You are not as isolated in your opposition to the use of such phrases as you might have felt. RMN covered several of the faddish phrases. He didn’t get to “use the atonement” but I think he implied its inclusion in his comment. That latter phrase seems to have been introduced by a non-GA to a BYU audience years ago, has occasionally been used in Church publications, and has become common among the 20-something and 30-something Mormons of my acquaintance. The verb “use” has seemed to me to call for an object like a tool. The verb “apply” has seemed to call for a substance like an ointment. (Of course, there are variations in usage.) As I had never grasped what my 20- and 30-something friends meant, I asked my HP group Sunday what they thought it meant. The answers varied widely from (a) go ahead and sin and then “use” the atonement to cover it up or escape the consequences, to (b) it means repent. The latter makes the most sense, but my 20- and 30- something friends would make even more sense to me if they just said “repent and rely upon Christ who atoned for sins making it possible to be truly reconciled to God” rather than using a faddish phrase that is in danger of becoming Mormon-speak and hindering both communication and faith in Christ. “Enabling power of the Atonement” has similar and more problems.

BTW, RMN’s comments were the most direct public contradiction by an apostle of another that I can remember since his contradiction of others who had spoken of God’s “unconditional love.” Maybe eventually we’ll get to hear one or more of them contradict RMN on his unique claim that some version of the November 2015 policy of exclusion was “revelation” to all of them! :)

This is how I think President Nelson would answer your question.

“There is no amorphous entity called “the Atonement” upon which we may call for succor, healing, forgiveness, or power.”

In other words the Atonement doesn’t exist except as a concept in our minds. As such there is a real risk as President Nelson says of “misdirecting faith” when we use these terms. And that can’t be a good thing. especially when we are talking about such a fundamental and consequential doctrine as the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

All the best,
Bob

Isn’t his point that it is incomplete since it can be misinterpreted as a one time event or independent of Christ. But that isn’t dismissing the idea of the enabling power of the Atonement so much as a misunderstanding of what that means.

If there is a phrase that I would go to war over it has to be the “Enabling power of the Atonement”! The belief that the Atonement has power is the worst thing any General Authority has come up with in the last 100 years. (Hyperbole intended.) I have argued with my Stake President, Bishop, and sundry Church teachers on this issue, all to no avail, because unfortunately I have neither Church authority nor technical credentials to speak on this subject. But this hasn’t deferred me. This has be a solo effort until this past April when President Nelson gave what I believe to be the seminal talk in Conference.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2017/04/drawing-the-power-of-jesus-christ-into-our-lives?lang=eng

In it he argued that there is no such thing as the “Enabling power of the Atonement” and in fact there is no power in the Atonement at all.

I’m not sure how this doctrinal conflict will play out at the level of the Quorum but I will continue my efforts at gaining converts at undoing the damage caused by those who believe in the “Enabling power of the Atonement.” But at least now I’m not alone as I have President Nelson on my side. This comment is my feeble attempt at gaining converts in this cause.

Thanks David for this article.

All the best,

Bob.

What about website hits and downloads? Number of spin-off Deseret books? Number of re-citations in Lds books? Or perhaps cultural impact? (For example, when President Benson called women home from their laundry vats and typewriters, many sisters in US wards quit school and jobs. An uptick in support for refugee charity after the call came out, number of SR missionaries that surge when someone gives a call for that service in Gen Conf, etc. can all point to the impact of a talk. ) We can always measure the buzz on the bloggernacle for controversial talks. Just about every big island on the bloggernacle got a lot of mileage when “mothers who know” came out!

Ping Zelophehad’s Daughters, they have really interesting statistical methods for measuring such questions.

Oak’s “the Challenge to Become” – Really helped me stop looking at checklists and what kind of person am I.

Wirthlin’s “Come What May, and Love It” – It helped me through a rough time. A bit Buddha-istic now that I look back on it a bit.

Oak’s “Good, Better, Best” – Always a good to look at things this way when prioritizing. I don’t think he would appreciate that I don’t put the church in the “best” column much any more and using this method is making me back away from church activity. But the principle is good.

There are significant shortcomings in using this as a way of measuring the impact of a sermon. I believe that by design, during his time as a prophet, a prophet is going to be quoted often and repeatedly. By design. Our General Authorities like to emphasize our living prophet, and therefore will quote him purposefully in place of others. Thus President Hinckley was the most quoted GA until his death. Since then quotes by him have become relatively rare as we turned to President Monson. Therefore, by design we quote the current prophet the most, and will work hard to find thoughts or quotes of his to press into service.