President Russell M. Nelson of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints passed away

[Author_Balk]

This thread is about Russell M. Nelson. I think the thread should be about him as a person, his legacy, what happens now, etc. I don’t have any experience related to that.

I think it’s interesting about the change to 2 hour services on Sunday. I would have liked that. And it’s interesting that they split Sunday School to twice a month (if I read that right).

But, my comments were going towards Mormonism (or whatever you call it now) in general, which is a different topic. So, to respect him and the purpose of the thread I’m dropping off. Maybe we can respectfully disagree about topics on a different thread.

[raspberry_hunter]

Oh no, no offense at all taken! I think I know what you mean, and it is in a piece with my observation earlier in the thread that you could go weeks when I was a kid without hearing anything on Jesus Christ at church.

There has been a definite shift in emphasis even though the core beliefs haven’t changed all that much, if that makes sense? But the shift in emphasis has been, in my opinion, profound. Much of it happened under President Nelson but not just him, it’s been happening for the last… at least twenty years, I would say?

When I was growing up, church was much more about checklists and are you following All The Rules and are you doing All The Things including family history and food storage and on and on. I don’t think all of this was bad. I actually like that this religion has a lot of practical thoughts on how to live life, not just spiritual stuff. But sometimes it felt like the practical was outweighing the spiritual. In the words of our mainstream-Christian friends, it was more of a “works” not a “faith” church.

Now I think there’s much less in the way of checklists (e.g. we no longer have the checklist for once a month visiting and home teaching) and there’s WAY more at church about trying to follow Jesus.

Seminary (and Sunday School, and it’s all now aligned) is a 4 year rotation: 1 year on Old Testament, 1 year on New Testament, 1 year on Book of Mormon, and 1 year on D&C/church history. Same as when I was going through seminary in the 90s, but the aligned curriculum means that people actually spend some time in the Old and New testaments (which when I was going through were mostly treated as adjunct to the Book of Mormon). The subtitle of the Book of Mormon (“Another Testimony of Jesus Christ”) is taken much more seriously. There’s been an evolution in how the Book of Mormon is talked about: it continues to be extremely important, but the rhetoric has changed: it’s important because of everything it says about Christ.

I think the best way to show you the way the religion has evolved is to talk about the threefold mission of the church. The threefold mission of the Church, when you and @TokyoBayer were in, used to be “Proclaim the gospel, perfect the saints, redeem the dead.” A fourth mission was added in 2009 by Pres. Monson: “Care for the poor and needy.” Now in the new General Handbook instead of the 4-fold mission we have “The work of Salvation and Exaltation”:

• Live the gospel of Jesus Christ
• Care for those in need
• Invite all to receive the gospel
• Unite families for eternity

which is both uniquely our church (the uniting families bit) but also very Christian (the first three bullets) and also I very much like that the first two bullets come before the second two bullets.

BTW, I’d also be interested in doing this in another thread but I’m too lazy to start one myself, lol.

[raspberry_hunter]

@TokyoBayer

That is a mouthful! I hope you have a script to type it out for you. I think you can say “the Church”, can’t you?

Ha! No, I type it out every time. But sometimes (you’ll see it even in my comments to this post) I use the Church when it’s not ambiguous.

@TokyoBayer

Is there more of an emphasis on a personal connection with Christ? The whole empasis when I was growing up was on knowing that the Book of Mormon was true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet (who restored the Gospel).

Salvation was through the Church, although not explicitely stated as such. But you had to be an active member, pay your tithings, follow the current prophet, attend the temple, etc.

I presume those requirements haven’t changed, but is there also an element of a personal relationship with Jesus? (That feels weird to type “Jesus”.)

The danger before was that if people had personal relationships with Christ (as we called Him), there was the potential to bypass the Priesthood, and obedience was stressed above all.

Yes, there is definitely more of an element of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, though not to the extent that I’d say my Southern Baptist friends have a personal relationship with Jesus. (I know, it feels weird to say that, right!!) Balancing that is still a big emphasis on temple blessings (which still requires you to do all those things you mentioned) and obedience. (I’ve never got my endowments, so all of the temple talk I mostly tune out, but there’s a lot of it.)

But yeah, at the same time a lot more talk about Jesus Christ and our personal relationship with him, and even more trying to follow him (so I guess that combines the personal relationship with obedience?). The youth in our ward are asked to give talks about their favorite attribute of Christ (I don’t think our bishop is comfortable saying Jesus, lol).

[hajario]

@raspberry_hunter

Christian (the first three bullets) and also I very much like that the first two bullets come before the second two bullets

Bullet Two isn’t at all limited to Christianity. It’s certainly one of the core tenets of Jewish philosophy and pretty much every organized religion.

[puzzlegal]

@TokyoBayer

Unfortunately, the Church took stricter measures against transgender members under his watch.

Well that’s too bad. I hadn’t heard that before.

@TokyoBayer

The most controversial teachings have been walked back and recent leaders have further de-emphasized some of the remaining controversial teachings.

That’s interesting. Was that under Nelson, too?

I’m all jetlagged and at an airport, but I’d also be interested in discussing that in another thread.

[Author_Balk]

I thought of a question. This is both political and religious, but it’s not a “jab” which isn’t permitted here.

As I mentioned, I grew up in Utah as a Mormon. I come from a large family and Republicans were probably too liberal to some family members. I’m the black sheep, not Mormon and moved to another state.

I think this was a year ago, we had a family Zoom call. Since it was on a Monday my father turned it into Family Home Evening and had sort of a lesson. As I interpreted it, I think there was something said in General Conference last October (I could be wrong on the date). It was along the lines of that members should not automatically vote one party and could (should?) vote for both parties.

Does this make sense? If so, what was said? I got the impression this was a new direction. But, this is my interpretation of my dad’s interpretation of what was said.

[raspberry_hunter]

@hajario

Bullet Two isn’t at all limited to Christianity. It’s certainly one of the core tenets of Jewish philosophy and pretty much every organized religion.

Oh yes of course!

I only meant it was very Christian in reply to @Author_Balk who specifically asked about Christianity, and in contrast to the “Mormon Church” three-fold mission of the old days, which mentioned nothing of the sort. I agree it’s not limited to Christianity in the least.

Now, that’s not to say that Mormons didn’t care for those in need before 2009 either – it was a core tenet before that, and Mormons did a ton of humanitarian work – but I do really like that it’s now explicitly something that is emphasized as one of the top priorities.

(Using “Mormons” as the historical nomenclature before 2018!)

[raspberry_hunter]

Oh yeah! So I think what you’re talking about was a letter that was read out in Sacrament meeting in 2023. Here’s a link to the Church Newsroom article on that, which includes the full text of the letter. This is the money quote, in my opinion: “Some principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties, and members should seek candidates who best embody those principles. Members should also study candidates carefully and vote for those who have demonstrated integrity, compassion, and service to others, regardless of party affiliation. Merely voting a straight ticket or voting based on “tradition” without careful study of candidates and their positions on important issues is a threat to democracy and inconsistent with revealed standards (see Doctrine and Covenants 98:10).”

It’s of course all very cautious and vague language but I was Blown Away. I had never even dreamed that they would go that far in saying “look, don’t vote in lockstep with That Party We All Know You’re Voting For” in an official communication.

(And this was under Nelson, of course, so even appropriate for this thread! )

[Author_Balk]

Thanks. That clarifies what my dad was saying. And it seemed unusual. I think that was a positive step. (as well as the 2 hour service).

[Monty]

About two hours ago, @TokyoBayer started a spin-off thread to discuss changes in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.