laronius

Pres Nelson's wife was the breadwinner for a number of years while he was in school. He openly says as much. But they also didn't put off for many years having kids, as evidenced by his large family. I think we can support the Church's policy on families without assuming the worst of those whose situation does not perfectly match our interpretation of that policy. 

I just started reading the Pres Nelson biography by Sheri Dew. In it is referenced an experience his grandfather had of conversing with his own father who had previously passed away. Pres Nelson's grandfather asked about the reality of the resurrection. Pres Nelson's great-grandfather replied:
"Yes, my son, as true as can be. You cannot avoid being resurrected. It is just as natural for all to be resurrected as it is to be born and die again. No one can avoid being resurrected. There are many spirits in the spirit world who would to God, that there would be no Resurrection."
I thought this was really interesting because we always speak of the resurrection from the perspective of it being a blessing. A comforting thought when people pass away. But, assuming this conversation is reported accurately (which I can't see Pres Nelson relating this story if he didn't believe it himself), it appears that the resurrection is not universally looked on as a positive thing. That's a unique thought for me. 

As members we generally believe that many of the major technological advancements over the last couple of hundred years were inspired of the Lord to help advance His work in the last days. Artificial Intelligence seems to be the most recent major advancement. I know generally what it is but I can't say I'm super familiar with all of it's potential applications (other than cheating in school 😁). For those more in the know, do you think it will play a significant role in furthering the work of the Lord and if so how?

Shall I take up skiing, then?  Go to med school and law school?  Get a job or quit my job because of what a leader of the Church does?  Shall I make tents, persecute saints, and traipse up and down Damascus Road hoping for a vision?
It is one thing to heed the counsel of prophets and apostles.  It is one thing to follow the guidance and counsel of the general authorities and officers of the Church.  It is quite another to try to mimic their personal lives and choices, or to allow their personal-life choices to cause me to feel guilt or anything else about my own choices as regards my covenants and understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
As far as I'm concerned, Christ trumps Paul every time:
Find me where the Lord said I should follow Paul rather than Christ.  And no, this doesn't count:
This is not telling me to follow Paul, it's telling me to follow the Lord's teachings given through Paul.  There is a difference.  Maybe the Corinthian saints, who didn't have the scriptures and tons more in the palm of their hands, needed to follow Paul's example (as well as his teaching), because he was there with them, but that does not mean that I should pattern my life after President Johnson, President Nelson, or any other authority of the Church.  Heed their teachings? Yes.  Follow their example? Only if they're demonstrating following Christ (which means really, I'm following Christ).  But worry about their personal life choices (like P. Johnson choosing to work and be a mother at the same time) or let those life choices dictate how I keep or feel about keeping my covenants?  No.
Christ gets to worry about President Johnson's choices.  I get to worry about trying my very best to follow Christ.

Pres Nelson's wife was the breadwinner for a number of years while he was in school. He openly says as much. But they also didn't put off for many years having kids, as evidenced by his large family. I think we can support the Church's policy on families without assuming the worst of those whose situation does not perfectly match our interpretation of that policy. 

I believe it. Though I've also heard it said by general authorities that eventually the world will get dark enough that those desiring to remain faithful will flock to the temple for a reprieve. This I also believe. 

All of us are under the same commandment the moment we are born (or at least have reached the age of accountability, depending on how you want to look at it). But obviously the time for fulfilling that commandment is not until a later date, after we are far more prepared to keep it.

I just started reading the Pres Nelson biography by Sheri Dew. In it is referenced an experience his grandfather had of conversing with his own father who had previously passed away. Pres Nelson's grandfather asked about the reality of the resurrection. Pres Nelson's great-grandfather replied:
"Yes, my son, as true as can be. You cannot avoid being resurrected. It is just as natural for all to be resurrected as it is to be born and die again. No one can avoid being resurrected. There are many spirits in the spirit world who would to God, that there would be no Resurrection."
I thought this was really interesting because we always speak of the resurrection from the perspective of it being a blessing. A comforting thought when people pass away. But, assuming this conversation is reported accurately (which I can't see Pres Nelson relating this story if he didn't believe it himself), it appears that the resurrection is not universally looked on as a positive thing. That's a unique thought for me. 

