- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
At the last GC, Russell M. Nelson was third in the line of succession, but in a matter of just six weeks, he has moved to next-in-line. A handful of thoughts, before I get to the question: – The Church now has only one remaining witness to the lifting of the priesthood/temple ban: TSM.
– TSM now has 21 years of seniority among the apostles. He was ordained an Apostle in 1963, RMN not until 1984.
– M. Russell Ballard, Richard G. Scott, and Robert D. Hales have all been GA’s longer than RMN, having served as Seventy or Presiding Bishoprics before RMN’s call out of nowhere.
– RMN’s first wife died in February, 2005 and in April of 2006, he married his second wife in the SLC Temple. It was her first marriage, so presumably, this was a second ‘time-and-all-eternity’ marriage, making RMN a doctrinal-polygamist.
– Even though RMN is 90, he looks healthy and spry. I went back to watch his conference talk in April. He looked in better shape than half of the rest of the quorum and I could see him living to 100 or beyond. He looks far healthier than JRH, who is 16 years younger.
So, now to the heart of the matter. Who is RMN? I’d love to hear insights from any of you. BKP was a known quantity, and that quantity was a little scary. But RMN, to me, is a mystery man. He’s pretty non-descript. He’s been an Apostle for 31 years, but I have no idea what his key issues are or what he stands for. I can’t think of any talk he has given. He’s probably the least interesting of the quorum. The only distinguishing event I can think of regarding RMN was when he stood at the side of Joseph B. Wirthlin, who was very shaky at the podium. His speaking tone is boring (to me), his topics are not interesting. I think of his words as ‘primary answers’ delivered in conference talk form. His talk at the conclusion of GC, the last talk on Easter Sunday, was about Sabbath Observance. But I really just don’t know what to think. Any of you have insights?
I hope the “seniority” practice is abandoned and Dieter Uchtdorf becomes the next president. Unfortunately negatives can often define. This is the article that stands out in my mind, it is almost the anti-Uchtdorf: http://www.lds.org/ensign/2003/02/divine-love?lang=eng Granted views and opinions can change over time, and this was 12 years ago.
He also authored “A Treasured Testament” in July 1993, which was the first Ensign reference that I know of that gave David Whitmer’s account of the stone in the hat as the BoM translation method. So maybe there is an early point scored for being true to the historical record.
Here is a brief biography of Russell Nelson: https://www.lds.org/church/leader/russell-m-nelson?lang=eng One significant thing about him is that he performed heart surgery on Spencer W. Kimball in 1972.
I was in my early 20’s when Ezra Taft Benson became President of the church. I was mildly liberal, but had devoutly feminist friends. One went so far as to assume she should resign her membership because of his strong political and religious opinions. The Bishop asked her to wait, in those days it was a circus to resign, he agreed if anything fit her bill to do it. She didn’t – at least during his tenure. They didn’t see eye to eye on mother’s at home but she and I didn’t have kids so we figured we were exempt. My point is – we really don’t know the person till they get there. Benson never gave a talk as President of the church that was nearly as hell fire and brimstone as things he did when he was a GA. It was like he mellowed or feared being too extreme. Sometimes being the driver’s seat changes us.
I am not a Nelson fan. He is retrenchment all the way to me. His talks about how the ladies in his family gather around and make home made donuts while he is at Priesthood meeting then practically sit at his feet while he shares what he learned there with them grates on my something fierce. But I am willing to leave room for a changed perception.
What I really hope is that Monson hangs on because I don’t want Uchtdorf or Eyring relegated to the pack. Naturally Uchtdorf first, but I think Eyring is nice balance for our divided community.
On Own Now wrote:– M. Russell Ballard, Richard G. Scott, and Robert D. Hales have all been GA’s longer than RMN, having served as Seventy or Presiding Bishoprics before RMN’s call out of nowhere.
Russell M Nelson performed open heart surgery on Spencer W Kimball in 1972, possibly saving his life, and probably a contributing factor to his selection as Q12. SWK was president of the church when RMN was called to Q12. I’d speculate that there was an intimacy and trust between the two, and they had known each other for years.
https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/what-are-prophets/bio/russell-m-nelson?lang=eng Back in the day Elder Nelson did a piece for the Ensign on God’s love being conditional that was troublesome for me, my daughter, and people I home taught. It seemed to be mostly semantics and in the end unnecessary and has colored my view of him ever since. I wondered if it was his idea or someone in CES got him to do it to make a point. Who knows. He is a cardio-thoracic surgeon. All those stereotypes .. They are based on some truths. I noticed in his April ’84 conference address that he seems to place a high priority on unbroken and unblemished records. All eight of his great-grandparents joining the church and emigrating to the same town in Utah, an unbroken string of (at that time, I think) his kids’ eight temple marriages. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with taking satisfaction and inspiration from all of that, but it’s just not the world I’ve come from or the one I live in now. Is there any hope of Section 132 being “revisited” if he becomes president? That said, fingers crossed and hoping for the best.
