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

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Gray said:

It's not clear if they're ever going to be following that process for common consent and new revelations again.

I think it's quite clear that they will.

5 hours ago, Gray said:

If they wanted to they could add a new section to the D&C unilaterally. Who would stop them?

The doctrines of the Church.

More to the point, why would the Brethren need to act unilaterally?  I think the body of the Saints would be thrilled to have a new revelation canonized in scripture.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Why would it be better?  

On the news services I frequent, there has been very little negative on the church in the last few months.  I think I saw one article on Sam Young.  I think I saw two articles about Denson but only one was a national source if i remember (the other was the trip.  The DN probably covered it as well but it didn't show up on my yahoo news feed).  

I've seen multiple negative articles (seven in the last 6 days, not county Utah based news sources) on this latest name change (many with pictures of Nelson looking senile) just this week.  The evidence just doesn't support your idea that the church did this to distract from negative press.

[smac97]

3 hours 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.

From the Official Statement:

Quote

The Lord has impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He has revealed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have work before us to bring ourselves in harmony with His will. In recent weeks, various Church leaders and departments have initiated the necessary steps to do so. Additional information about this important matter will be made available in the coming months.

"The Lord has impressed upon my mind" is not something that "qualifies as revelation?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it's quite clear that they will.

Why do you think that's true?  When was the last time this happened (honest question....I'll look too). 

[Duncan]

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

but you're talking about a "diversionary tactic" and bad PR isn't what the Church needs from these other issues, if the Church was looking for a diversion then something positive would be better, going from one disaster to the next isn't good PR either

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why would it be better?  

On the news services I frequent, there has been very little negative on the church in the last few months.  I think I saw one article on Sam Young.  I think I saw two articles about Denson but only one was a national source if i remember (the other was the trip.  The DN probably covered it as well but it didn't show up on my yahoo news feed).  

I've seen multiple negative articles (seven in the last 6 days, not county Utah based news sources) on this latest name change (many with pictures of Nelson looking senile) just this week.  The evidence just doesn't support your idea that the church did this to distract from negative press.

Isn't it obviously better?  Church emphasizes its formal name with the media and discourages the use of more common slang names.  Vs.  Activists stages hunger strike to try and get Church from having sexually explicit interviews with minors behind closed doors.  Is the story about the name emphasis not clearly more palatable? 

As for evidence, I'm only stating a hypothetical reason for why, I didn't claim any evidence.  And as far as national coverage on the other issues, its been plenty bad on the bad on the stories I mentioned.  Here are just a few just to give you a taste.  

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/30/hunger-strike-puts-more-scrutiny-on-mormon-youth-interviews.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/us/lds-church-lawsuit-joseph-bishop.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/tv/in-hbos-believer-a-mormon-rock-star-delivers-an-all-too-easy-message-of-love/2018/06/22/86193ef8-7588-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html

http://www.bostonherald.com/entertainment/television/2018/06/believer_dan_reynolds_challenges_mormonism_s_anti_gay_stance_in_hbo

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2018-08-13/judge-wont-toss-claim-against-mormon-church-in-rape-case

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mckenna-denson-sues-mormon-church-rape-joseph-bishop/

https://people.com/music/dan-reynolds-lgbtq-support-mormon-faith/

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/entertainment/believer-review/index.html

 

 

 

 

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, Duncan said:

but you're talking about a "diversionary tactic" and bad PR isn't what the Church needs from these other issues, if the Church was looking for a diversion then something positive would be better, going from one disaster to the next isn't good PR either

They had no way of knowing the name emphasis story wouldn't be positively received in advance.  But I would argue that even a negative story about a name emphasis detracts from the more negative stories out there already.  

Think about it from a missionary perspective, are you going to have prospective new members choosing not to join the church because President Nelson wants to emphasize Jesus Christ in the formal name of the church more?  Conversely, I could see plenty of scenarios where a prospective member is influenced against joining the church because the Nov 2015 policy or the practice of interviewing minors behind closed doors and asking sexually explicit questions.  Those stories are clearly more damaging to the image of the church, I honestly don't even understand the push back on that point.  

I can see why you'd question whether it was an intentional diversionary tactic, and I understand that pushback, it might not have been intentional, its just hypothetical speculation on my part.  

Edited August 22, 2018 by hope_for_things

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Isn't it obviously better?  Church emphasizes its formal name with the media and discourages the use of more common slang names.  Vs.  Activists stages hunger strike to try and get Church from having sexually explicit interviews with minors behind closed doors.  Is the story about the name emphasis not clearly more palatable? 