When I read the scriptures and read stories of how people are all about how they a following the dead prophets but seems to ignore and belittle the living prophets...  And I often wonder how could they be so foolish.  Then I read threads like this and I am like ah so that how it begins.
Divine Laws are unchanging...  We we Humans in our fallen state are always changing.  Part of the role of God's prophets is to bridge that gap.  Part of their job is to council advise and direct us on how we can best fulfill Divine Law in an ever changing world.  For example the Old Testament has instructions from God's prophets on how to be a good slave owner.  No one in there right mind thinks that was a Divine Law or that we are some how running under a lesser Law because owning slaves is no longer considered a Good moral or ethical option.
When it comes to Families the most recent, most clear, and most authoritative instructions I think we have been given is the Proclamation on the Family.  It says many important things, but it never declares absolutely that Mothers must stay Home.  It declares that Mothers are the primary nurtures and that Fathers are the primary providers..  As a Father who has been listening to the prophets and councils of leaders I know that if I were to because state that because my wife has primary nurturing role that I do not need to do any I would be soundly thoroughly and rightly rebuked.    Because that is not what it says.  It outlines the general roles and responsibilities and then puts the burden of figuring out the right balance on the parents to figure out in prayerful council.
Therefore we should expect our leaders support and encourage any family that is following these instructions.  Now some devote followers might say they those with working wives are not really hearing from the Lord in these choices that they are letting there own desires override.  That might be true but that is an unrighteous judgement for us to be making about other people.  Other devote followers might engage in the sin of comparison.  We compare what we feel the Lord as commanded us to do for our families and then unrighteously expect that everyone else must get the same message no matter how different they might be.  This makes us more like the the 1st hour labors when they saw the payment of the 11th hour laborers
Now the church has clearly counciled in the past the wisdom of mothers being able stay home where possible.  I really do not see that as having changed.  I do see the church more acknowledging, that sometimes people can have a perfectly acceptable to the Lord (as much as any of us fallen people can be acceptable) family arrangement that is not part of the stereotype.  Given how many single parents or families that have to deal with very serious issues within the walls of there own home I am sure for many of them this is great comfort.  For those that don't have these struggles then be grateful and count your many blessing rather then being prideful that you are "doing it right" or jealous that they somehow are getting an easier option. 
For those that are feeling betrayed or that the Church leaders are failing....  REPENT before you stray much farther.  We might not like the direction the world is going but it is the last days and it is only going to get worse.  God will have his leaders adapt and adjust their counsel as needed as the world continues to fall.  If we fixate on past counsels we will miss the vital information the Prophets are giving us now.
 

If the Lord says do it then do it. If one woman feels the Lord directing them to have a job while rearing a family then obviously that is what needs to happen. If other women don't receive that same divine guidance but use them as an excuse to not be home with the children that's their problem. 

While on the whole, I'm on your side on the issue, I believe both of the bolded words to be an unfair and inaccurate interpretation of my post.
My point is that a system works because all or most of the parts are available and functioning in some capacity.  Society has removed so many of the parts that the traditional family has come depended on, that we need to make other contingency plans than we have in past generations.  For one thing, past generations actually discouraged women from even seeking higher education.  My father actually balked at the idea that my wife wanted to get a degree (which my labor would pay for).  And, yes, he was fairly typical of his generation.
Now, your point about Sis. Johnson's statement:  Yes, I am disturbed by it.  On its face, it appears to say,"Hey sisters!  You really CAN have it all! -- with or without men."
But she didn't say that.  She said that they, as a couple, sought the Lord's guidance in prayer and faith.  And as far as we know, she was perfectly willing to follow the Lord's counsel if she were told to quit school and become a SAHM.  That was not discussed in the snippet shown above.  What was shown above was that 
It sounded like she prayerfully made a joint decision between her, her husband, and the Lord.
Then Pres. Oaks' response was not about being a lawyer or getting her education.
What about that is any different from the messaging we received in generations past?
I also acknowledged that this does have a dangerous side to it.  People (read: career women) could EASILY take this to mean that women can go and become career women and ignore the family without any spiritual, emotional, mental, or social repercussions for her or her family.  Unfortunately MANY women (and men) will take it that way.  And they'd all be wrong.
Compare Sis Johnson's word to my wife's grandmother who said, "If I had it to do over again, I never would have had kids."  And this wasn't because her kids were maladjusted.  They were all fine human beings.  And none of them became inactive or lost their testimony.  But in her old age she decided that she could have had a much more successful career than she did have if only she didn't have to worry about those kids taking up all her time.

The Nephites felt validated in wanting multiple wives because others had had them. When the Lord gives general guidance it should also be the Lord to approve any departure from it. Not, "Well so and so did it...".

