How official is Nelson's revelation about the name of the Church?

[Thinking]

Is it an official declaration?

Will it be voted on in GC?

[sunstoned]

I doubt that this will go up for a vote. 

Edited August 22, 2018 by sunstoned

[hope_for_things]

Eh...  I don’t see him claiming revelation really, it’s his rhetorical style to position things he does as answers to prayer.  We have been very reluctant to add to the canon, and I don’t see that precedent changing anytime soon.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It’s his rhetorical style to position things he does as answers to prayer.

What is your objective, repeatable evidence for this statement?

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Is it an official declaration?

All we get are official declarations.  Haven't read a new revelation in over a century.  Just declarations that there was one.  God apparently doesn't have anything to say to the Church directly any more.

The words are men's and the principles expressed are apparently God's.  Can you imagine the scriptures if we removed all the words that are God speaking?

[Exiled]

He is the prophet and wants to be considered as such. So, I think he would want everyone to believe that his name revelation was directly from God.

[Garden Girl]

This is nothing new... IIRC several years ago this same announcement was given by Pres Hinckley(?) about referring to the Church, particularly for news reporters, by the Church's proper name... I thought Pres Nelson was simply giving us another reminder... As far as the name being given by revelation... this was done by the Lord to Joseph Smith on April 26, 1838 at Far West... you can read about it in D&C Sec 115:1 - 4...(For thus shall my church be called in  the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)

GG

Edited August 22, 2018 by Garden Girl

[Bernard Gui]

21 hours ago, Thinking said:

Is it an official declaration?

Will it be voted on in GC?

Why would it have to be voted on? This was said of Joseph Smith. Could it also be true of all Presidents of the Church?

Quote

D&C 21:4 Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;
5 For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.

 

Edited August 23, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[SouthernMo]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

All we get are official declarations.  Haven't read a new revelation in over a century.

Wasn't D&C 138 revealed in October 1918?  Do you not consider that revelation?

[Gray]

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

Is it an official declaration?

Will it be voted on in GC?

It's not clear if they're ever going to be following that process for common consent and new revelations again. If they wanted to they could add a new section to the D&C unilaterally. Who would stop them?

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Thinking said:

Is it an official declaration?

Will it be voted on in GC?

I'd say it is a part of the stream of ongoing revelation touching upon multiple matters that we sustain the Church officers to receive and act upon.

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, Thinking said:

Is it an official declaration?

Will it be voted on in GC?

No...and no....IMO.

I think this is something that has been an issue for President Nelson for years and he had the desire to push for a change.  He prayed about it and received a confirmation.  The entire church is his stewardship, so he can receive inspiration for the church, of course.  Is it more of a revelation though than when a Bishop prays and receives inspiration for his ward (who is his stewardship)?  If President Nelson does not specify that it's a revelation, then is there a difference?  

Edited August 22, 2018 by ALarson

[2BizE]

This really seems to be a pet peeve of Pres. Nelson.  He has talked about this many times over the decades. He has even given GC talks about it even in the early 80s.  I don’t think this really qualifies as revelation,  but it certainly warrants checking this off his bucket list.

[cesc101]

12 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

This is nothing new... IIRC several years ago this same announcement was given by Pres Hinckley(?) about referring to the Church, particularly for news reporters, by the Church's proper name... I thought Pres Nelson was simply giving us another reminder... As far as the name being given by revelation... this was done by the Lord to Joseph Smith on April 26, 1838 at Far West... you can read about it in D&C Sec 115:1 - 4...(For thus shall my church be called in  the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)

GG

Thanks.

Nothing new here, well, except we have spent much to aquire the brand name "Mormon" - only to drop it in a trash can with this revelation.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, 2BizE said:

This really seems to be a pet peeve of Pres. Nelson.  He has talked about this many times over the decades. He has even given GC talks about it even in the early 80s.  I don’t think this really qualifies as revelation,  but it certainly warrants checking this off his bucket list.

Or the Lord is leading the Church in a new direction suited to our circumstances and President Nelson is paying attention and following His lead. 

[cinepro]

13 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

This is nothing new... IIRC several years ago this same announcement was given by Pres Hinckley(?) about referring to the Church, particularly for news reporters, by the Church's proper name... I thought Pres Nelson was simply giving us another reminder... As far as the name being given by revelation... this was done by the Lord to Joseph Smith on April 26, 1838 at Far West... you can read about it in D&C Sec 115:1 - 4...(For thus shall my church be called in  the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)

GG

It's interesting how this announcement has gotten everyone talking about D&C 115 like "Oh, the Lord revealed this revelation and now we have to use the proper name of the Church because it's really important to Him!", but we're all just kind of ignoring the part two verses later where he says:

Quote

7 Let the city, Far West, be a holy and consecrated land unto me; and it shall be called most holy, for the ground upon which thou standest is holy.

8 Therefore, I command you to build a house unto me, for the gathering together of my saints, that they may worship me.

9 And let there be a beginning of this work, and a foundation, and a preparatory work, this following summer;

10 And let the beginning be made on the fourth day of July next; and from that time forth let my people labor diligently to build a house unto my name;

11 And in one year from this day let them re-commence laying the foundation of my house.

12 Thus let them from that time forth labor diligently until it shall be finished, from the cornerstone thereof unto the top thereof, until there shall not anything remain that is not finished.

Just in case anyone is wondering, this is what the Far West Temple site looks like today:

 

 

[Guest]

14 hours ago, Thinking said:

Is it an official declaration?

Will it be voted on in GC?

