Wendy Watson Nelson, in a recent interview, shed light on the revelations her husband President Russell M. Nelson is receiving.
Since Russell M. Nelson became the prophet earlier this year, the revelations have been coming fast and furious.
- Changed a long standing tradition of always retaining a First Presidency counselor in good health
- Modified home and visiting teaching programs to home ministering and changed so young women can be home ministers, similar to young men had done home teaching in past
- Eliminated ward level High Priest groups and combined High Priest and Elders into one quorum
- Changed the Sunday schedule of LDS church meetings to 2 hours from 3 hours, eliminating a 100+ year tradition of weekly priesthood, Relief Society, and Sunday School
- Ended a 100+ year association with the Boy Scouts of America
- Announced a new edition of the LDS Hymn book
- Released new guidelines concerning bishop interviews with youth allowing for parents or another adult to sit in on interviews
- Set new policy to eliminate the Church identifying itself with the nickname “Mormon”, changed the name of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, and set in place plans to eliminate all other Church usage of that name, including mormon.org, mormonnewsroom, etc. Church owned Deseret News changed ldschurchnews.com to thechurchnews.com
- Announced plans to eliminate pageants like Hill Cumorah Pageant and Manti Pageant
If you think that’s a lot for one year, Pres. Nelson in an interview this week in Chile let us know more is on the way.
Wait till next year, and then the next year. Eat your vitamin pills. Get some rest. It’s going to be exciting!
I think this is a great. We are a church of progress with continuing revelation. Discussion in the bloggernacle has been surrounding the idea of what should be called revelation. For sake of discussion, I will use a simplistic, binary model to dive into this.
Fundamentalistic View of Revelation
- implies a very strong, clear communication from God
- very little human component, just as if God said it, ie like a boss gave instructions to an employee
- unchanging and difficult to understand when it seems to overturn past revelation
- sometimes called Revelation capital R
Moderate View of Revelation
- very strong human component
- is trustworthy and worth engaging seriously but is not infallible
- can be reversed by future prophet without much consternation
- more like “the prophet’s best guess of God’s will” than God’s direct and unmistakable communication of his will
- some members would argue there is no such thing, and this should be considered inspiration or impression and the word revelation should be reserved for high view revelation
- sometimes called revelation lower case r
It’s been a bit confusing to members of the church is how to view all the revelations of the last year, should it be treated as this fundamentalistic God breathed definition or the more moderate “humans intersecting with the divine” view.
I think there is strong evidence that it should be treated with the moderate perspective. I have written about this many times. Here, here, and here for example.
Modern prophets and apostles, including Pres. Nelson have described the revelatory process in very humanistic terms. Pres. Nelson said:
Pray in the name of Jesus Christ about your concerns, your fears, your weaknesses—yes, the very longings of your heart. And then listen! Write the thoughts that come to your mind. Record your feelings and follow through with actions that you are prompted to take. As you repeat this process day after day, month after month, year after year, you will “grow into the principle of revelation.”
Pres. Hinckley in 1997 said:
Let me say first that we have a great body of revelation, the vast majority of which came from the prophet Joseph Smith. We don’t need much revelation. We need to pay more attention to the revelation we’ve already received. Now, if a problem should arise on which we don’t have an answer, we pray about it, we may fast about it, and it comes. Quietly. Usually no voice of any kind, but just a perception in the mind. I liken it to Elijah’s experience. When he sought the Lord, there was a great wind, and the Lord was not in the wind. And there was an earthquake, and the Lord was not in the earthquake. And a fire, and the Lord was not in the fire. But in a still, small voice. Now that’s the way it works.
Some of the things Pres. Nelson is receiving revelation on are things that have been on his mind for a long time. For example, the Mormon Church thing he spoke about in 1990. As a junior apostle, he spoke on the importance of using the full name of the Church and that we shouldn’t use the name Mormon. Six months later, the acting leader of the Church Pres. Hinckley clarified that we are very comfortable using the name Mormon, and we choose it as a name to self identify as. Then later in both his and Thomas S. Monson’s presidency, the Church worked hard to develop the “I’m a Mormon”, “Mormon Helping Hands”, and other Mormon related brands.
Faithful LDS understand and support Pres. Nelson’s new direction, but it seems to be more comparable to a business setting where a new management team comes in with new ideas than God changing his mind so quickly. That’s fine, right?
But, from a fundamentalistic perspective, there is evidence that it should be treated as if God himself was speaking to us:
Pres. Nelson used very strong language to introduce the revelation on eliminating the nickname use of “Mormon”.