If the Lord says do it then do it. If one woman feels the Lord directing them to have a job while rearing a family then obviously that is what needs to happen. If other women don't receive that same divine guidance but use them as an excuse to not be home with the children that's their problem. 

The Nephites felt validated in wanting multiple wives because others had had them. When the Lord gives general guidance it should also be the Lord to approve any departure from it. Not, "Well so and so did it...".

I have always interpreted this experience as the brother of Jared having his calling and election made sure but not just because Jesus showed himself to him. It was how it happened. There have been and will be times when His appearance does not mean that. For example I don't think Joseph Smith had his calling and election made sure at the First Vision. When Christ appears to the Jews on the Mount of Olives I don't think that is what's happening either. 

I have always interpreted this experience as the brother of Jared having his calling and election made sure but not just because Jesus showed himself to him. It was how it happened. There have been and will be times when His appearance does not mean that. For example I don't think Joseph Smith had his calling and election made sure at the First Vision. When Christ appears to the Jews on the Mount of Olives I don't think that is what's happening either. 

I second what @Maverick said. I think part of the atonement required Jesus to endure the suffering in part without any external support. That's why he could make the claim "I have tread the winepress alone." Some general authorities have expressed similar opinions.
I have always liked this explanation by Jeffrey R Holland: "Now I speak very carefully, even reverently, of what may have been the most difficult moment in all of this solitary journey to Atonement. I speak of those final moments for which Jesus must have been prepared intellectually and physically but which He may not have fully anticipated emotionally and spiritually—that concluding descent into the paralyzing despair of divine withdrawal when He cries in ultimate loneliness, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” 16 Matthew 27:46 emphasis added.]
The loss of mortal support He had anticipated, but apparently He had not comprehended this. Had He not said to His disciples, “Behold, the hour … is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me” and “The Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him”? 17 John 16:32 8:29
With all the conviction of my soul I testify that He did please His Father perfectly and that a perfect Father did not forsake His Son in that hour. Indeed, it is my personal belief that in all of Christ’s mortal ministry the Father may never have been closer to His Son than in these agonizing final moments of suffering. Nevertheless, that the supreme sacrifice of His Son might be as complete as it was voluntary and solitary, the Father briefly withdrew from Jesus the comfort of His Spirit, the support of His personal presence. It was required, indeed it was central to the significance of the Atonement, that this perfect Son who had never spoken ill nor done wrong nor touched an unclean thing had to know how the rest of humankind—us, all of us—would feel when we did commit such sins. For His Atonement to be infinite and eternal, He had to feel what it was like to die not only physically but spiritually, to sense what it was like to have the divine Spirit withdraw, leaving one feeling totally, abjectly, hopelessly alone."

I second what @Maverick said. I think part of the atonement required Jesus to endure the suffering in part without any external support. That's why he could make the claim "I have tread the winepress alone." Some general authorities have expressed similar opinions.
I have always liked this explanation by Jeffrey R Holland: "Now I speak very carefully, even reverently, of what may have been the most difficult moment in all of this solitary journey to Atonement. I speak of those final moments for which Jesus must have been prepared intellectually and physically but which He may not have fully anticipated emotionally and spiritually—that concluding descent into the paralyzing despair of divine withdrawal when He cries in ultimate loneliness, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” 16 Matthew 27:46 emphasis added.]
The loss of mortal support He had anticipated, but apparently He had not comprehended this. Had He not said to His disciples, “Behold, the hour … is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me” and “The Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him”? 17 John 16:32 8:29
With all the conviction of my soul I testify that He did please His Father perfectly and that a perfect Father did not forsake His Son in that hour. Indeed, it is my personal belief that in all of Christ’s mortal ministry the Father may never have been closer to His Son than in these agonizing final moments of suffering. Nevertheless, that the supreme sacrifice of His Son might be as complete as it was voluntary and solitary, the Father briefly withdrew from Jesus the comfort of His Spirit, the support of His personal presence. It was required, indeed it was central to the significance of the Atonement, that this perfect Son who had never spoken ill nor done wrong nor touched an unclean thing had to know how the rest of humankind—us, all of us—would feel when we did commit such sins. For His Atonement to be infinite and eternal, He had to feel what it was like to die not only physically but spiritually, to sense what it was like to have the divine Spirit withdraw, leaving one feeling totally, abjectly, hopelessly alone."

