Church leaders get inspiration/revelation just like any other church leaders.  I agree.  I don't think there is anything unique in the Church's relationship with God and His guidance.  I wish I had figured that out earlier in my life when I thought Church leaders opinions carried more weight and followed their direction when really I should have been more questioning and relying on my own inspiration.

ETA: I am really happy the murals and craftsmanship of those early pioneers will be saved.  I wish the same decision had happened with the SLC temple.  I am sad those murals were painted over and the rooms hacked up.  Maybe some future time, they will be restored.  

Edited May 6, 2021 by california boy

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't believe God confirms bad decisions.  A was a bad decision.
There's an old saying...we don't pray to change God, we pray for God to change us.  God didn't change his mind just because they prayed about it some more.
If anything I'd say that B was the revelation to correct the error in judgement from A.  God does sometimes correct our mistakes.  We just shouldn't put our mistakes on him.
 

A was a decision that you didn't agree with.  That doesn't mean it was a bad decision. 

God might not be invested in keeping the murals of the Manti temple.  In the grand scheme of things, that might not be something that God really has an opinion on one way or the other.  For all we know, that temple might end up being destroyed during the end time scenes.  A fire or earthquake or some other natural disaster could take it out.  It's hard to tell what will remain when it's all said and done and what won't and therefore, what will have eternal or even lasting significance and what's days are already numbered. 

If God is not invested in saving the murals for His own reasons, then A would have been as correct as B in God's eyes.  

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Possibly because we are projecting our own doubts and foibles upon others.

I think this is it almost all of the time.  I think as humans we struggle not to make ourselves the standard or norm for how everyone else operates or interacts with the world, regardless of the topic or issue. 

[Fair Dinkum]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.”

 

So Pres Nelson responded to silent prayers and not the boisterous rally’s, matches and plea’s.  So Pres Nelson is now privy to prayers?  I thought that was Gods thing 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[pogi]

23 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 

I haven’t read the thread yet, so this idea may have been already expressed - it reminds me of the word of wisdom where Joseph Smith took questions to the Lord after feeling pressure from Emma, which led to the revelation.

My question to you is why can’t it be both?  

[pogi]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I completely agree.

Why not?   And why couldn't both be revelation?

When I read the D&C, I see the Lord doing a lot of about-faces on things that were, according to the scriptures, both revelation.  Not because He didn't know the end game but because He was letting the people be a part of the playbook.

In my experience with revelation, God gets us where He intends to be, but the path there is seldom as straightforward as it could be.

I see bluebell has already expressed my sentiment exactly.  Don’t mind me...carry on...

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

So Pres Nelson responded to silent prayers and not the boisterous rally’s, matches and plea’s.  So Pres Nelson is now privy to prayers?  I thought that was Gods thing 

She is suggesting that the Lord could have responded to their prayers by giving revelation to President Nelson.  
 

Or, perhaps it was simply a response to President Nelsons prayer for direction in the face of public pressure.   It doesn’t seem so unreasonable to me.

[Fair Dinkum]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

I haven’t read the thread yet, so this idea may have been already expressed - it reminds me of the word of wisdom where Joseph Smith took questions to the Lord after feeling pressure from Emma, which led to the revelation.

My question to you is why can’t it be both?  

Makes God look fickle and uncertain...like he did on the children of lgbtq reversal, which I personally feel had nothing to do with God.  Church started getting incredibly bad press was taking heat and reversed a terribly bad decision. God had nothing to do with it

Edited May 6, 2021 by Fair Dinkum