Some weeks ago, I released a statement regarding a course correction for the name of the Church. I did this because the Lord impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He decreed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints…
Thus, the name of the Church is not negotiable. When the Savior clearly states what the name of His Church should be and even precedes His declaration with, “Thus shall my church be called,” He is serious. And if we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, He is offended…
To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan.
So, if there is so much evidence for this more moderate view of the meaning of revelation, why is Pres. Nelson speaking in a way that implies he is directly speaking to and for God in an unmistakable, infallible sense? I think the answer lies in a phrase in the chapter headings of the Isaiah chapters in 2 Nephi: “Isaiah speaks messianically”.
This phrase “speaks messianically” can be taken a couple ways.
a. the traditional Jewish-Christian definition means that the content that is referred to as being messianic is referring to The Messiah. For Christians, this is Jesus Christ. Messianic literature usually is talking about a Savior figure who will redeem Israel and usually also contains judgment, restoration, and end-of-the-world themes.
b. an additional meaning which based on my rudimentary research seems like it might be unique to LDS and stemming from these BOM chapter headings is generally “to speak in first person for The Lord as if The Lord is speaking”.
Google search turns up various LDS commentary and blogs.
“Here Isaiah again is speaking messianically, as though he were the Lord” source
“as if the Savior was speaking to us” source
“Isaiah has this sometimes confusing talent for speaking as himself, speaking as God, speaking as Christ, or speaking as the entire house of Isreal, etc., sometimes all at the same time. And he’ll change from one to the udder without any warning or commercial interruption. So, as you begin 2 Nephi 7 (or Isaiah 50), you’ll read ‘I did this’ and ‘I said that’ and whatever, and in this case, Isaiah is speaking as Christ, or Messianically.” source
“Isaiah speaks Messianically. This means he speaks the words the Messiah speaks, so this chapter sounds as if the Lord wrote it himself. He also talks about things to come as if they already happened.” source
And here we have Elder Holland using it in the same context.
When Isaiah, speaking messianically, wanted to convey Jehovah’s love, he invoked the image of a mother’s devotion. “Can a woman forget her sucking child?” he asks.
Elder Holland is clearly attributing Isaiah as the author of this verse, not God. He’s not quoting God. He’s conveying something for God. He’s invoking an image that he himself created in his mind to convey God’s love.
Isaiah doesn’t frame it like “this is totally just my thought, but what if we could imagine God’s love as being similar to a mother to a child.” He speaks boldly in first person as the Lord. Isaiah 49:15
15 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.
Joseph Smith framed his revelations in a similar way. Many are written in that first person “messianic” style. For example D&C 6:2
2 Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words.
Joseph collaborated with intellectuals in the restoration like George Robinson, Sidney Rigdon, Warren Parrish, and others to refine and edit the revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants and even the First Vision. A dictated message from God wouldn’t need editing. They were putting this in King James Bible language and in the Isaiah messianic style, and Joseph relied on some of his more educated peers to help make it sound right.
President Nelson is obviously very immersed in the scriptures. He recently spent six weeks in an exercise to study attributes of the Savior and identified over 2,200 verses. Being immersed in this messianic style speaking with prophets speaking in the first hand for God, I believe he is imitating that pattern.
Another way to describe what is happening, acknowledging the humanistic , but also looking at it through faithful lens is what I call the push vs pull concept of prayer/revelation. I can’t explain the power of God. No really, I can’t. I believe in it. But I can’t explain it. I can’t explain why upper middle class Mormon youth in Bountiful can pray to find her lost car keys, and God answers her prayer. And I believe he can and does answer those prayers. But in the meantime, a child in Africa is starving and God is apparently helpless. I can’t explain why there seems to be a transcendent power that when I really try to tap into and access, I sometimes feel like I am. But at the same time young girls are getting kidnapped and sold into sex slavery or kids are born with AIDS. God is here. But he’s not here. I can’t explain it. But the best I can is with the push/pull concept. Prayer answering and revelation is not a push, down from God to us. Answers to prayers and revelation are pulled down by humans through faith and effort. What humans pray about, they find answers. Issues that LDS prophets seek answers for, they receive revelation.
Finally, the money quote from Sister Nelson’s recent interview sheds the most light into this.
It is as though he’s been unleashed…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.
This definitely points to the more moderate definition of revelation. My intention with this post is to show that one can view revelation in the LDS Church as having a highly human, fallible element while loving, accepting, and sustaining the prophet.
This is repost of a blog at http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/wendy-watson-nelson-prophet-is-receiving-revelation/ . I look forward to the comments.
