Elder Oaks

[ALarson]

45 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think, rather, it comes down to how the Spirit testifies to each of us.  

I have a testimony of living prophets but included in the testimony is the understanding that they can be mistaken.  They can, at times, take us down incorrect courses.  We saw that very clearly at this last conference. 

Exactly.  There is also very definitely the human element or aspect as well.  Each Prophet brings with them their thoughts, feelings and opinions (just as Pres. Nelson brought with him his feelings regarding the usage of the term "Mormon" or "Mormon Church".... which has obviously bothered him for some time).  This happens when a Bishop is called....when a new Stake President is called....and so on as well.  This is a natural thing and each person brings their own personality and style of leadership, etc. into the calling.

However, all these men are also fallible and make mistakes.  So I believe it comes down to each of us praying and as you state, having the Spirit testify to us regarding certain issues.   I do not agree with all of the current policies (for example), but I respect the leaders and try my best to follow their counsel.   This is how I feel regarding the name issue....I will do my very best to use the proper name of the church as has been requested of us by our Prophet.

Edited October 13, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Then prudence suggests we obtain a testimony of the specific principles they are teaching.

Would you have done that regarding the Adam/God teachings when Brigham Young was the Prophet?  

If so, what if you received a confirmation that it was false doctrine (as a later Prophet called it)?

[ERMD]

"Opposition is part of the plan, and Satan’s most strenuous opposition is directed at whatever is most important to God’s plan. He seeks to destroy God’s work. His prime methods are to discredit the Savior and His divine authority, to erase the effects of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, to discourage repentance, to counterfeit revelation, and to contradict individual accountability. He also seeks to confuse gender, to distort marriage, and to discourage childbearing—especially by parents who will raise children in truth."

 

One would think he follows comments of "The Loyal Opposition" on this board.

[Avatar4321]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Would you have done that regarding the Adam/God teachings when Brigham Young was the Prophet?  

If so, what if you received a confirmation that it was false doctrine (as a later Prophet called it)?

The same thing I did now. Try to figure out the context and understand from the Spirit what was being taught.

and it isn’t what the critics are claim it was

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

and it isn’t what the critics are claim it was

By "critics" do you include another Prophet, President Gordon B. Hinckley?

He stated this about the teachings:

Quote

“We denounce [the Adam–God] theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.”

So, which Prophet do you agree with?

Edited October 13, 2018 by ALarson

[rockpond]

43 minutes ago, ERMD said:

"Opposition is part of the plan, and Satan’s most strenuous opposition is directed at whatever is most important to God’s plan. He seeks to destroy God’s work. His prime methods are to discredit the Savior and His divine authority, to erase the effects of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, to discourage repentance, to counterfeit revelation, and to contradict individual accountability. He also seeks to confuse gender, to distort marriage, and to discourage childbearing—especially by parents who will raise children in truth."

 

One would think he follows comments of "The Loyal Opposition" on this board.

Most here are active, faithful members of the church.  I’m not aware of any posters here who would fall under the description of “loyal opposition”. 

Edited October 13, 2018 by rockpond

[ERMD]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Most here are active, faithful members of the church.  I’m not aware of any posters here who would fall under the description of “loyal opposition”. 

I would disagree.

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, ERMD said:

I would disagree.

Interesting.  I’ve noted participants here who are active faithful members, others who have left activity or are no longer members, and those who were never members.  But, I don’t recall any who are in the church but opposed to it. 

[CMZ]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Sure it does.  Everytime anyone says Mormon church you know exactly what they are talking about.  You can’t honestly say otherwise.  

I know of a number of instances that showed some people thinking "Mormons" and "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" were two entirely different entities. Such as non-members at a disaster cleanup site who said, "We were helped earlier today by two different groups of really nice people: the Mormons and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

[CMZ]

2 hours ago, Rivers said:

This whole thing kind of reminds me of the PC crowd insisting we have to use certain terminology for everything.  And I hate the policing of language.  So I’m not exactly having a party with it.  But I will do my best to comply with the prophet’s wishes.  🎶I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ....🎶

I'm confused by all the uproar to the effect that using a nickname is better than using the official name. The prophet is simply saying we should use as the name of the Church the name the Lord gave to the Church. And it is not about a name change. And there were always myriad instances of the full correct name of the Church being used all over the place. Like thousands upon thousands. I guess people were strangely unaware of those. "From the Conference Center at Temple Square this is the 188th Semi-Annual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, CMZ said:

The prophet is simply saying we should use as the name of the Church the name the Lord gave to the Church.

First, that isn’t “simply” all that the prophet said.

Second, I don’t really see what I would describe as an uproar.  Haven’t most people on this board (including the post you responded to above) said that they would do their best to use the full official name? 

