Elder Neil L Anderson gave a talk in General Conference in 2018. He echoed a statement from Dr. Russel M Nelson (before his call as an Apostle): “My [philosophy is to] stop putting question marks behind the prophet’s statements and put exclamation points instead.”
The actual extended quote is:
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?”
Russell M Nelson, A Study in Obedience
“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?'”
While President Nelson is still an example that an exuberance for obedience to empirically good principles inherently brings blessings, we do a disservice to E Anderson, Pres. Nelson, and even the Lord when we neglect to do our own due diligence. When we neglect to evaluate that which is taught in church and that which we hear over the pulpit in general conference, we reduce the leaders to simple talking idols. An idol doesn’t desire our engagement, our wrestling with the difficulties, or our weighing of a myriad of consequences. An idol requires nothing more than our obedience.
Can there be discomfort when things said over the pulpit aren’t accepted without question? Yes. Can people pick apart statements and sometimes assume the worst in others? Definitely. Could this statement be an example of rhetorical overstatement intensified by a generally hagiographic Liahona article? Possibly. Nonetheless, a best practices approach still seems to be to encourage our thoughtful contemplation and personal confirmation – particularly when the source holds the mantle of responsibility for the church.
One of my very favorite quotes from Pres. Chieko Okazaki came in response to an interview question on why she stayed within the church when she could have left. She responded: “I stayed because it was God and Jesus Christ that I wanted to follow and be like, not individual human beings, …and I saw them within this church.” One of the wonderful (and frustrating) things about this church is that it is filled with people that irk us and say things that are wrong, including ourselves. Nothing teaches like the frustration of dealing with real people, many of whom are also leaders. While the Lord uses many methods to teach us, perfect leaders with perfectly transmitted messages are not one of them.
Questions to Ponder:
- Is there more worth in:
Putting exclamation points behind all of the prophet’s words or
Putting question marks and personal confirmation before other punctuation?
(In either E. Anderson’s or Pres. Nelson’s context) - Is it sometimes important to not consider when the Prophet speaks as a Prophet and just accept?
(While answering these questions, consider (and empathize with) those on the margins and/or with those affected by past doctrine/policy issues.) - In a broader context, is rhetorical overstatement necessary in General Conference talks and similar? Are these talks usually given in a “wartime leader” context? Or is it mainly part of E. Anderson’s and Pres. Nelson’s personality to use these techniques?
(Definitely a part of Brigham Young’s oratorical style) - Can you share examples of general conference talks in recent history (or general authorities) that inspired you with encouragement to seek earnest personal confirmation (not just a divine rubber stamp)?
- Or is that perhaps not the responsibility of a General Authority? Could their role be more like spiritual cheerleaders/testifiers, or like Pres. Oaks has mentioned about his approach before, legal counsel presenting only useful supporting evidence?
Wheat & Tares 
“ … the blessings just pour.”
I do not understand the constant emphasis on transaction in this church. There is a higher love.
The Brethren should know that, far from enlivening and enlightening, I and many others find their mode of religion suffocating, i.e., very very small. That’s sad and a waste. It doesn’t have to be like this.
That particular interpretation of “whether by mine own voice..” put on it by Dr Nelson in the quote never ceases to irritate. God’s word is the same whether he tells us Himself or via his servants, but not every word uttered by his servants is His word. It’s incumbent on us to receive confirmation.
Obedience to every word of a prophet does not always bring blessings, from my observation. Pres Kimball’s assertion that any two righteous people should be able to make a successful marriage came up a lot in my youth lessons. The divorce rate in my cohort and the several years either side is pretty high.
For over a century faithful members didn’t question President Young’s exclusionary policies toward Blacks, despite his warning that he “feared” the day when the Saints accepted everything without seeking personal confirmation. Finally, in 1978 President Kimball decided to put a question mark at the end of leaders’ statements supporting the Black policy and was told by the Lord they were “wrong”! to use Elder McConkie’s characterization (I added the exclamation point).
After that wrenching , Orwellian, but much appreciated about face by the Church, I could never again just put an exclamation point by any leader’s pronouncement, even the Prophet’s. Somebody must have put a question mark after the 2015 exclusionary policy regarding children of LGBTQ couples, and I put an exclamation point after the official announcement of its rescission.
I support our leaders the way Ronald Reagan said we should approach arms treaties with the former Soviet Union: “trust but verify.”
When I’m convinced that the church leaders have the best interest of individuals in mind instead of the church organization I may follow more obediently. Until then I will treat GA statements as counsel.
“Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.”
This verse from the first section of the D&C is taken totally out of context. When the entire passage is read, it conveys a meaning completely different than the notion that when the prophet speaks it’s the same as the Lord talking:
Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled. 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. (D & C 1:37-38)
What this passage is telling us is that, what the Lord has spoken will come to pass, whether it came directly from him or whether it came through one of his servants. It does NOT say that anything a servant speaks is the same as the Lord speaking. Also, when you read the entire section, the Lord specifically acknowledges that his servants have “erred” and “sinned.” Moreover, it makes it clear that anyone who wants to be a servant can be. Servant does NOT mean prophet or apostle in the context of this scripture.
Julie Smith wrote an excellent essay about this passage a few years back. I commend it to your attention: https://www.timesandseasons.org/harchive/2016/03/a-closer-look-at-d-c-138/index.html
I came of age in the 70’s and tried to be responsive to prophetic guidance through the 80’s and 90’s. Around the end of the 90’s I looked back and concluded the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve’s counsel to us has turned out to be wrong more than it’s been right, and the consequences to some members has been disastrous. This makes me wonder how they can confidently keep counseling us to follow the prophet (with an exclamation point.) It’s abundantly clear that we need to use our own faculties and then do what best for us and our families, even if it’s counter to the brethren at times. Coming to terms with this reality was so disappointing to me that I was compelled to seek counseling for a period of time.
It’s like when we invited people to pray about the Book of Mormon as missionaries. We kinda assumed there was only one answer. That it was true. When they say that we should question the answer that the faithful are assumed to find is strict obedience and following the prophet. Now that I am old and my faith more nuanced I am not sure that is a guaranteed outcome of questioning.
“Can you share examples of general conference talks in recent history (or general authorities) that inspired you with encouragement to seek earnest personal confirmation (not just a divine rubber stamp)?” Elder D. Todd Christofferson’s October 2014 general conference address.
Quote:
But God intends that His children should act according to the moral agency He has given them, “that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.” It is His plan and His will that we have the principal decision-making role in our own life’s drama. God will not live our lives for us nor control us as if we were His puppets, as Lucifer once proposed to do. Nor will His prophets accept the role of “puppet master” in God’s place. Brigham Young stated: “I do not wish any Latter Day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ,—the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves.”
Had to go back to Brigham to find a prophet saying “I do not wish any Latter Day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ,—the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves.”
In SS today we had on the board “obedience brings blessings, exact obedience brings miracles”
The statements the blog is questioning, and our obsession with obedience create a culture, where we believe there is not individual accountability, which is an individual moral vacume. Which is OK so long as you are following a benign leader, but when that leader is teaching his culture as gospel, as with our opposition to gay marriage, or equality for women, this becomes a problem.
When that culture extends to a leader on the evil side of benign, such as Trump, a very big moral problem. As a foreign member it hurts my testimony of the church, that Utah is so morrally incapable that it votes Trump.
Good thoughts, JD.
I think institutions promote idolatry. Institutions exist to keep order, hierarchy, stability; the institution will trespass morality and righteousness for its own self-preservation. This is a natural corruption sewn into the nature of faction. No body of people, no church can avoid it. Even Jesus had a Judas.
So if we are listening for “the prophet,” “the general authority,” “the stake president,” or “the bishop,” instead of listening for the Spirit, we risk idolatry: where “office” and “authority” are understood as The-Source-of-Power, there is idolatry.
The institution’s dogmatic defining of priesthood as “the power and authority to act in the name of God,” makes an idol of priesthood. If, for example, priesthood was defined as “the power and authority to act by the manifest Holy Spirit, in the Name of God,” the institutional-idol would be more subdued…
Great comments. Like Todd Christopherson’s comment shared by Mary Ann. (I’m surprised Christopherson’s talk didn’t get re-edited by the higher ups).
My husband resigned his position in the bishopric when, during the Prop 8 campaign, our bishop told him he would do whatever the stake president asked him to do and if it was wrong the “sin” would not be his, but the stake president’s. (distribute false, fear-mongering anti-Prop 8 literature).
I find our church services so much of the time not inspiring. They seem more focused on supporting the church, patting ourselves on the back, than on Christ.
Is it the same with other denominations?
@ Eric Facer 2:42
Thank you for that comment. I thoroughly appreciate and agree with Julie Smith’s write-up on that topic, however, I fear that the majority within the membership has not interpreted it that way. General Conference talks (the majority) seem to regularly support the proof-texted version.
