- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
dande48 wrote:
I think a good example of this, was the Roberts-Smith-Talmage dispute in the 1930s over organic evolution. People hold both literal and non-literal views, but all members are practically required to act as if they believe it’s all literally literally true, as well as give credence to the divine authority of our Church leaders.“The Church is true” is so central to our dogma, I doubt there could ever be room for a truly nuanced point of view.
This makes me smile. My husband and I watch “Great Courses” lectures together – and there are some we wind up skipping over because “they take evolution too seriously”. It’s on my list of topics to consider – but it’s pretty far down on the list for now.
Quote:Sis. Nelson has never been a shrinking violet, but I would prefer she keep her mouth shut about what she said.
A couple weeks ago I deleted a verbose post on my worries and feelings about her. I knew he and I wouldn’t connect, but most President’s wives keep a low profile.
Sister Hinckley was a comic relief, she never got into discussions about his President job. She’d mention his house overhauls, and other family related things. She embraced her own imperfections.
Sister Monson was half way out the door of this life when it was his turn.
Sister Kimball was known for gardening and sweet letters.
This entire leadership experience feels very CEO-COO- style. Throw the word revelation around all you like, but if her words hold any credence, this is the new company president.
Some of the direction I like. Chunks of it I don’t.
Don’t tell me he’s 94. He can easily live to 104.
The church is full of the same types of people the whole world is full of: literalists, symbolists, black & white thinkers, nuanced thinkers, those who revere authority, those who question authority, the outspoken and the quiet. The people who “set the culture,” at least the visible culture, are just the most vocal. I found Sis. Nelson’s admission to be on some level kind of hilarious. She’s essentially admitting openly that her husband has been waiting in the wings with his list of hobby-horses until he outlived the rest of them. It’s the sort of thing that people in power know not to admit openly. The fact that she did admit it is kind of refreshing, but also shows that she’s a bit of a bumpkin. It’s almost endearing.
I’m mixed on Nelson’s agenda. Overall, I don’t take exception to most of what he’s doing (the PoX and his limited views of women are two noteworthy exceptions). What I do object to is that he and a few others (Oaks and Bednar in particular) don’t seem to comprehend the gospel. They are very works focused, stating that God’s love is conditional on our earning it. I see it as a serious misreading of scripture and a miscomprehension of the atonement. It’s something you can certainly find infiltrating our lesson manuals also. I don’t doubt their sincerity or their desire to do right. I simply don’t think they understand the gospel correctly, and they aren’t the first to read it the way they do. Some others in the Q12 do not make the same error.
On the one hand, this type of misreading of the gospel may be harmless if it causes someone to avoid temptation and lead a better life. On the other hand, it leads to subtle spiritual problems like judging others, pride, arrogance, doing good works for the wrong reasons (to be seen, to be right, to be “worthy” which is also not really possible–nobody is really worthy), and not having empathy or charity for others or for oneself. They would say (and with some reason) that the other view leads to laxity about sin, self-justification, and moral ambivalence.
hawkgrrrl wrote:
I simply don’t think they understand the gospel correctly…
I don’t think so either, but who has the authority to interpret the gospel? Because frankly, the main consensual understanding of the gospel has changed drastically from the time of Christ, through the ages, until now. What are the chances that your view, or mine, or Nelson’s, or anyone else’s is the correct one? I’m not sure anyone really knows, let alone understands what Jesus taught; and so all we’re left with is our own personal interpretation.
Too often I wonder if religion on a massive scale is used as a tool for pushing a particular socio/political agenda, giving it the weight of “God”. Not doubting their reasons or integrity; I think most God-fearing people believe that their sociopolitical beliefs are aligned with “God’s”, and hold it’s His will that they be implemented. But more and more I have a hard time believing any claims of revelation or authority from God. If God wants to set the record straight with me, He’s more than welcome to do so. But I don’t think that’s the sort of thing God does.
