Ephraim temple announcement revelation or caving to public pressure

[JustAnAustralian]

Unless we get an actual transcript or video of the interview, we don't know exactly what wording he used or how the question was worded.

[Fair Dinkum]

1 hour ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Unless we get an actual transcript or video of the interview, we don't know exactly what wording he used or how the question was worded.

We have the reporters article, so yeah we do know mate. Now you can question the integrity of the reporting and I guess that’s what you’re doing. But it appears to me that you should be questioning the quality of the reporting done by the dez news who left this important quote out of their reporting.  Hmmmm, I wonder why?

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

We have the reporters article, so yeah we do know mate.

What we have on Rasband is five sentences

Quote

 

“What we have just heard from our loving prophet is the mind and the will and the direction of the Lord Jesus Christ,” apostle Ronald A. Rasband said during an in-person meeting in the Manti Tabernacle. “This is a great announcement for the whole Kingdom of God on earth.”

The apostle added that he had “a deep impression that there is rejoicing in this temple district and on the other side of the veil among our ancestors.”

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.”

 

Please tell me what his full statement was.

 

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Now you can question the integrity of the reporting and I guess that’s what you’re doing

 

Nope. I just want to know what his full statement was.

 

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

But it appears to me that you should be questioning the quality of the reporting done by the dez news who left this important quote out of their reporting.  

 

From the DNews https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/5/6/22419853/churchbeat-newsletter-lds-mormon-church-backstory-of-president-nelson-revelation-manti-temple

Quote

 

President Nelson’s impression was “the mind and the will and the direction of the Lord Jesus Christ,” said Elder Rasband, who also referred to it as both a prophetic announcement and a divine announcement.

“I’m going to be so bold as to call it a revelation,” Elder Rasband concluded.

 

That revelation comment appears to be in relation not just to the art change, but also building the new temple.

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

We have the reporters article, so yeah we do know mate. Now you can question the integrity of the reporting and I guess that’s what you’re doing. But it appears to me that you should be questioning the quality of the reporting done by the dez news who left this important quote out of their reporting.  Hmmmm, I wonder why?

Since you know (or knew) Elder Rasband, how do you explain his statement (or the paraphrasing by the reporter)?  Do you think he doesn't think that the protests had any part in the decision?  Or does he not know about them?  Or what?  You have a better understanding of Elder Rasband than I do, so I'd like to know what you think he meant.

[rongo]

Tad Walch's article about this certainly seeks to elevate this to a momentous revelation. This tone and tenor is what lies behind explanations that there were absolutely no other considerations (e.g., protests, anguish, frustration on the part of those near Manti/Moroni/Ephraim) involved. 

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/5/6/22419853/churchbeat-newsletter-lds-mormon-church-backstory-of-president-nelson-revelation-manti-temple

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

While I agree with you...this is not what Elder Rasband stated. He claimed that the reversal was not influenced by the outcry

Another thing occurred to me, and it was this: possibly the Brethren met, discussed the matter and decided to disregard the concerns raised by some of the public and go with their original plan, only to be countermanded by the Lord when it came to approaching Him in prayer for confirmation.

In that event, saying that it was revelation alone that caused the change in plans would have been exactly the truth.

But I'm just hypothesizing, obviously.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Another thing occurred to me, and it was this: possibly the Brethren met, discussed the matter and decided to disregard the concerns raised by some of the public and go with their original plan, only to be countermanded by the Lord when it came to approaching Him in prayer for confirmation.

In that event, saying that it was revelation alone that caused the change in plans would have been exactly the truth.

But I'm just hypothesizing, obviously.

According to the Walch article above, "President Nelson wrote the impression down on the yellow pad of paper [after one of his middle of the night impressions] and then assembled a small group of leaders like Elder Rasband with some church staff, recounted the experience to them and directed them to begin work on the announcement."

"Elder Rasband noted that it is 'kind of unique' for temple announcements to be made outside of the church’s general conferences each April and October . . . but he explained why President Nelson announced the Ephraim Utah Temple on Saturday.

'As he was talking to others, I heard him say, some of you may wonder why I just don’t wait until general conference to announce this,' Elder Rasband said. 'And he said, ‘Because I had the revelation now. Why not announce it?’"