Yes and no. I agree generally that the Lord withholds things until we the members more fully utilize what we have already been given. The prophets have said as much. But when you consider the early days of the Church many revelations came during periods of apostasy or turmoil among members. So you can't just say the members are to blame. I personally believe that the fledgling Church simply needed more support to help it keep going and growing. As the Church became more stabilized the importance of a steady flow of publicly recognized revelation diminished. Looking forward, when all heck starts to break loose again it wouldn't surprise me if that flow picked back up.

Yes and no. I agree generally that the Lord withholds things until we the members more fully utilize what we have already been given. The prophets have said as much. But when you consider the early days of the Church many revelations came during periods of apostasy or turmoil among members. So you can't just say the members are to blame. I personally believe that the fledgling Church simply needed more support to help it keep going and growing. As the Church became more stabilized the importance of a steady flow of publicly recognized revelation diminished. Looking forward, when all heck starts to break loose again it wouldn't surprise me if that flow picked back up.

Yes and no. I agree generally that the Lord withholds things until we the members more fully utilize what we have already been given. The prophets have said as much. But when you consider the early days of the Church many revelations came during periods of apostasy or turmoil among members. So you can't just say the members are to blame. I personally believe that the fledgling Church simply needed more support to help it keep going and growing. As the Church became more stabilized the importance of a steady flow of publicly recognized revelation diminished. Looking forward, when all heck starts to break loose again it wouldn't surprise me if that flow picked back up.

You make a great point @Traveler. I was previously in a ward that combined our youth programs with a Spanish speaking branch who met in the same building. The branch president was not very popular among some members of his branch. I don't know what exactly the issue was but it was clear there were some in other leadership positions who thought they could do a better job and even hinted at such. When the branch presidency was eventually reorganized the man called as president had very little if any leadership or administrative experience, he was very introverted and not someone the world would view as a leader at all. But he was humble. Whatever else we may have been deficient in he was definitely humble and that made him a better candidate than the others who appeared to have more leadership "ability". The Holy Ghost is the great equalizer. With the Holy Ghost leaders don't need to be perfect. And if we have the Spirit we don't need perfect leaders.
 

In my youth I had a personal relationship with Apostle Hugh B. Brown.  It has always been my nature to seek out and ask the most difficult questions – at least the questions I considered the most difficult to me.  Like some that have posted I was aware of leader that were obviously in error.  And so I asked Apostle Brown the question – Do we still sustain our bishop even if we know absolutely that they are wrong?  This answer has stuck with me for decades.  Brother Brown looked me squarely in the eyes and said, “You sustain your bishop, especially if he is wrong because he will need your support more then than at any other time.”
Perhaps we do not understand what it means to sustain (support).  There are two parts.  One is to be agreeable, to help, to love, to honor and respect.  The other is like unto the servants of Elijah that held up his arms when he was weak.  When our leaders (or fellow members) are weak or failing – we hold them and their mission and purpose up.  This second part is known in the covenant to not speak evil of the L-rd’s anointed.
My friends @mrmarklin , @ZealoulyStriving  , @Maverick and other Saints of G-d:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not just the L-rd’s Church.  The Church also belongs to the Saints of G-d and is why the Saints are included in the name.  I would suggest that if anyone is aware of anyone or anything that is a problem in the Church that they humbly pray to G-d concerning that problem and inquire what it is that they can do (or sacrifice) to assist G-d in his mitigation of the problem.  As I have done this myself  - almost always in such things, the first thing I am commanded to do is to repent.
 
The Traveler

"I bear witness that when Christ comes, He needs to recognize us—not as nominal members listed on a faded baptismal record but as thoroughly committed, faithfully believing, covenant-keeping disciples. This is an urgent matter for all of us, lest we ever hear with devastating regret: “I never knew you,” or, as Joseph Smith translated that phrase, “[You] never knew me.” Fortunately, we have help for this task—lots of help. We need to believe in angels and miracles and the promises of the holy priesthood. We need to believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the influence of good families and friends, and the power of the pure love of Christ. We need to believe in revelation and prophets, seers, and revelators and President Russell M. Nelson. We need to believe that with prayer and pleading and personal righteousness, we really can ascend to “Mount Zion, … the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all.”
Brothers and sisters, as we repent of our sins and come boldly to the “throne of grace,” leaving before Him there our alms and our heartfelt supplications, we will find mercy and compassion and forgiveness at the benevolent hands of our Eternal Father and His obedient, perfectly pure Son. Then, with Job and all the refined faithful, we will behold a world “too wonderful” to understand. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen." -President Jeffery R. Holland, April 2024 General Conference.
 

I didn't say they were. But there are some things that are. Greed for example.