It is just a repeat of other President's comments. The only thing I see here is a desire on his part, to part ways with the word Mormon. Or did I miss something and the name of the Church is to be changed to something other than,"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", if so let me know. The name of the Church did change once after being, "The Church of Christ (or was it "Jesus Christ") around 1836, to it name it bears today. It has never been officially called the "Mormon Church", but no matter what we call it, it will always be "The Mormon Church" to those outside the Church. Nothing we or they do will ever change this fact. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

It's interesting how this announcement has gotten everyone talking about D&C 115 like "Oh, the Lord revealed this revelation and now we have to use the proper name of the Church because it's really important to Him!", but we're all just kind of ignoring the part two verses later where he says:

Just in case anyone is wondering, this is what the Far West Temple site looks like today:

 

 

So true, this is just a repeat of President Hinckley's earlier comments. But it has suddenly made many see it as a new revelation, which President Nelson did not allude too in any way. But in these days the Internet, things in and out of the Church seem to change at the speed in which fingers can use a keyboard, with barely time to adjust or digest the information. I worry sometimes, that people are so eager for revelations and new things to be excited about, it reminds of the scripture, (too paraphrase) "they seek teachers unto themselves, having itching ears". 

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Thinking said:

Is it an official declaration?

I think we are perhaps conflating a few things, namely:

1. Revelatory guidance from God to His presiding high priest (Russell M. Nelson);

2. Canonization; and

3. Common Consent.

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (speaking of Common Consent):

Quote

The principle of common consent has functioned in the Church since its inception, though the actual practices incorporating this principle have evolved significantly. The revelation on LDS Church government, received when it was organized in April 1830, states: "No person is to be ordained to any office in this church, where there is a regularly organized branch of the same, without the vote of that church" (D&C 20:65). This instruction was reemphasized three months later: "All things shall be done by common consent in the church" (D&C 26:2). LDS practices may have been influenced in these earliest years by the Book of Mormon model of theocratic government that conducted its "business by the voice of the people" (Mosiah 29:25-26), and by biblical example (e.g., Ex. 24:3; Num. 27:19).

...

Today the Church continues to operate by divine revelation and common consent. Callings to positions of Church service at all levels of the organization and ordination to the priesthood are made by the inspiration of authorized leaders and are then brought before the appropriate body of members to be sustained or opposed. Members do not nominate persons to office, but are asked to give their sustaining vote to decisions of presiding councils by raising their right hand, and anyone may give an opposing vote in the same way. This procedure is also followed in accepting important revelations and scriptural additions.

As to matters of church governance, I believe the Brethren are guided by A) revelation, B) scripture, and C) principled and reasoned exercise of their discretionary authority pursuant to D&C 58:26 ("For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant"). 

I think Pres. Nelson's remarks fall pretty squarely within all three of these.

14 hours ago, Thinking said:

Will it be voted on in GC?

In a sense, yes.  That's what the sustaining vote is for.  We get to vote on whether to sustain Pres. Nelson, or not.  

But if you mean voting on his remarks themselves, I really doubt it.  He does not appear to be presenting it for canonization.  Rather, he seems to be reminding us of guidance that has already been canonized.  The Church's "Official Statement" includes a link to D&C 115:4 ("For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.").

So Pres. Nelson's remarks are a reminder of what we have received already.  It's a reminder based on a prompting from God, but a reminder nonetheless.  I would be surprised if it were presented for canonization.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, Thinking said:

Is it an official declaration?

Will it be voted on in GC?

If I look at this announcement about an emphasis on the name of the church through a purely secular lens, it makes me wonder if this isn't a diversionary tactic to get people to stop focusing on all the bad PR the church has been getting lately.  LGBTQ topics, and the Sam Young hunger strike.  Is it just me, or could this be an attempt to shift the focus away from the negative to another topic?  

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

If I look at this announcement about an emphasis on the name of the church through a purely secular lens, it makes me wonder if this isn't a diversionary tactic to get people to stop focusing on all the bad PR the church has been getting lately.  LGBTQ topics, and the Sam Young hunger strike.  Is it just me, or could this be an attempt to shift the focus away from the negative to another topic?  

that could be true if this topic and the media attention given it were all positive, but as we are seeing that isn't true

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

If I look at this announcement about an emphasis on the name of the church through a purely secular lens, it makes me wonder if this isn't a diversionary tactic to get people to stop focusing on all the bad PR the church has been getting lately.  LGBTQ topics, and the Sam Young hunger strike.  Is it just me, or could this be an attempt to shift the focus away from the negative to another topic?  

I live in a Utah, and even here the church has gotten very little negative press in the last few months. In fact, this announcement has garnered a lot more negative national press than anything else I’ve seen for a while. 

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, Duncan said:

that could be true if this topic and the media attention given it were all positive, but as we are seeing that isn't true

Why couldn't it be true otherwise as well.  Even negative media about an emphasis on a name is better than negative attention LGBTQ topics and sex scandal topics.  

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I live in a Utah, and even here the church has gotten very little negative press in the last few months. In fact, this announcement has garnered a lot more negative national press than anything else I’ve seen for a while. 

I also live in Utah and I disagree.  How is negative attention about a name emphasis not better than other negative attention on more controversial topics. 

I know Sam Young got national press, the McKenna Denson story got national press, the LoveLoud concert and the Believer documentary have all happened in the past few months and received national press.  I can find some links if you'd like, but there have been a lot from what I've seen.  

[smac97]

6 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Quote

All we get are official declarations.  Haven't read a new revelation in over a century.

Wasn't D&C 138 revealed in October 1918?  Do you not consider that revelation?

And the OD-2 was canonized in 1978.