[Stargazer]

18 minutes ago, rongo said:

Tad Walch's article about this certainly seeks to elevate this to a momentous revelation. This tone and tenor is what lies behind explanations that there were absolutely no other considerations (e.g., protests, anguish, frustration on the part of those near Manti/Moroni/Ephraim) involved. 

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/5/6/22419853/churchbeat-newsletter-lds-mormon-church-backstory-of-president-nelson-revelation-manti-temple

Thanks for posting this. I wish I had read it before I posted my immediately previous post. Although I do expect a good deal of disparaging speech from those who simply cannot bear the idea that revelation might exist.

Edited May 8, 2021 by Stargazer

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Another thing occurred to me, and it was this: possibly the Brethren met, discussed the matter and decided to disregard the concerns raised by some of the public and go with their original plan, only to be countermanded by the Lord when it came to approaching Him in prayer for confirmation.

In that event, saying that it was revelation alone that caused the change in plans would have been exactly the truth.

But I'm just hypothesizing, obviously.

That is something to think about, because how this is being presented seems so overboard, and this would be the best way to explain their behavior, if so. 

[longview]

It seems that Elder Rasband is being very straightforward about the whole process.  There is no fixed rule or doctrine that Temple announcements be made during general conference.  Are people bothered by what appears to be incremental revelations?  Joseph Smith's revelations were frequently incremental.  Including several sections of the D&C and the entire Book of Moses.  Sadly he was unable to complete the refinements to the Book of Moses before he was martyred.

[Stargazer]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That is something to think about, because how this is being presented seems so overboard, and this would be the best way to explain their behavior, if so. 

See @rongo's post above, citing Tad Walch's article on the subject.

I wasn't far off from what actually happened. President Nelson himself calls it a revelation. I think I would tend to defer to him on the subject; it's his job, after all.

[CA Steve]

22 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It's been something that has been ridiculed on this forum from time to time.

 

22 hours ago, pogi said:

What is so wrong with that?

I am not disputing what has happened or even how those experiencing such things personally feel about those events. What I am saying is that using the term 'miracle' to label such mundane events as finding keys or other common everyday events is a misuse of the term. My view is that miraculous events should be unexpected and extraordinary. The events being described here do not fit that criteria. Arguments about how wonderful such events are, miss my point.

[bluebell]

Just now, CA Steve said:

My view is that miraculous events should be unexpected and extraordinary. 

Is your view the only valid option, or can reasonable people disagree about the definition of a miracle, in your opinion?

[CA Steve]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Is your view the only valid option, or can reasonable people disagree about the definition of a miracle, in your opinion?

I do not think that is the question you should be asking and I think it is largely irrelevant to the discussion. I go back to our discussion on loaded questions, which this is one, though I suspect you do not see it as such.  To make it not loaded you would need to drop "valid" and "reasonable", but then the answer to the question is self evident. I would then answer no & yes, but without assigning value to either the options or opinions.

What I think you should be asking is what is the impact of our differences in definitions about this word?  In my view, when we use words significantly different, communication fails. So, for example, if Pogi were to simply describe his day as miraculous, nothing more, I might understand something quite different from what he was intending. That is a theme in this thread, the use of the term "revelation", which I also think is being watered down and being used unnecessarily to place a divine imprimatur on what looks to be just an ordinary construction decision.

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

In my view, when we use words significantly different, communication fails.

I guess you should consider dropping your use of the term then 😁 

45 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

That is a theme in this thread, the use of the term "revelation", which I also think is being watered down and being used unnecessarily to place a divine imprimatur on what looks to be just an ordinary construction decision.

Are you going to also complain that God mis-used revelation in the D&C, such as when he revealed mundane details about keeping an ordinary history (with many other mundane examples)? Why can’t we just accept that revelation can happen from the mundane to the sublime.  Isn’t that range and continuum of revelation evident in the D&C?  Why should we place limits on God?

Edited May 8, 2021 by pogi

[CA Steve]

31 minutes ago, pogi said:

Why should we place limits on God?

"We" are not placing limits on God, we are discussing limits on vocabulary. 

[pogi]

28 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

"We" are not placing limits on God, we are discussing limits on vocabulary. 

Changing vocabulary places limits on what God can and cannot “reveal” to us.    Is there some objective cutoff on the scale of mundane, or something?  Anything above a certain point is a revelation, and anything below is inspiration?  I don’t understand why we should restrict revelation in such a way.

