Brother Russell M. Nelson, regional representative, speaks (January 1983 Ensign)


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/1983/01/russell-m-nelson-a-study-in-obedience?lang=eng

“The Lord has a tremendous work yet to accomplish in the Church,” he insists. “He’s going to need every faithful soul; there won’t be one prepared, qualified Latter-day Saint who won’t have all the responsibility to shoulder that he or she can bear.”

Sobering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russell M. Nelson is obedient to the president of the Church, and he is baffled when he hears people ask questions like, “Is it really the will of the Lord that we do everything that President Kimball says?”

“The Lord said, ‘Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same,’” Dr. Nelson reminds us. “My experience is that once you stop putting question marks behind the prophet’s statements and put exclamation points instead, and do it, the blessings just pour.

“I never ask myself, ‘When does the prophet speak as a prophet and when does he not?’ My interest has been, ‘How can I be more like him?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Then comes the whirring sound of an electric saw. Re-entering the room, I am stationed at the head of the operating table, where in full view before me I see that the patient’s sternum has been sawed through longitudinally and an ingenious retractor has been placed in the cleft. Several cranks on a short lever spread the retractor apart—and there,between the patient’s spread ribs, is his beating heart.

I have such a weak stomach.....just reading about this stuff makes me queasy.

Great article though.  He's an amazing man. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2019 at 10:07 AM, scottyg said:

Russell M. Nelson is obedient to the president of the Church, and he is baffled when he hears people ask questions like, “Is it really the will of the Lord that we do everything that President Kimball says?”

“The Lord said, ‘Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same,’” Dr. Nelson reminds us. “My experience is that once you stop putting question marks behind the prophet’s statements and put exclamation points instead, and do it, the blessings just pour.

“I never ask myself, ‘When does the prophet speak as a prophet and when does he not?’ My interest has been, ‘How can I be more like him?”

This is an excellent quote, his statement, I remember him sharing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2019 at 10:47 AM, dprh said:

I have such a weak stomach.....just reading about this stuff makes me queasy.

Great article though.  He's an amazing man. 

And isn’t it true, Mr. DPRH, that your church is led by a crazed psychopath who uses power saws and crank-screws to remove people’s still-beating hearts from their bodies?

Well, isn’t it?

Huh?

Huh?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 10:07 AM, scottyg said:

Russell M. Nelson is obedient to the president of the Church, and he is baffled when he hears people ask questions like, “Is it really the will of the Lord that we do everything that President Kimball says?”

“The Lord said, ‘Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same,’” Dr. Nelson reminds us. “My experience is that once you stop putting question marks behind the prophet’s statements and put exclamation points instead, and do it, the blessings just pour.

“I never ask myself, ‘When does the prophet speak as a prophet and when does he not?’ My interest has been, ‘How can I be more like him?”

Interesting comment to highlight.

As an explanation.

As a Historian, one would be remiss to not remember that originally Nelson wanted to enact the NO MORMON slogan idea a few decades ago.  This was very blatantly denied by the Prophet back then.  In fact, the prophet refuted this idea and eventually with Monson, went all in with campaigns and slogans, in the exact opposite direction.

From a NON-RELIGIOUS viewpoint, or, if one was compiling history on the background of the No-Mormon usage or references to those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it would seem, as the original course of contention on that matter was Nelson himself, and it was HE who enacted it when he finally had the power to, that this was an issue that he did NOT put exclamation marks behind to support the Prophets and the Mormon campaign, but continually had question marks behind it.

Now, historical perspective is not necessarily congruent with truth or religious perspective (for example the Book of Mormon, which I believe to be true, is not congruent with what we see as non-religious History of the Americas), but when considering how history would perceive it currently, it is ironic that this comment would be highlighted here.

That said, I try to follow the instruction on this matter and my posts typically do NOT use certain words to refer to the Saints these days.  However, in light of the comment and my profession as a Historian, from a secular historical viewpoint, it would strike me as ironic.

On the otherhand, as a faithful Mormon, for our day and our time, I would say that it was revelation that our Prophet told us not to use certain phrases in reference to who we are, as we want to be identified as Christians and Saints, faithful followers in the Church of Jesus Christ, not followers of Mormon.