The corporate manager in me looks a bit at Nelson and he is doing just what a corporation head should do. Shaking up a few things can get people excited. I do think he has done that with a few of the changes. People like ministering as they don’t feel guilty every month. Two hour church – anybody with kids or anybody that finds church zzz LOVE the change. But what Wendy’s comments seem to undercut is that all of these changes are coming from the Lord, but instead are just her husbands wishes for years. If moving to ministering was needed, could he not have done it via Monson? Why not even the 1st presidency while Monson was not 100% there as it is often commented that the 1st pres can still effectively run the church even if the prez is incapacitated? The POX was done while Monson wasn’t 100%.
I know most believing Mormons see it that way. They are just excited for some change.
OK, this name of the church thing. 1. The scriptures say we are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
2. President Hinckley said “Mormon” is OK and accepted for us.
3. President Nelson now disagrees….
On this one, I think it’s pure leadership interpretation and roulette. Also, the idea that President Nelson can ‘finally do what he wants to do’ sounds pretty individualistic, not inspired. If I was President Nelson, I’d rather my wife let me speak for myself, and she can speak for herself….
Years ago in Canada we had a political leader who was giving a statement. Her husband was beside her and started chiming in with the statement, unasked. I was surprised, and empathized with how uncomfortable she looked that her husband was making statements to the press about matters that were her jurisdiction. Wouldn’t surprise me if President Nelson would feel the same.
Heber13 wrote:
Faith in leaders helps many people feel better about their life, gives some sense of certainty that life is not all random and depressing. Church and the teachings of prophets can provide that.
Poking a little fun at my younger self I can imagine it going something like this, “Give me certainty! Give me certainty!” Fast forward a few years and it goes like this, “You lied to me! You told me that life had a certain and glorious purpose instead of being all random and depressing! Why would you do that?”
😆 LookingHard wrote:
But what Wendy’s comments seem to undercut is that all of these changes are coming from the Lord, but instead are just her husbands wishes for years.
I totally understand why you could get that from what Sister Nelson said, but I do not think that is her intent – nor her view.
Quote:“I have seen him changing in the last ten months,” said Sister Nelson. “It is as though he’s been unleashed. He’s free to finally do what he came to earth to do. … And also, 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.”
“I see the Lord pouring strength into [President Nelson] …every day to be strong,” said Sister Nelson. “I’ve seen him be able to now do those things that have been in his heart. I’ve seen him, as I’ve said, be clear about doctrine. I’ve seen him become younger. I’ve seen him become happier … because he’s doing what he came to earth to do. … He was foreordained to be the prophet of God on the earth today.”
She seems to be saying that President Nelson is not just a placeholder prophet – not just someone to continue on day to day operations in about the same direction as we have already been moving. She seems to be saying that God has been preparing RMN for his entire mortal and premortal life for this exact role in this exact time. Therefore the things that have bothered RMN for years but that he never had the power to change until now – they may have been implanted by the Lord into President Nelson’s premortal personality to activate and bear fruit at precisely this moment.
It somewhat reminds me of the story of Eli and Samuel. Samuel was chosen to be chief Judge, priest, and prophet as a young man. LDS doctrine would probably add that Samuel was chosen in the premortal realm and “foreordained” to his role. When the Lord starts talking to Samuel Israel already has a chief judge and priest in Eli but God does not speak to Eli. Instead God raises up Samuel to make the changes God wants.
Sister Nelson seems to have a viewpoint similar to that – with her husband being prepared and foreordained from before the foundation of the world to make the institutional changes that he is making today.
I do think that this viewpoint tends to lesson the role of those church presidents that came before … unless one takes the view that all of them are prepared and foreordained to do and emphasize exactly the things that they did as church president.