In your experience, (and anyone else’s as well) do you feel the membership and leadership around you would agree with her interpretation? Around me, family and church wise, the majority have used the “when an (anointed) servant has spoken it is the same as the Lord speaking.” I honestly think it is a combination of our desire for certainty from the prophet as well as a very human habit of using proof-texting and not reading context for full meaning.
What would you (or anyone) suggest to help turn that tide? What can one do to encourage actually reading/studying rather than making snappy scriptural sound bytes?
@ Mary Ann 7:04
Thank you for that quote. I love it when GA talks encourage thoughtful decision making. In your experience, do you find the majority of leadership talks (local and general) support that, or do you feel more of a direct obedience style, like Pres. Nelson’s quote? I’m sure locale and personal experience of leadership makes a difference on that.
Anyone may answer about their experience as well.
@ Geoff-Aus 10:58
Thank you for your comment.
Are there any times where “exact obedience brings miracles” is actually best practice?
I know that others have brought up the “Wartime vs Peacetime Leader” dichotomy.
I’m curious if anyone would find times where Pres. Nelson’s quote is the better way.
The reason why I ask is that I have suspected for a while that personality wise, many of the 12 may feel that the church currently needs “Wartime Leadership.” Their personalities also may mesh with this interpretation (business leadership style and surgeon in a medical team giving exact commands).
@ Lois
Thank you for your comment.
Regarding your Bishop at the time, would you feel that his personality was a “wartime leader”? (Wartime dispenses orders to be followed, Peacetime presents a big picture and empowers people to make detailed decisions, etc.) I often wonder if leadership in the church skews one way or the other, or if it’s all over the map in leadership style.
I have attended other denominations and their services are all distributed on that spectrum. I really wonder if that correlates with the concept of “certainty.” Not that the more thoughtful services had increased doubts, but perhaps an increased willingness to consider the other? (other side, options, experiences that are very different from your own, etc.) I’m sure most individuals can relate to a time when a leader or really anyone was so sure of their position that they wouldn’t read or research or talk about alternatives.
“Utah is so morrally incapable that it votes Trump.”
A majority of Utahns voted for Hillary Clinton and Evan McMullin. Yes trump did win a plurality in Utah, but this line continues to be an unfair battering ram. I, speaking on behalf of the majority of Utahns in the last presidential election, a well as the Deseret News, find trump repugnant.
I will also add that a new political party had been founded, the Utah United party, composed of former Republicans who frankly can’t stand trump. Bob Bennett’s son Jim ran for Congress but unfortunately did not win.
Question everything; including questions (warning: infinite recursion). It isn’t very useful but makes one seem wise or at least Socratic.
“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?'”
I wonder if his being baffled by that may be one of the sources of current problems.
But when do we put exclamation points? That’s what confused me about Anderson’s talk. He seemed to imply that every word spoken by President Nelson is prophetic. And I can’t believe that.
Oh, I used to put so many exclamation points instead of question marks. But all I could think during Anderson’s talk was about a statement these prophets had issued in March 2018 where they victim-blamed a woman who had been trying to be heard for 30 years. And then issued a follow up statement that “Oh, yay.. well, we’ve actually known about Joe Bishop for ten years, but we can’t do anything because um… law… local leaders… etc.)
I openly admit that I am struggling to accept Nelson as a prophet right now. And the Quorum of the Twelve as prophets, seers, and revelators. Reading that statement on the MTC Abuse Scandal still hurts my heart. And then to find out that his daughter and SIL have been accused of abuse… I can’t trust him. It’s like finding out what Harold B Lee did to Hugh B Brown… the trust is broken and there hasn’t been anything said since then by him or any of his counselors that would lead me to trust them again. So lots of question marks now. All the question marks.
JD, “In your experience, do you find the majority of leadership talks (local and general) support that, or do you feel more of a direct obedience style, like Pres. Nelson’s quote?” Most definitely the majority I hear from Church leaders (bishop on up) is direct obedience style. I remember Elder Christofferson’s talk because that portion of it seemed so exceptional in a time when many general conference talks were loudly pounding the “follow the prophet” drum.
We had a high councilman recently give a heavy-handed “obedience to church leaders” talk, complete with asking the congregation to get up and sing all the verses to “We Thank Thee, Oh God, For a Prophet.” My husband later mentioned that even he was getting uncomfortable with the over-the-top leader worship.
I’m always amused at Mormons thinking “We Thank Thee, Oh God, For a Prophet” is about prophets. It simply lists a prophet as one of a list of things to be thankful for. I think it suffers from the use of the first line as a title. Incidentally, SWK once asked us not to sing that. He was sick of it.