Edited by JohnsonJones
clarifications and clarity, to clarify what I actually was trying to say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2019 at 4:24 PM, JohnsonJones said:

 

On the otherhand, as a faithful Mormon, for our day and our time, I would say that it was revelation that our Prophet told us not to use certain phrases in reference to who we are, as we want to be identified as Christians and Saints, faithful followers in the Church of Jesus Christ, not followers of Mormon.

 

Pretty much every (all?) revelation in the church in the latter days came in response to a prophet asking a question and receiving a response. (Starting with Joseph Smith wanting to know which church he should join.) 

 

That being the case, it stands to reason that it would be President Nelson’s questioning of the Lord on the matter that would result in such a response. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/23/2019 at 12:07 PM, scottyg said:

“The Lord said, ‘Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same,’”

Does this indicate that everything said at General Conference by a servant or printed in a manual
to record a previous teaching of an LDS president is really the voice of the Lord and that it must
be viewed as a true gospel principle or doctrine.

Thanks,
Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, theplains said:

Does this indicate that everything said at General Conference by a servant or printed in a manual
to record a previous teaching of an LDS president is really the voice of the Lord and that it must
be viewed as a true gospel principle or doctrine.

Thanks,
Jim

If it is said by the Prophet in a setting such as General Conference, then yes. If the teaching of a prophet is published in a church manual, then yes...however, policy changes with time, and statements from past Prophets may be changed to better serve members of the present day. When a prophet is speaking for the Lord, he almost always prefaces or ends his remarks confirming that very thing.

However, he is still a man, and can have his own opinions or views on things. He is not infallible by any means. Joseph Smith taught that "a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such."

Edited by scottyg
addition
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, scottyg said:

If it is said by the Prophet in a setting such as General Conference, then yes. If the teaching of a prophet is published in a church manual, then yes...however, policy changes with time, and statements from past Prophets may be changed to better serve members of the present day.

Does this mean that at some future time, the LDS Church may teach that Heavenly
Father was not a man who became a God? Or is this an LDS doctrinal truth that cannot
be forsaken by its members?

Thanks,
Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m going to respectfully take a different tack than @scottyg seems to express.  The quotation in full comes from D&C 1:38:

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

This verse is often cited to suggest that whatever a prophet/apostle/general authority says, is automatically tantamount to the Lord’s own words.  That interpretation strikes me as an over-simplification.  In fact, the statement sets up a prerequisite:  If a thing is truly the Lord’s will, then the means of communication—whether an audible voice from on High, or a vision, or a dream, or a a prophetic statement—is irrelevant.  But it is still our responsibility to verify through the Holy Spirit that the thing being revealed is, in fact, the Lord’s will.  Modern general conferences are such tightly planned and controlled environments, that I daresay we can be fairly confident that the words being spoken there have been chosen very carefully indeed; so they might be said to offer a higher modicum of reliability than off-the-cuff statements made by church authorities that are given in less-formal venues.  But, the confirmation of the Holy Spirit remains the key. 

A church made up of people a) who are willing to accept and do whatever the Lord asks them to do, and b) to whom the Lord actually does speak, is not going to be able to make any absolute promises as to what the Lord will or won’t ever do or say or instruct or require in the future.  You wouldn’t guarantee to Moses in Egypt, what the Lord might or might not or say to Moses later at Sinai.   As humans, we have no right to try to bind or muzzle God in such a way.  Certainly we can look at His past revelations and actions as well as the teachings of inspired servants, to try to divine certain aspects of God’s character and plan; from which we can then try to extrapolate what is or is not likely to happen in the future.  

Based on that, I don’t think it’s *likely* that future LDS leaders are going to denounce the teaching of exaltation/deification.  Just as I don’t think it *likely* that they’ll deny Jesus of Nazareth ever existed.  Just as I don’t think it *likely* that my wife will be overcome by the Spirit, become pregnant, and in nine months’ time give birth to a three-headed lizard-person.  But no, if you’re going to press the matter I’ll happily concede that I can’t guarantee anything.  I can’t do that if I sincerely believe God to be all-powerful and simultaneously acknowledge that He knows things that I don’t know.  