As for evidence, I'm only stating a hypothetical reason for why, I didn't claim any evidence.  And as far as national coverage on the other issues, its been plenty bad on the bad on the stories I mentioned.  Here are just a few just to give you a taste.  

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/30/hunger-strike-puts-more-scrutiny-on-mormon-youth-interviews.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/us/lds-church-lawsuit-joseph-bishop.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/tv/in-hbos-believer-a-mormon-rock-star-delivers-an-all-too-easy-message-of-love/2018/06/22/86193ef8-7588-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html

http://www.bostonherald.com/entertainment/television/2018/06/believer_dan_reynolds_challenges_mormonism_s_anti_gay_stance_in_hbo

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2018-08-13/judge-wont-toss-claim-against-mormon-church-in-rape-case

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mckenna-denson-sues-mormon-church-rape-joseph-bishop/

https://people.com/music/dan-reynolds-lgbtq-support-mormon-faith/

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/entertainment/believer-review/index.html

 

 

 

 

Oh I'm sure there are lots of news stories out there.  As I said before, i was speaking of those that show up on my national news feed-the stories that are most trending that day.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

They had no way of knowing the name emphasis story wouldn't be positively received in advance.  But I would argue that even a negative story about a name emphasis detracts from the more negative stories out there already.  

Think about it from a missionary perspective, are you going to have prospective new members choosing not to join the church because President Nelson wants to emphasize Jesus Christ in the formal name of the church more?  Conversely, I could see plenty of scenarios where a prospective member is influenced against joining the church because the Nov 2015 policy or the practice of interviewing minors behind closed doors and asking sexually explicit questions.  Those stories are clearly more damaging to the image of the church, I honestly don't even understand the push back on that point.  

I can see why you'd question whether it was an intentional diversionary tactic, and I understand that pushback, it might not have been intentional, its just hypothetical speculation on my part.  

It's clearly been on President Nelson's mind for many years, so I doubt it's a diversionary tactic. Having been involved in the church publication process, my biggest concern is that this is going to cost a heck of a lot of money, time, and effort. Job security for my former colleagues, I suppose.

[Gray]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it's quite clear that they will.

The doctrines of the Church.

More to the point, why would the Brethren need to act unilaterally?  I think the body of the Saints would be thrilled to have a new revelation canonized in scripture.

Thanks,

-Smac

There's quite a lot of doctrines of the church (including those spelled out in the D&C) that have been unilaterally abandoned or change, without any kind of sustaining vote or disclosed revelation.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

You don't think there is something the Church PR people could come up with that would draw more positive attention rather than negative?

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It's clearly been on President Nelson's mind for many years, so I doubt it's a diversionary tactic. Having been involved in the church publication process, my biggest concern is that this is going to cost a heck of a lot of money, time, and effort. Job security for my former colleagues, I suppose.

I don't dispute that this idea may have been discussed for many months and been on the radar of President Nelson, I just think the timing is curious.   Also, we know the newsroom can and does respond to some current events in a very timely manner with little preparation ahead of time, things like the Charlottesville protest as one example.  I think the church can act quickly when its in their interest to do so. 

I also believe corporations and governments use this tactic to distract from bad news as a regular tool in their utility belt and I wouldn't be surprised if the church did this as well.  

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

You don't think there is something the Church PR people could come up with that would draw more positive attention rather than negative?

Sure, very possibly.  Its probably hard to know exactly what the response will be to different PR announcements in advance.  I was just making the point that the negative response to the name emphasis is still clearly preferred to other negatives stories out there.  

Edited August 22, 2018 by hope_for_things

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't dispute that this idea may have been discussed for many months and been on the radar of President Nelson, I just think the timing is curious.   Also, we know the newsroom can and does respond to some current events in a very timely manner with little preparation ahead of time, things like the Charlottesville protest as one example.  I think the church can act quickly when its in their interest to do so. 

I also believe corporations and governments use this tactic to distract from bad news as a regular tool in their utility belt and I wouldn't be surprised if the church did this as well.  

Seems like an odd way to divert attention, but I suppose anything is possible. One thing to remember is that the PA department serves under the direction of the brethren; it does not have the authority to come up with publications, press releases, or anything else without it going through the brethren and being reviewed by correlation.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

They had no way of knowing the name emphasis story wouldn't be positively received in advance.  

I think it was very easy to predict the negative reaction myself just due to the hassle it creates for people.