[CMZ]

 

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don’t really see what I would describe as an uproar.  Haven’t most people on this board (including the post you responded to above) said that they would do their best to use the full official name? 

I'm talking about comments from here such as, "I do not agree with all of the current policies (for example), but I respect the leaders and try my best to follow their counsel. This is how I feel regarding the name issue." Maybe "uproar" isn't the best term but I don't personally understand someone saying they don't agree with the policy of actually using the actual name of the Church. Also referring to comments here and elsewhere along the lines of, "Nelson just doesn't get that the term 'Mormon' has stuck so much that it's futile for him to think it's ever going to change."

Edited October 13, 2018 by CMZ

[rockpond]

17 minutes ago, CMZ said:

 

I'm talking about comments from here such as, "I do not agree with all of the current policies (for example), but I respect the leaders and try my best to follow their counsel. This is how I feel regarding the name issue." Maybe "uproar" isn't the best term but I don't personally understand someone saying they don't agree with the policy of actually using the actual name of the Church. Also referring to comments here and elsewhere along the lines of, "Nelson just doesn't get that the term 'Mormon' has stuck so much that it's futile for him to think it's ever going to change."

Correct... Saying that I don’t agree with all of the policies but respect the leaders and will do my best to follow their counsel is definitely not an uproar. 

Also, I haven’t noted anyone here saying that they don’t agree with the policy of using the full name of the church.  What they may disagree with is the direction to EXCLUSIVELY use that name.  Maybe that’s what you meant.

Finally, saying that it’s futile for the prophet to think he can get the entire world to stop using Mormon is probably a correct observation.  Saying that it’s futile for the prophet to get members to stop calling ourselves Mormon is, IMO, a prediction that will likely be proven wrong.  I think a majority of members are and will take Pres. Nelson’s counsel to heart. Unless... our next prophet follows the lead of Pres. Monson and the apostles of 2011 (which included Nelson) who decided to promote the name Mormon. 

Edited October 13, 2018 by rockpond

[CMZ]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Correct... Saying that I don’t agree with all of the policies but respect the leaders and will do my best to follow their counsel is definitely not an uproar. 

Also, I haven’t noted anyone here saying that they don’t agree with the policy of using the full name of the church.  What they may disagree with is the direction to EXCLUSIVELY use that name.  Maybe that’s what you meant.

Finally, saying that it’s futile for the prophet to think he can get the entire world to stop using Mormon is probably a correct observation.  Saying that it’s futile for the prophet to get members to stop calling ourselves Mormon is, IMO, a prediction that will likely be proven wrong.  I think a majority of members are and will take Pres. Nelson’s counsel to heart. Unless... our next prophet follows the lead of Pres. Monson and the apostles of 2011 (which included Nelson) who decided to promote the name Mormon. 

You can be comforted by the fact that in none of this was I attacking you (especially when that remark I quoted doesn't come from you). My comments also refer to chatter I have seen elsewhere.

Earlier posts from me in this thread show the the prophet's comments are more about members using the correct name. Yet I have seen a bunch of instances of members thinking he's reprimanding non-members for saying, "Mormon."

When you say "promote the name Mormon" are you referring to when then-Elder Ballard explained why they have the domain mormon.org and the "I'm a Mormon" campaign? If I recall correctly those were mentioned by Elder Ballard as exceptions to the rule of how we should actually focus on using the actual name of the Church.

I also see a lot of people who seem to think they are one-upping the prophet by saying, "Doesn't he know how hard that will be?" or, "Doesn't he know getting non-members to use the correct name might not work?" all while being unaware that he has already explicitly acknowledged those two things.

Edited October 13, 2018 by CMZ

[rockpond]

30 minutes ago, CMZ said:

You can be comforted by the fact that in none of this was I attacking you (especially when that remark I quoted doesn't come from you). My comments also refer to chatter I have seen elsewhere.

Earlier posts from me in this thread show the the prophet's comments are more about members using the correct name. Yet I have seen a bunch of instances of members thinking he's reprimanding non-members for saying, "Mormon."

When you say "promote the name Mormon" are you referring to when then-Elder Ballard explained why they have the domain mormon.org?

I was referring to the I’m a Mormon campaign. 

I knew you weren’t attacking me.  

I didn’t think that Pres. Nelson was reprimanding non-members but it did have a tone of chastising members (which I thought was odd  considering we were just following the previous prophet’s direction). 

Edited October 13, 2018 by rockpond
*tone not ton

[CMZ]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

(which I thought was odd considering we were just following the previous prophet’s direction). 

President Monson said to use "Mormon" in place of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"?

Edited October 13, 2018 by CMZ

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CMZ said:

President Monson said to use "Mormon" in place of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"?

