When Russell Nelson became president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I admit that I was somewhat skeptical. Up until that point, my memories of President Nelson’s style and priorities included:
- Over the last several decades he had regularly spoken with with simplistic derision and strawman arguments about scientific ideas like evolution and the Big Bang (see here, here, and here, e.g.).
- In 2003 he taught that God’s love for us is conditional upon our obedience, something that I do not for one second believe.
- In 2016 he described anyone who disagreed with him on the divine origin of the handbook policy change that labeled same-sex marriage couples apostates and barred their children from baby blessings and baptism a “servant of Satan.”
- At the short press conference that took place at the announcement of the new first presidency in 2018, he concluded his answer to a question about women and leadership in the LDS Church by saying: “In the Doctrine and Covenants there’s a verse that says: before the foundation of the world, women were created to bear and care for the sons and daughters of God, and in doing so, they glorify God. Next question.” The verse he references is D&C 132:63 that is part of Joseph Smith’s revelation on polygamy. Read that verse in context and consider its relevance to answering a question about gender and leadership in church governance.
I will admit that these statements (and others) did not fill me with great optimism about the extent to which President Nelson would make thoughtful or inclusive decisions as president of the LDS Church.
After one year into President Nelson’s administration, many of the decisions that the LDS Church has implemented under his watch have, contrary to my expectations, been more thoughtful and inclusive (to one extent or another) than I had anticipated. Examples include:
- Shortening the Sunday meeting schedule to two hours and simplifying the curriculum, putting more emphasis on home-centered instruction and taking some of the burden off of families, especially those with small children.
- Implementing changes to LDS temple liturgies to include more inclusive gender language and elevating the role of Eve in the liturgical narrative.
- Being relatively open-minded about medical cannabis in Utah (at least, relative to expectations for a socially conservative religious organization…)
- Releasing the new “Saints” history book that goes farther toward transparency than previous curriculum manuals. (Still a looooooong ways to go. Baby steps.)
- Allowing sister missionaries to wear pants(!) as part of approved proselyting attire.
I’m ambivalent about changing the emphasis of the Church’s name to its full formal name (“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”) and deemphasizing the word “Mormon” in references to the Church. I thought it was a little ridiculous to assert that using the word “Mormon” in the name of the Church is offensive to God and a victory for Satan (I wonder what Joseph Smith would have said to that…), but in the vast scheme of things this is a small ball issue in a world with much more pressing concerns (poverty, nuclear proliferation, democratic backsliding, human rights abuses, etc.).
I continue to be very disappointed that the handbook policy change regarding same-sex couples and their children is still in effect. While I do not know for sure, I am reasonably confident that the day will someday arrive when Latter-day Saints will look back on that as a shameful black mark in their history.
All in all, however, the contrast between President Nelson’s tone and rhetorical priorities prior to becoming President and the changes that he has supervised afterwards have led me to be cautiously optimistic about what other developments may occur in the near future.
Interesting. I also have been surprised at many things President Nelson has done. I was expecting a very “hard-line President.” Although this list is not exhaustive, here are some of the other changes that have been implemented while he has been president that I think also are related to building unity/inclusivity in the body of Christ:
– New opportunities for youth to contribute in the temple (although has been pointed out, the YM have been given much more to do (baptisms, witnesses, etc.) than the YW, I think the decision was made with the intent to help the youth feel more a part of the work).
– Priesthood preview changed to temple and priesthood preview, and boys/girls invited to participate together (again, I know the argument that without giving the girls the same responsibilities this is not much, but I think it was made, in part, to make the youth feel more on equal footing/together).
– Restructure of Quorums (unity in the body)
– Replacing the youth programs (let’s hope they will be “equal/inclusive”)
– Be One celebration (attempt to unify)
– Giving sisters more of a role in missionary work (I’d prefer that sisters could be called as ward mission leaders but most wards appear to be eliminating that calling as a stand alone and assigning an EQ counselor and a RS counselor to direct missionary work–the RS now has more authority to direct missionary work among the sisters)
– Expanded mission opportunities (church service missions for youth, some who would not have been able to go before the change)
– Age changes for the youth advancement
These are the changes that first came up in my mind (in addition to those you mention). I think there are many reasons that these were made, but I do think that they have the effect of building more unity among the body.
Small steps. I think they will continue and get larger.
BECAUSE “The contrast between..Pte. Nelson’s prior…and CHANGES…after”
“Revelations” or “PEER PRESSURE”?
Therefore, Really a “Prophet”?
When a “new” sheriff is chosen they need to demonstrate to that ones that depend on their leadership that they have made a correct choice. A “prophet” that needs to impress his followers is not a “true” prophet of God that only needs to do His will and not theirs and not be concerned about impressing no one.
Most of these changes, of which you praise, were polled and surveyed prior to making these changes. I know many people who received emails asking for their input on certain things from temple attendance to length of church services, etc. Within a month or two prior to the official policy change (that he mislabels “revelation”) these surveys are taken and compiled. If the church were being led by God, and all these changes were commanded from God, then there would be no surveys or polling taken. These very surveys are the smoking gun evidence that the church is NOT being led by revelation from God. It may be getting more tolerable to endure church, but that’s just because the survey takers had enough of the same opinions and feelings that triggered the changes that you approve of.
Repeal the 19th.
Thats all I got to say.
I couldn’t disagree with you more about how revelation works. President Nelson, himself, has said that good information leads to good revelation. The LDS church has a research department and for good reason. God does not impose his will on people nor is he a multiple choice God. As Elder Uchtdorf has pointed out, God is not a vending machine. We don’t just ask, and He provides answers. And we don’t just present Him with possible solutions and then expect Him to make our choice for us. That would negate agency. He requires us to study things out, then draw conclusions then pray about it. God expects us to use the minds He gave us and the information available to us.