I also think if they were predicting interest, it would have been predicted at a lower level because it is something so ignorable by nonmembers (and I suspect by most members outside of highly dense Latter-day Saint areas where conversations with fellow members are limited to mainly Sunday).

[smac97]

59 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

Quote

It's not clear if they're ever going to be following that process for common consent and new revelations again.

I think it's quite clear that they will.

Why do you think that's true? 

A number of reasons:

1. It is what they are supposed to do.  It's in our scriptures.  And obedience is part of the Brethren's job description.  

2. The Brethren are, on the whole, very good and decent and well-informed about the doctrines of the Church.  They love God, and try very hard to discern and obey His will.  That includes adhering to scriptural mandates.  So not only is it was they are supposed to do, it's what they want to do.

3. They have every reason to comply with the scriptures on this point, and no particular reason not to.  If they present a revelation and tell us it is from God, and ask us to pray about it and vote, under Common Consent principles, to canonize it, do you really think that the body of active, observant Latter-day Saints would vote against canonization?

4. The Brethren observe the principle of Common Consent every single year.  That's what the sustaining vote is.   The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, under the entry for "Common Consent," notes:

Quote

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.

5. The last time there was a "scriptural addition" was in 1978.  Did the Brethren call for a sustaining vote?  Yep (see here).  If they did it then, I think they'd do it now.

I don't think a reminder about the importance of the real name of the Church requires a sustaining vote. 

Quote

When was the last time this happened (honest question....I'll look too). 

That would be April 2018.  Here's the link.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 22, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

Quote

I think it's quite clear that they will.

The doctrines of the Church.

More to the point, why would the Brethren need to act unilaterally?  I think the body of the Saints would be thrilled to have a new revelation canonized in scripture.

Thanks,

-Smac

There's quite a lot of doctrines of the church (including those spelled out in the D&C) that have been unilaterally abandoned or change, without any kind of sustaining vote or disclosed revelation.

Such as?

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

5. The last time there was a "scriptural addition" was in 1978.  Did the Brethren call for a sustaining vote?  Yep (see here).  If they did it then, I think they'd do it now.

Where does it state that a vote was taken by the general membership of the church (in 1978)?  I don't see that (but may have missed it).

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That would be April 2018.  Here's the link.

Yeah, but that wasn't the question.

When was the last time a revelation was presented and voted on by the general membership of the church (confirming and accepting it by common consent...to be added to our scriptures).

Edited August 22, 2018 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours 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:

 

 

Patience.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Where does it state that a vote was taken by the general membership of the church (in 1978)?  I don't see that (but may have missed it).

Yeah, but that wasn't the question.

When was the last time a revelation was presented and voted on by the general membership of the church (confirming and accepting it by common consent...and added to scripture).

FYI, from OD-2:

Quote

 

Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.

Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978.

 

 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

FYI, from OD-2:

 

That's the last one I remember as well.

So I'm not sure why smac can say (regarding the general membership voting on a new revelation):

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think it's quite clear that they wil

I think it's possible, but not "quite clear that they will".

Edited August 22, 2018 by ALarson

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ALarson said:

That's the last one I remember as well.

So I'm not sure why smac can say (regarding the general membership voting on a new revelation):

I think it's possible, but not "quite clear that they will".

I think it's quite likely they will. Several times when I was working at the COB, I was told we had to do something in a certain way that didn't make sense to me. I'd ask why we were doing it that way, and the answer was usually "because that's the way the Doctrine and Covenants says we have to do it."

[smac97]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

That's the last one I remember as well.

So I'm not sure why smac can say (regarding the general membership voting on a new revelation):

Quote

I think it's quite clear that they wil

I think it's possible, but not "quite clear that they will".

I have five reasons why I think "it's quite clear they will."

In contrast, do you have any argument or evidence supportive of your notion that "{i}t's not clear if they're ever going to be following that process for common consent and new revelations again?"

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Seems like an odd way to divert attention, but I suppose anything is possible. One thing to remember is that the PA department serves under the direction of the brethren; it does not have the authority to come up with publications, press releases, or anything else without it going through the brethren and being reviewed by correlation.

Yes, that is a good point as well.  Which also shows how quickly the brethren can align on making a statement about a current event when its in their interest.  They are watching the news, that is clear.  

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have five reasons why I think "it's quite clear they will."

Ok.  Well, it's been 40 years.....so we will see how long we have to wait for it to happen again.  I think it's possible of course, just not "quite clear" that it will definitely happen.  Just my opinion.