[Islander]

On 5/5/2021 at 8:07 PM, webbles said:

I'm assuming you are referencing the temple in Tooele.  Was that decision ever called a revelation?  I don't remember hearing that.  If it wasn't called a revelation, then it would be a point in favor that this change in Manti/Ephraim was a revelation since it is different from the first time.

Yes. I suggest that over time we have come trivialize and thus develop a very low view of what is actual "revelation". We have moved away from the biblical definition of revelation and adopted a more fluid, casual and almost gnostic view of it. That is happening at every level. There is the agency and the will of men in the one hand, and there is the will, the purpose and unfailing word of God in the other. The challenge is for us mere mortals, in our day, to discern between the two. 

I always go to the scriptures and the words of God to find information about His character, attributes, purpose and will. And what we find is that when God says "this will be done" it is done. There are times when the Lord asks rhetorical questions or places a dilemma before men to draw them into the exchange and event, to elicit their response; to bring them to repentance, a way to force them into action mode. But when He states His will and purpose it WILL come to pass.  

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I assumed that EVERY Temple underwent the same process from design to dedication. It is not conceivable that some come to fruition by revelation and some by the flesh and the will or men. Just my thoughts.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I do not think that is the question you should be asking and I think it is largely irrelevant to the discussion. I go back to our discussion on loaded questions, which this is one, though I suspect you do not see it as such.  To make it not loaded you would need to drop "valid" and "reasonable", but then the answer to the question is self evident. I would then answer no & yes, but without assigning value to either the options or opinions.

It's not a loaded question.  I'm trying to figure out if our disagreement on this is an issue of different perspectives (a "reasonable people can disagree on this" issue--which is why i specifically used the term reasonable) or if you sincerely believe there is only one correct (or valid) way to interpret what a miracle is and that any other interpretation is incorrect.

Understanding those two issues would help me understand your point better.

Quote

What I think you should be asking is what is the impact of our differences in definitions about this word?  In my view, when we use words significantly different, communication fails. So, for example, if Pogi were to simply describe his day as miraculous, nothing more, I might understand something quite different from what he was intending. That is a theme in this thread, the use of the term "revelation", which I also think is being watered down and being used unnecessarily to place a divine imprimatur on what looks to be just an ordinary construction decision.

I agree with the bold, but I think we both believe that we are using the word correctly while the other isn't, which is why i tried to ask for clarification.

It sounds like you believe a miracle is something that is very very very unlikely to happen.  A statistical improbability that is closer to impossibility.  That would mean that if something is astronomically rare, but still scientifically explainable, it could, using that definition, be reasonably described as a miracle.

I'm using a dictionary definition which does not take into account whether or not something is rare or unlikely to happen.  With that definition, all that matters is that it is unexplainable using science or natural laws.  So, according to that definition, even if something happened every day somewhere on the earth, if science could not explain it or it went against the laws of science, it would be considered a miracle despite it being fairly common.

Both of those definitions are likely valid and reasonable definitions, so in that sense, neither one of us is wrong.  The important thing is to recognize that we are using the word differently and take that into account.  

Communication doesn't have to fail in these instances if both people are being reasonable and both are willing to try to understand where each other is coming from (and as long as we don't hold other people to a perspective we find most valid but they don't).

 

[Duncan]

One thing to keep in mind is the Q12 aren't terribly involved in deciding when and where temples are to be constructed. So, how Elder Rasband would know is unclear to me .There is a this Temple Executive Committee with the Executive director, which is now Elder Kevin Duncan of the Seventy serving, plus some of assistants and probably one of the Presiding Bishopric and the First Presidency. The Exec. Director receives and gives information on temples but its the First Presidency who decides, when and where. So, for example I know for a fact that when the Nauvoo Temple was re-announced in 1999 the Q12 were just as surprised as anyone else. I wouldn't be surprised if they also find out at conference when and here of new temples. I know this because last year I interviewed a former Executive Director of the Temple Department and he told me. He siad the Twelve weren't in these approval meetings and they have design meetings with architects, the Twelve basically carry out orders from the 1st Presidency but they don't make these decisions. So, I am kind of wondering if Elder Rasband heard of all this second hand