However this viewpoint might better reconcile how a church president can receive revelation without “sacred grove” or lightning bolt revelatory experiences. What if his entire life, every formative experience, was God’s way of molding him to become the person that God needed for a time such as this? God does not need to tell him what to do because God crafted him in such a way that those concerns, passions, or hobby horses that RMN has harbored for years
arethe will of God for this moment. This is different, of course, from a viewpoint where a person becomes prophet and then starts receiving divine direction in how to perform his administrative duties … in more or less equal divine direction as every other prophet that has held the post before him.
Roy wrote:
She seems to be saying that God has been preparing RMN for his entire mortal and premortal life for this exact role in this exact time. Therefore the things that have bothered RMN for years but that he never had the power to change until now – they may have been implanted by the Lord into President Nelson’s premortal personality to activate and bear fruit at precisely this moment.Throwback to the president of the church for a day thread, but it’s kind of depressing to think that if there are things that are bothering us that we’d like to see changed then we’re going to have to be called to the Q12 and wait for everyone ahead of us in line to die before we’ll get that shot. It’s an overly cynical interpretation I know, but maybe we were all worker drones in the preexistence, not destined to be in a position where our opinions mattered.
Roy wrote:
I do think that this viewpoint tends to lesson the role of those church presidents that came before … unless one takes the view that all of them are prepared and foreordained to do and emphasize exactly the things that they did as church president.You could go the route of the saints not being prepared enough to receive further light and knowledge, so each successive president only reveals things that the community as a whole has been prepared to receive.
Roy wrote:
However this viewpoint might better reconcile how a church president can receive revelation without “sacred grove” or lightning bolt revelatory experiences. What if his entire life, every formative experience, was God’s way of molding him to become the person that God needed for a time such as this? God does not need to tell him what to do because God crafted him in such a way that those concerns, passions, or hobby horses that RMN has harbored for yearsarethe will of God for this moment. Kind of like Bednar’s light switch vs. sunrise interpretations of receiving revelation.
Maybe – Using Roy’s thoughts, this is another twist in changing the church direction. Is a soft turn approach best on the Prophet Walks With God approach. I was raised with the idea of life missions. I could get behind the theme of a life being shaped for something.
Under that guideline though I am still uncomfortable with his use of Revelation.
Quote:we’d like to see changed then we’re going to have to be called to the Q12 and wait for everyone ahead of us in line to die before we’ll get that shot.
That would so suck.
And double suck if we don’t get an Uchtdorf Pres. Just sayin’. I have been waiting for that “all my life”.
I don’t mean to say that the top leaders have no concern for the average member, 2 hour church and all that, but I do lament that people that have legitimate concerns sometimes get on the excommunication radar if they find themselves out ahead of the leaders. Quote:I don’t mean to say that the top leaders have no concern for the average member, 2 hour church and all that, but I do lament that people that have legitimate concerns sometimes get on the excommunication radar if they find themselves out ahead of the leaders.
This does go back On Own’s comment (and others) that we have no way on the bottom to share things with the top. No suggestion boxes or SP bumping up a good idea.
Before Nelson was President, more than 30 years ago, I was taught that the church was moving to home church/small group format and that the block program was the starting point. For me, I finally gave up wishing for that. I’d loved the minute I heard it. Today is a huge step closer. Nelson wasn’t even a GA at the time. President Kimball was still at the helm. Nelson came on in 1984, four years after the block program was put in place. Maybe it was a discussion that took 30 years. Maybe he never was part of it, but he too disliked 3 hours of church. What if his wife complained all the time about taking 10 kids to church and wrestling them.
It’s interesting. Frustrating. Murky as ever.
mom3 wrote:
This does go back On Own’s comment (and others) that we have no way on the bottom to share things with the top. No suggestion boxes or SP bumping up a good idea.
Revelation negates the need for “human suggestion”. I’ve said this before, but for me it’s not so much of a change in this policy or that, which would bring back my confidence in the Church. It’s much of the core foundation I really struggle with. The dependance on and commitment to “prophetic revelation” is one of them.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.