No... but he didn’t shy away from it (or say to avoid using Mormon).  And, it was under Pres. Monson that we ran the I’m a Mormon campaign.  (Prior to the I’m a Mormon campaign I was pretty careful to only use the full and proper name of the church.  And while I still shy away from it’s use*, I know that the campaign gave some the feeling that we were embracing being called Mormon/Mormon church. 

*For clarity’s sake, I will often first identify as Christian and then explain that I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The latter is most often followed by the question: “So you’re Mormon?”

[Rivers]

Its a monumental task that Pres. Nelson is expecting of us.  The word "Mormon" has been part of the lexicon for a long time.  Its going to be really hard to shake it; especially after the "I'm a Mormon Campaign."  But I'll do my best.

BTW, how did a thread on Pres. Oaks turn into a discussion on how refer to the Church and its members?

 

Edited October 14, 2018 by Rivers

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Rivers said:

 

BTW, how did a thread on Pres. Oaks turn into a discussion on how refer to the Church and its members?

 

Everything seems to have for a bit.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

No... but he didn’t shy away from it (or say to avoid using Mormon).  And, it was under Pres. Monson that we ran the I’m a Mormon campaign.  (Prior to the I’m a Mormon campaign I was pretty careful to only use the full and proper name of the church.  And while I still shy away from it’s use*, I know that the campaign gave some the feeling that we were embracing being called Mormon/Mormon church. 

The position was in place under President Monson and at least as far back as President Hinckley that the name of Jesus Christ should not be dropped from the name of His Church. The position was expressed in the Church handbook and in standard boilerplate that appeared with each Public Affairs news release. It was reiterated from time to time in general conference addresses by Elder M. Russell Ballard and others. 

The “I’m a Mormon” campaign did nothing to nullify that instruction. If you insist that it did, it is you who are engaging in “revisionist history.” 

 

Edited October 14, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The position was in place under President Monson and at least as far back as President Hinckley that the name of Jesus Christ should not be dropped from the name of His Church. The position was expressed in the Church handbook and in standard boilerplate that appeared with each Public Affairs news release. It was reiterated from time to time in general conference addresses by Elder M. Russell Ballard and others. 

The “I’m a Mormon” campaign did nothing to nullify that instruction. If you insist that it did, it is you who are engaging in “revisionist history.” 

 

I didn’t say that the I’m a Mormon campaign nullified the instruction to use the full name of the church.  It did, however, promote and embrace the title of Mormon. 

[Gray]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Everything seems to have for a bit.

"The name of the church" is the new "gay marriage" on this board! 😛

[Maestrophil]

22 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think, rather, it comes down to how the Spirit testifies to each of us.  

I have a testimony of living prophets but included in the testimony is the understanding that they can be mistaken.  They can, at times, take us down incorrect courses.  We saw that very clearly at this last conference. 

Who is this 'we' you refer to.  🙂.  I saw no such thing.  

 

[Maestrophil]

23 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think, rather, it comes down to how the Spirit testifies to each of us.  

I have a testimony of living prophets but included in the testimony is the understanding that they can be mistaken.  They can, at times, take us down incorrect courses.  We saw that very clearly at this last conference. 

To me, my feelings on any given subject are not enough for m to believe or disbelieve.  I am not personally good enough at distinguishing the Spirit from my own feelings in some cases, and so accordingly, the feeling of the Spirit must be supported by the words of living and past prophets. The more 'evidence' I see scripturally and in testimony and admonition of prophets, the closer I get to belief'. In the case of President Oaks' gender comments, the supporting evidence I see in terms of other prophets and scriptures supporting gender as a feature of our identities jibes with the Spirit I feel supporting that message.  

 

Of course it is easier that my personal feelings are also in alignment with this principle/teaching.  Other teachings have been supported by evidence and the spirit - but my feelings did NOT like them.  I had to work harder to accept those teachings.

 

 

[changed]

43 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

To me, my feelings on any given subject are not enough for m to believe or disbelieve.  I am not personally good enough at distinguishing the Spirit from my own feelings in some cases, and so accordingly, the feeling of the Spirit must be supported by the words of living and past prophets. The more 'evidence' I see scripturally and in testimony and admonition of prophets, the closer I get to belief'. In the case of President Oaks' gender comments, the supporting evidence I see in terms of other prophets and scriptures supporting gender as a feature of our identities jibes with the Spirit I feel supporting that message.  

 

Of course it is easier that my personal feelings are also in alignment with this principle/teaching.  Other teachings have been supported by evidence and the spirit - but my feelings did NOT like them.  I had to work harder to accept those teachings.

 

 

 

When searching for evidence, do you take a broad approach - and use evidence from multiple peer-reviewed independent sources?  Multiple religious writings, multiple subject field experts, multiple cultures?  Evidence that is gathered from only one source, one viewpoint, one organization - does not sound like an honest, unbiased, and well-rounded approach.   

Edited October 14, 2018 by changed