Wheat & Tares 
Why assume all revelation is the same? Some things can be incredibly clear while other things aren’t. It seems most of what you say assumes revelation comes the same way. By way of analogy sometimes people are talking to me and I have to read between the lines at what they’re trying to say. Sometimes my own preconceptions, tendencies to leap to conclusions and so forth keep me from interpreting them correctly. Sometimes I mishear them. Other times it’s hard to miss what they’re saying.
If communication with God is communication, then at minimum we have to have those variations. Given that God is somewhat hidden from us, we should assume that it’s more difficult than normal face to face.
However even if discerning and more importantly interpreting God difficult, that doesn’t mean he can’t be clear when he needs to be nor does it mean I can’t figure things out clearly. I’d imagine that’d be double true for the President than just a regular person.
Hmmmm. I disagree with the premise that any of this is revelation at all. In fact, in my view, what Wendy says in her interview supports this. Russell Nelson has been concerned about things and now he’s in a position to change it. That’s what she said and I think her words mean exactly what they sound like. It’s that simple. If I am concerned about something in my community, run for city council, get elected, and work to make changes, that isn’t revelation – I just…..had some ideas and finally got to a position where I could make those changes. That’s what is happening in the church.
A bit off topic, but that Wendy Nelson interview is quite strange. She talks of Pres. Nelson like she’s some twitterpatted teenaged girl who is meeting her idol. I mean, I’m glad that she loves her husband, but it’s a bit excessive. It’s weird. It’s creepy and it takes prophet worship to a whole new level.
Clark, I’m with you in theory. But can you point to a specific time when revelation was certain? And is it impossible to offer counter examples, where revelation seemed certain at the time but then later information made us reprocess that into a less certain revelation? Prophets don’t say “this one’s 100%. this other one’s more like 50-50.” Since they don’t. And since it’s so difficult to identify when it’s 100% and when it’s less, then I don’t know that it’s useful to try to separate out the two types.
I don’t recall Wendy being brought before the body of “the Church” to be sustained as an appendage to the First Presidency and as an “inside counselor”. However, for whatever reason, she sure acts and speaks as though this has occurred.
Troy,
Sister Nelson’s statement does not support your skeptical hypothesis as well as you think. Revelation takes time, thought and experience. I see a man prepared over time for this window of time for his service. I suspect that if asked, Sister Nelson would agree with me and not you.
I second Troy Cline’s comment. A few days before GC when rumors of 2-hour church were running rampant I sent a text to a few friends that read, “It bugs me that administrative changes are being passed off as revelation. Changing the mission ages is not revelation; it’s administration. Going to a two hour block (if it happens) is not revelation; it’s administration.
When I was EQP I was inspired to create a Google survey asking quorum member when they were available to home teach and to be home taught. Then we used the responses to create companionships and assign families. This was definitely inspired, but I wouldn’t call it revelation.“
The Newsroom is onto something here. They should make unleashed interviews into a series, sort of like MTV did with Unplugged.
Elder Bednar: Unleashed (just imagine what he has planned).
Elder Uchtdorf: Unleashed (this would be really good).
It seems to me that Nelson wants people to expect revelation to be received according to the “moderate view” but to treat it with the deference that would be given to the “fundamentalist” view.
In my opinion, the PoX casts a shadow over this whole conversation. In that situation, Nelson appeared to use the claim of revelation to silence questions and concerns, and in the eyes of some he lost a lot of credibility in doing so.
To me there is a difference between revelation and inspiration. The “moderate view” is no more than inspiration (if that).
President Nelson’s has helped us understand revelation is inspiration, no different that any of us receives.
I’m with Troy. Most of the recent changes are administrative, and hardly qualify for revelation -worthy status. Calling them revelation cheapens what revelation should be all about.
Now Pres. Monson adding a 4th mission, that seems truly inspired. I just wish it would become the #1 mission of the Church.
Generally, I think of P. Nelson as kind of a fundamentalist: literal take on scriptures, removing “extra” trappings and traditions, focusing on the second coming. But in this matter, you are right, he is kind of new-agey.
To me the most important thing is to follow your conscience, your inner light. To me, that is revelation .
Also, the most important revelation for you is your own. If you pay more attention to the revelations of others than to your own, you may come to regret it. Pres. Nelson certainly isn’t making that mistake.