The “prosperity gospel ”references really strike a nerve.
Earlier this year, a very kindly bishop was visiting our home, trying to commit me to 1 – pray daily (I do), 2 – read the BOM daily (which I don’t, though I do try to read things that build my spirit daily), and, 3 – attend church (which I do often, but not with the Mormons). I repeated declined. He went on to testify that if I were to do these things, as head of the household, “your lives would be flooded with miracles”.
I responded that “I have done all those things and still my two sons died. God didn’t give them cancer and he didn’t cure them. It just doesn’t work that way.” I could have added a half dozen other DEFCON Level IV trials from the same period.
A dozen years ago, the bishop and other leaders were saying how God was further refining us through these challengers. It’s his way of showing love. Same kind of stuff happens when you are inactive (after 57 years of full-on activity) and I am being punished or blessings are being withheld?
This kind of “economy of God” stuff is preached from every pulpit. The leaders have, over the decades, created God in their own image. I truly don’t feel that I can turn to any “approved” source to understand the nature of God and his relationship to us humans.
It is a personal journey we all must make. Beware your guides.
Does anyone remember when President Kimball gave his closing remarks at a GC, he said something along the lines of, “There have been a lot of [good, interesting, ?] things said at this conference. I’m going to go home and pray about them.” Probably in the late ‘70s or early ‘80s. My youth leaders noted how even the prophet needs to pray about things said at GC.
I looked for it once, but couldn’t find it. But I do remember it.
Something great happened today. While speaking about tithing, our bishop plainly stated that we should not expect to receive financial blessing in return for paying tithing, that that is called the prosperity gospel and it is a false doctrine. Amen to that!
JD, you pose very good (and difficult) questions. A frontal assault on the proof-texted version of this scripture would not be well received. Another option would be to present it as an “alternative reading,” buttressed with quotes from GAs who stress the importance of protecting our agency and preserving our right to question. Hugh B. Brown said some great things on this subject.
Having said this, I absolutely HATE it when people (including myself) attempt to settle an argument by quoting a church leader. This is one of the worst logical fallacies of all: the Authority Fallacy. The notion that something acquires truth when uttered by someone in a position of authority. It is a cop out and often appeals to the speaker only because it obviates the need to think.
In the final analysis, I suppose, the only viable approach is “persuasion, long suffering, and love unfeigned.”
Eric, On attempting to settle an argument by quoting a church leader — I would be surprised to find that anyone attempting to settle arguments by quoting a church “authority” even thought he was making a logical argument. It seems to me more likely that such folks are declaring allegiance to that particular authority, to that authority’s statement on the subject, and to their current understanding of the statement. It is often intended to be a conversation stopper — depending upon the assumption that others will not want to be seen as arguing with that “authority.” I have found it useful at times to quote in response another church “authority” saying something different (ranging from contradiction to a mere spin) about the same subject. Then the conversation can sometimes continue on its merits since the first appeal to authority was by someone not wanting to be seen as arguing with the second. For me, however, that approach requires significant preparation in anticipation of the appeal to authority. It worked fairly well when I was teaching Gospel Doctrine.
Wondering, I have done that many times, though on most occasions the conversation doesn’t continue because the other party doesn’t wish to discuss the matter further. I can see how your approach can work in a classroom setting since one individual cannot shutdown the discussion—unless they are a bishop or stake president, which has happened to me before. But in a one-on-one exchange, it usually results in a stalemate. Unfortunately, if you don’t quote another GA, then the other party will usually disregard all other arguments you make or evidence you present. Such is our culture.
As I’ve thought about this (since Elder Anderson brought it up a year and a half ago), it just feels to me that, like so many other “soundbites”, it is incomplete. It is easy to find examples from prophets (both ancient and modern) of things I feel I should put exclamation marks behind (more and better love and service). It is also easy to find examples from ancient and modern prophets where I append “Not!” to the statement (literal, young-earth creationist readings of Genesis). And many easily found statements of ancient and modern prophets where I must put question marks behind them (in my readings from the last few epistles of Paul and Peter, statements about slavery are jumping out at me). It seems to me that the statement only deals with half the problem — it doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of the cases where we do put question marks behind prophetic statements.