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

One thing to keep in mind is the Q12 aren't terribly involved in deciding when and where temples are to be constructed. So, how Elder Rasband would know is unclear to me .There is a this Temple Executive Committee with the Executive director, which is now Elder Kevin Duncan of the Seventy serving, plus some of assistants and probably one of the Presiding Bishopric and the First Presidency. The Exec. Director receives and gives information on temples but its the First Presidency who decides, when and where. So, for example I know for a fact that when the Nauvoo Temple was re-announced in 1999 the Q12 were just as surprised as anyone else. I wouldn't be surprised if they also find out at conference when and here of new temples. I know this because last year I interviewed a former Executive Director of the Temple Department and he told me. He siad the Twelve weren't in these approval meetings and they have design meetings with architects, the Twelve basically carry out orders from the 1st Presidency but they don't make these decisions. So, I am kind of wondering if Elder Rasband heard of all this second hand

From this article, 

https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/5/6/22419853/churchbeat-newsletter-lds-mormon-church-backstory-of-president-nelson-revelation-manti-temple

---

Elder Ronald A. Rasband of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles then stood, grasped the tiny wooden pulpit in the Manti Tabernacle in both hands and told the church members in central Utah who were watching the livestreamed broadcast that President Nelson’s announcement was an example of the Biblical saying that God will do nothing without revealing it first to his prophets.

“I want you to know that is exactly what has happened here that we’re participating in today,” he said, calling it “a great announcement for the whole kingdom of God on earth.”

President Nelson’s impression was “the mind and the will and the direction of the Lord Jesus Christ,” said Elder Rasband, who also referred to it as both a prophetic announcement and a divine announcement . . . 

Elder Rasband had said during the broadcast that he was part of a meeting where President Nelson shared his experience of God responding to his pleadings.

Elder Rasband spoke further about the circumstances of that meeting after Saturday’s broadcast ended, when the apostle remained on the stand in the tabernacle to take questions from reporters.

“President Nelson has described that this was one of his during-the-night promptings of the Spirit,” Elder Rasband said. “He has said before publicly that he goes to bed with a yellow pad next to his bed. I understand that he had this prompting, which turned into a very distinct impression, to move forward in a different way in Manti and to proceed with the Ephraim temple.”

President Nelson wrote the impression down on the yellow pad of paper and then assembled a small group of leaders like Elder Rasband with some church staff, recounted the experience to them and directed them to begin work on the announcement.

That was just a couple of weeks ago, Elder Rasband said.

“It was done very quickly,” he said. “So in my time, and I used to be the director of the Temple Department for President (Gordon B.) Hinckley, this was warp speed. This was moving with all due haste. President (Nelson) had the impression, the prompting, and wanted to act upon it quickly.”

Elder Rasband noted that it is “kind of unique” for temple announcements to be made outside of the church’s general conferences each April and October — the last one was the Payson Utah Temple in January 2010 — but he explained why President Nelson announced the Ephraim Utah Temple on Saturday.

“As he was talking to others, I heard him say, some of you may wonder why I just don’t wait until general conference to announce this,” Elder Rasband said. “And he said, ‘Because I had the revelation now. Why not announce it?’ ... It was just that beautiful spirit of his. ‘Why wait? Why wait?’ So here we are.”

---

(rongo): I found it interesting that the ruckus out of Manti/Ephraim/Moroni had so little effect, they decided to do a special broadcast just for them announcing it. Granted, a special broadcast for an area might be done just for them to announce a temple, but this was after it had been announced what was going to happen to Manti, and the ensuing upset and frustration. To suddenly decide to build a small temple in Ephraim and leave Manti alone seems . . .  exactly like a reaction to the expressions of sadness, anger, and frustration. 

I think where Elder Rasband went wrong was in doubling down on none of this playing any role whatsoever. It wouldn't diminish "revelation" as it's being used by him and President Nelson to acknowledge a change of mind in favor of the good people of Sanpete County. It kind of looks sheepish, like they know how it will play in some quarters, so it needs to be a dramatic revelation announcement --- even though it was another yellow legal pad in the night impression. 

 

[CA Steve]

20 hours ago, pogi said:

Changing vocabulary places limits on what God can and cannot “reveal” to us. 

Your response, again, misses my point and even loads your own definition of miraculous into your definition of God. God is not constrained by how you and I define words, but we are.

Edited May 9, 2021 by CA Steve

[CA Steve]

19 hours ago, bluebell said:

It's not a loaded question

How long have you been struggling with loaded questions?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

How long have you been struggling with loaded questions?

I forgive you for misunderstanding me.  

[CA Steve]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I forgive you for misunderstanding me.  

It's a miracle!  😋