Old Man, I have no doubt in my mind that Wendy Nelson would agree with you about whether or not Nelson’s administrative changes are revelatory. I mean, you did listen to the entire interview, right?? She’s obsessed with that man. Her effusive praise of him borders on sacrilege. So, yes, she certainly thinks that her “stallion” is receiving revelation. My point is that her words suggest otherwise. I agree that revelation CAN (doesn’t have to, but can) take time. But read Wendy’s words. Really listen to them. She may not realize herself what she is actually saying because she is blinded by the fact that she’s married to a 93 year-old man who, apparently, has the stamina of a 40 year old, but she is saying, literally saying, that Russell has been bothered by certain things for a while and now HE is in a position to change them.
Full disclosure here, I fall firmly into that category of people referenced by Rockwell. The policy of exclusion and Nelson’s shameful declaration of it as revelation was beyond the pale. To me, the man no longer has any credibility. So maybe my opinion of Wendy’s comments are biased. Ultimately these changes are going to be interpreted differently and people who fall on one side of this conversation will not convince the others and vice versa. Personally, I’m not impressed with the heightened zealot-y rhetoric that is coming from the current “administration.” Lots more to say about that but I don’t want to ramble.
Troy,
Are so upset at the POX that you no longer sustain Nelson as a prophet, regardless of which definition of revelation we use (moderate or fundamentalist)? Or are there conditions under which you would accept Nelson’s pronouncements as revelatory? It seems to me that some are seeking a fundamentalist experience yet are unwilling to even acknowledge a moderate definition of revelation. True?
I think they both come off as kooks. If these people were the first couple of another religion, mormons would be laughing in the aisles at their lunacy.
There is a third option, and it sound heretical but I keep finding myself in this space lately. What if….there is no revelation? What if there is no divine intervention that places thoughts into our minds? What if all of our insights, inspirations, lightbulb moments, eurekas, etc are all internally generated? And what if it’s the same for every member of the church from the top down and for every human on the planet?
When looking at the varied nature of people’s religious experiences, the contradictory nature of God’s “revelations” , and then my own spiritual experiences, I find this to be an inescapable conclusion. Otherwise God is capricious, random, and quite frankly, a total jerk at times.
This idea of pull down revelation is actually quite beautiful, but also completely indistinguishable from an all internal paradigm. A person will have flashes of thought and insight, inspiration if you will, about those things that are on his or her mind or being exposed to. I see no difference, and find this viewpoint has much greater explanatory power.
Can I sustain President Nelson with this view? Sure, but no different than how I’d sustain the CEO of the company I work for. But that doesn’t mean I have to agree with all his ideas nor think his ideas are coming from somewhere besides his own mind.
DoubtinTom
I love your comment. Their is much truth in what you conclude. If God created the whole earth & everyone on it. If COJ-COLDS is the only “true & living church on the face of the whole earth” then humanity is in trouble & the creator is a very cruel mean withholding truth a conditional loving god. Just as Profit Nelson Teaches God’s Love is EARN PERIOD! If your not a member of the COJ-COLDS you have not earned gods love & it’s victory for Satan!
Old Man – Yep. Unapologetically, I can not sustain Nelson because of the PoX (more like, PoS). Look, if somebody claims to be a prophet, a mouthpiece of the Lord and then takes to enacting a policy that is in direct contrast with scripture, sorry but I’m out. The scriptures have to mean something. I am no longer a believer. Nelson does not have the keys or revelatory gift that he claim for himself. I’ve seen no evidence of it. Simply being the next guy in the hierarchy doesn’t fly.
Rockwell hit the nail squarely on the head.
And without the fundamental view of revelation, where does that leave the One and Only true church?
Would also give Troy Cline and Doubting Tom multiple up-votes if I could.
Troy, some manage because of:
Sustain (verb):
to … bear the weight of…
to bear (a burden….).
to undergo, experience, or suffer (injury, loss, etc.); endure without giving way or yielding
….
Russell M. Nelson is no more a Prophet than anyone else; and really less than so many other’s who have truly changed the world. This guy doesn’t hold a candle to Sister Teresa. I’m mean (REALLY) can you see ANY of the top 15 living in Calcutta (among the poor) for years?! Ha!
WOW I am really impressed with all the above comments.The new president needs to view the GOOD,BAD and the UGLY on his first POX. I am all so disappointed in a few things he had to say. Being a new person involved in the church, he is taking away the first thing that caught my eye in the church( Hmm this is really a Godly church) The children are being taught in love and kindness. Only 2 hour church, so there will no longer be Sunday school for the children? These little people are embassiters of the church. They see people every day and the people see them. In school they effect other children and their teachers, people watch your interactions when you are out and about with your children. It could just lead to somebody coming to church looking for what makes the difference that just shows in the children. I would be afraid that the children would no longer feel as important as they are and there would be just that little bit of teaching they would miss and just that little bit might be what places Jesus Christ onto their hearts.