He mischaracterized and mocked the Big Bang theory in this talk in 2012, getting audience laughs, and contributing to the death knell of my son’s testimony. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/04/thanks-be-to-god?lang=eng
Quote:Yet some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere. Ask yourself, “Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?” The likelihood is most remote. But if so, it could never heal its own torn pages or reproduce its own newer editions!
He also gave a nice talk when I was in the MTC about the symbols of Christ’s life and ministry.
You never know. It was feared that ETB would go John Birch in office, but he mostly talked about reading the BOM. Unfortunately, he also probably set the stage for the sexist rhetoric and inequality of the women in the church.
I think Nelson and Oaks are both old school hardliners and would not like to see either in the big chair. The only thing I like better about Nelson is that he smiles while Oaks seems to mostly scowl. There are things I like about Oaks better – you do know where he stands. Oaks is 8 years younger, making it much more likely he will around longer and making it more likely that each of them could see some time at the top unless one or both of them have a Perry-like speedy decline (remember how robust Perry seemed at April conference?). Frankly I’m not sad that Packer never took the helm, but I’m not too keen on the next two either. Remember, Oaks is the one who spoke in General Conference about endowed women having Priesthood power and authority within themselves and all who serve in callings exercising Priesthood power and authority in those callings. It’s easy to focus on one thing or another, but these are not one-dimensional people – and I have been surprised often in my lifetime by what some of them have said.
On Own Now wrote:So, now to the heart of the matter. Who is RMN? I’d love to hear insights from any of you. BKP was a known quantity, and that quantity was a little scary. But RMN, to me, is a mystery man. He’s pretty non-descript. He’s been an Apostle for 31 years, but I have no idea what his key issues are or what he stands for. I can’t think of any talk he has given. He’s probably the least interesting of the quorum. The only distinguishing event I can think of regarding RMN was when he stood at the side of Joseph B. Wirthlin, who was very shaky at the podium. His speaking tone is boring (to me), his topics are not interesting. I think of his words as ‘primary answers’ delivered in conference talk form. His talk at the conclusion of GC, the last talk on Easter Sunday, was about Sabbath Observance. But I really just don’t know what to think. Any of you have insights?
Shows where my mind is at but the first thing I thought of was the “How General Authorities Eat Their Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups” video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDPi4buduY0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDPi4buduY0” class=”bbcode_url”> I hope that isn’t too disrespectful, it’s comedy after all.
:angel: So when you asked your question I immediately thought, “what would RMN’s instructions for eating a Reese’s peanut butter cup sound like?” I’m coming up blank.Like others one of the few messages that came to mind was his article on Divine Love. I remember that one because there was some debate both internal and external to the church surrounding the teaching that god’s love was conditional. I think the discussion reached a stalemate similar to faith vs. works. Personally I’d rather have a god that loved unconditionally, if god’s love is conditional it gives us permission to place conditions on our love. I’d rather strive for that unattainable ideal than try to determine whether my conditions lined up with what I currently believe to be god’s conditions.
The only other talk that comes to mind is his talk Sustaining the Prophets. I only remember it because it came during that session last October that was all about prophets.
You are, of course, right Ray. It is sometimes easier to focus on the perceived negatives than on positives for some reason – I don’t know why that is. Conversely, Uchtdorf can almost do no wrong. I do like Elder Oaks’s talk about the keys of the priesthood and I quote from it frequently. I also like his talk from Oct. 2014 conference about loving others and living with differences and I have quoted from that talk as well. I think it interesting that he has been at the forefront (IMO) of the issue of loving those who believe differently given his vehement opposition to gay marriage. It is Oaks and Christofferson who go out and talk about these issues as opposed to others who we might think are a bit less opinionated. And I think that’s the thing with Nelson – he’s vanilla and he parrots most of the time. For those interested in Oaks, I blogged about his visit to Singapore here: http://www.wheatandtares.org/8220/reactions-to-an-apostles-words/
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.