But what really matters, and what we focus on, is what God is telling us on the here-and-now.  Our love for and faith in Him persuades us that the rest will work itself out.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m going to respectfully take a different tack than @scottyg seems to express.  The quotation in full comes from D&C 1:38:

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

This verse is often cited to suggest that whatever a prophet/apostle/general authority says, is automatically tantamount to the Lord’s own words.  That interpretation strikes me as an over-simplification.  In fact, the statement sets up a prerequisite:  If a thing is truly the Lord’s will, then the means of communication—whether an audible voice from on High, or a vision, or a dream, or a a prophetic statement—is irrelevant.  But it is still our responsibility to verify through the Holy Spirit that the thing being revealed is, in fact, the Lord’s will.  Modern general conferences are such tightly planned and controlled environments, that I daresay we can be fairly confident that the words being spoken there have been chosen very carefully indeed; so they might be said to offer a higher modicum of reliability than off-the-cuff statements made by church authorities that are given in less-formal venues.  But, the confirmation of the Holy Spirit remains the key. 

A church made up of people a) who are willing to accept and do whatever the Lord asks them to do, and b) to whom the Lord actually does speak, is not going to be able to make any absolute promises as to what the Lord will or won’t ever do or say or instruct or require in the future.  As humans, we have no right to try to bind or muzzle God in such a way.  Certainly we can look at His past revelations and actions as well as the teachings of inspired servants, to try to divine certain aspects of God’s character and plan from which we can try to extrapolate what is or is not likely to happen in the future.  Based on that, I don’t *think* future LDS leaders are likely to denounce the teaching of exaltation/deification.  I find it about as likely as their ever issuing a public denial that Yeshua-bin-Yusuf of Nazareth ever existed.  But no, I can’t guarantee anything.  

But what really matters, and what we focus on, is what God is telling us on the here-and-now.

This... exactly this... 

It is the Lord's voice we are to follow exactly and without question.  It is his voice his sheep respond to.  The method of delivery does not matter.  We can hear it in the scriptures, we can hear it in a church leader, we can hear in from a stranger on the street, we can hear it from a little child, we can hear in as impressions in our heart and mind.

The fact that we can hear his voice in a variety of ways does not mean that everything that we heard coming from same path is his voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, theplains said:

Does this mean that at some future time, the LDS Church may teach that Heavenly
Father was not a man who became a God? Or is this an LDS doctrinal truth that cannot
be forsaken by its members?

Thanks,
Jim

I have no authority to speak on such matters, nor am I in the mood to debate gospel doctrine with one just looking to criticize...never ends well. Hopefully you can resolve whatever issues you have with the church though. Thanks Jim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, theplains said:

Does this mean that at some future time, the LDS Church may teach that Heavenly
Father was not a man who became a God? Or is this an LDS doctrinal truth that cannot
be forsaken by its members?

Thanks,
Jim

My take...

I think it depends on who you believe in.

This is what I think is a pretty good yard stick...Joseph Fielding Smith stated (and yes, I am a fan of his to a degree, though I also really like Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Wilford Woodruffs various statements as they made many and are interesting to discuss)

Quote

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works

When what one states, even if a prophet, goes counter to what the scriptures (and what we have canonized right now would be the scriptures, that would be the four standard works) something is off.  One does NOT supersede the Lord.  Yes, living prophets may supersede dead ones...but not in the case of canon IN MY OPINION.

It has changed somewhat, but most of the history of the church the leaders did NOT WANT blind followers.  They did not want those that just simply followed without ever asking questions.  Yes, Obedience is better than sacrifice, but blind obedience is just as bad as false faith in many instances.

So, the question comes of what is found in the scriptures on the matter.  What you can find in the scriptures on the matter are what probably will not change.  Anything else, with this day and time...we have no guarantees.  Thus, in answer to your question, I have no idea what might happen in the future with various church teachings from the past.

In general, that teaching is not one that's covered by manuals or other sources of teaching people in church classes as much (if any, sometimes it's not found in any manual) as much as it used to be.  In that one could say the church is already not teaching it as much as it used to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/31/2019 at 2:41 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

But what really matters, and what we focus on, is what God is telling us on the here-and-now

This reminds me of what I read in Teachings of Presidents of the Church - Joseph Smith.

‘Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took
the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and
Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of
God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to
our day.

And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to
me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of
a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would
rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’

That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the
congregation: ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told
you the truth.’

Gale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share