Considering the time frame of the Ensign biography (1983), I wonder how Brother Nelson (then a regional representative?) would have dealt with the scenario brought about by Pres. Kimball’s oral sex letter in early ’82 continuing into late 82 when the released a “don’t ask don’t tell” directive when it comes to sexual practices in the marriage bed. Would he have been one of those who encouraged denying/revoking temple recommends over this one practice in marriage (putting exclamation marks on the self-professed opinion of the prophet)? Or would he have been one of those who put a question mark behind it, recognized that it was given as an opinion, and told people they could choose for themselves?
@MrShorty
Thank you for your comment. I find that thought fascinating – How do General Authorities evolve on positions as they grow and progress, have callings with greater responsibility, and (hopefully) learn more? I know one thing that has always impressed me is Elder Benson to President Benson. There are many many examples of Elder Benson proclaiming extremely conservative statements, and bolstering them with scriptural and divine support. After he became the President of the Church, that nearly vanished.
I love your reminder of the many authority statements that are easily accept our exclamation points! I’ve usually appreciated Pres. Uchtdorf in that arena – particularly his reminder that we all sin in some way. “Don’t judge [someone] because [they] sin differently than you.”
Regarding “soundbites” within the church – do you find that an increasing problem? It’s a human quality to want pithy statements, easily memorized, and doubly wonderful if they can be put on merchandise in Deseret Book! (last one is partially joking). It’s also a human quality to prefer easily digestible quotes. Reading context in the scriptures and wrestling with the myriad of consequences for our choices requires more work on our end, and often doesn’t easily fit into available choices.
I wonder if the modern era has increased the amount of “soundbite sermons” in the church.
@JD: The nostalgic old man in me wants to declare with absolute certainty, “When I was a kid, people really thought for themselves. None of these silly, cutesy memes that you young’uns pass around Facebook.” However, the more rational part of me is more cautious. I recall as a youth wandering junior high and high school classrooms and noticing several cutesy posters with clever sayings (like the one with a picture of an owl that says, “half of being smart is knowing what you are dumb at”). I don’t have an objective way to measure “preference for sound bites over deeper discussion”. I feel like it is getting worse, but I think that might be more about how the internet with the easy way that short soundbites can be shared cuts into our attention spans. But, I’m not even sure that has been objectively measured.
That kind of evolution — both on the part of individual apostles and on the Church as a whole — can be a source of these question marks, which is part of why I don’t think the original statement by Brother Nelson feels complete. We just never seem to face those changes head on and talk about when a prophet is speaking as a prophet and when he is speaking as a man and how it all works.
On (i.e. perhaps relevant to) the problem with automatic exclamation points —
From an interview with N..T. Wright:
Green: If you were talking to a young person who feels anguish about what Christianity has come to mean in America, what would you say to him or her?
Wright: For goodness’ sake, read the four Gospels. That’s what they’re there for. And recognize that in the prayer Jesus taught us to pray: “Forgive us our trespasses.” You don’t just say that once, at the beginning of your Christian life. You jolly well say it every day, because you will need to. The trouble is that the Church is far too good at hoping that everyone else will be asking for forgiveness for their trespasses. Self-critique is part of the Gospel. And where the Church forgets that—oh boy, things go badly wrong.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/12/nt-wright-american-evangelicals-and-trump/602749/
Interesting conversation. This is my first time here. Some thoughts:
“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?’”
To me, this quote shows that RMN does not interest himself with judging the prophet or his message. His focus is not one of nitpicking, or measuring the words of a prophet against social norms or his understanding of the world. He has stated on different occasions that he has felt the Spirit confirm to him that the different prophets in his lifetime had been called of God, and that was enough for him. That is how he chose to order his life.
That’s pretty solid to me. He had to wrestle with so many things in his life, grappling with whether or not to follow the prophet wasn’t one of them.
There are only a few reasons why we wouldn’t do what the prophet asks us to do (maybe you could think of others):
1. We never heard the message.
2. We don’t believe the messenger is called by God at all.
3. We don’t believe that particular message is from God.
4. We don’t disbelieve in the prophet or the message, we just don’t want to do it.
5. We don’t believe God has messengers.
6. We don’t believe in God.
There is definitely room for combining any or all of these. So as you find your self not following the prophet or believing his messages, just make sure you know why. #4 is the reason that I typically don’t follow the prophet. I am so weak-willed. I don’t judge anyone for not following the prophet for any of the other reasons since I’m not all that good at it either.
I do believe RMN is called of God. I do feel happier whenever I follow him because it seems like I’m always closer to the Lord for it. If I follow him and some policy or official statement changes here or there, so be it. I’m ok with the process of continuing revelation, line upon line precept upon precept. Even for a prophet and the Church. The restoration is still unfolding and it is high adventure from here on out.