Good for you Pres. Nelson!

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

So the Lord let the Church leaders spend millions in tithing dollars to promote the Mormon name because He didn’t want to overwhelm us (even though it offended Him and was a victory for Satan)?

Seems odd. 

I think you are misguided in your repeated assertion that money was spent “to promote the Mormon name.” The intent was to improve the public image of those whom society already identified as ”Mormons” whether or not the Church liked or approved of the name. It was an effort to make the best of existing circumstances. 

I hope you will take care from now on not to inaccurately characterize this matter. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Evidently He was leading the Church of Jesus  Christ of Latter-Day Saints but He was not leading the Mormon Church.

This does raise an important question. Is the directive to wear only one earring from the Mormon God or from the COJCOLDS God?

 

I think it was from Grandpa Hinckley

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you are misguided in your repeated assertion that money was spent “to promote the Mormon name.” The intent was to improve the public image of those whom society already knew as ”Mormons” whether or not the Church liked or approved of the name. It was an effort to make the best of existing circumstances. 

I hope you will take care from now on not to inaccurately characterize this matter. 

You can say it that way... I don’t disagree.  Either way, we were spending money to associate the word Mormon with us and our church. 

[rockpond]

59 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

When I see some of the objections here I can’t help but think of Peter. He testified of the living Christ and was praised by Jesus Christ. Then moments later Jesus rebuked Him for denying that Christ needed to die. He said “Get behind me Satan”

later despite all he did with the savior peter was told he had not yet been converted and denied Christ three times.

prophets may walk with Christ and yet not be perfect 

I agree. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Yes He was, but I think you don't understand what a prophet really is. Like I have said the Lord does not completely control anyone, he allows them to use their own agency sometimes to make choices that might need to be corrected sometimes.   And He makes those corrections through His prophets at the proper time.  I think what you want is to have God Himself on this earth so everything would be done perfectly. How boring would that be? And there would be no reason to have faith in anything.   Our prophets along with our prayers are the closest thing we have to communicating with God. I can't think of anyone else on this earth I can trust more. 
 

Agreed 

[Royce]

On 10/7/2018 at 1:35 PM, Jane_Doe said:

"LDS Christian" has been my preferred quick descriptor of myself this last year or two.  Pres Nelson knocked home the point today, and I'll have to figure out how to best implement it in my life.  It's going to take some feeling out. 

Why use the word "Christian," when you are not one and it is not a doctrinally patented description of a "Latter-day Saint?"

[Jane_Doe]

16 minutes ago, Royce said:

Why use the word "Christian," when you are not one and it is not a doctrinally patented description of a "Latter-day Saint?"

This comment strikes me to be that of a troll, and a poorly masked one at that.  Sorry, not going to feed the trolls.

[Avatar4321]

35 minutes ago, Royce said:

Why use the word "Christian," when you are not one and it is not a doctrinally patented description of a "Latter-day Saint?"

So you’re official position is that members of the Church of Jesus Christ aren’t Christian?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I’m actually more comfortable than you might think.  This whole principle is what allows me, for example, to believe that the Brethren are mistaken about things like polygamy and gay marriage.

Yes, I’d already surmised that your repeated questions were primarily an attempt to seek validation for your hope that the past 4,000 years of prophetic teachings on the Law of Chastity will someday experience a ‘course correction ‘.  Time, of course, will tell. 

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes, I’d already surmised that your repeated questions were primarily an attempt to seek validation for your hope that the past 4,000 years of prophetic teachings on the Law of Chastity will someday experience a ‘course correction ‘.  Time, of course, will tell. 

I’m actually a very firm believer in the law of chastity. 

But it has been comforting for me to see so many here defend the idea that the prophet, apostles, and church in general can go for a long time being off course and then quickly accept a correction when the prophet so indicates.  

Edited October 10, 2018 by rockpond

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I actually do believe that the church had been led astray in how we were practicing polygamy. 

But there are differences between the manifesto and Pres. Nelson’s message:  Pres. Woodruff didn’t claim that polygamy offended the Lord or that it was a victory for Satan.  We still believe in polygamy as an eternal principle. 

Is there a scripture that says the “church is comprised of members who confirm their president”?  Can you remind me which scripture that is?

And technically, President Nelson was set apart as the president and prophet before any of us had the opportunity to sustain the action.  

Sorry for the delay in answering your questions, but I had to go out. 

I didn't bring up the subject of polygamy to get into a discussion about whether or not it or aspects of it were error, but just to point out that the Church has made previous course changes or corrections or whatever you wish to call them, and I don't view them as implying that the Church was necessarily in error. Another often debated is the priesthood ban. Another is the Adam-God teachings. I personally feel it is unfortunate that the GAs have held themselves out as being inerrant or incapable of leading the Church astray, but then I run up against their very words, so I will let individual members decide how to deal with those issues. I really don't wish to upset anybody. 

I have heard several on here discuss about how the statement of Pres Nelson contravenes the 15 unanimous leaders of the Church. I can't agree. First, I don't believe there was ever a revelation to the Church that the I am a Mormon campaign or other such usage was to proceed. We don't even know if it was presented to the 15 - at least I don't. Maybe someone can enlighten me. We are told by revelation that decisions made by the quorums are supposed to be unanimous among the 15/quorums (D&C 107:27). But I confess to being ignorant about whether the decision to implement these campaigns was such a decision or whether the decision was made by the president as a corporate sole. Nevertheless, I know of no revelation presented that this was the way to go, so there is no contravention of prior revelation that I see. 

As for my comment about the church being comprised of members who confirm the president, I was referring to D&C 107

22 Of the Melchizedek Priesthood, three Presiding High Priests, chosen by the body, appointed and ordained to that office, and upheld by the confidence, faith, and prayer of the church, form a quorum of the Presidency of the Church.

I interpret the word "body" to be the body of the Church. The body of the Church selects the President of the Church. If the body does not sustain the President, he cannot be the President. For example when Joseph died the body of the Church selected BY to be the President. All the others who left the Church to form their own churches were therefore breaking this scripture, and lost any priesthood authority to form a new church. And they have faltered because they contravened the word of the Lord, and He has not striven with them. Let us not do the same. Let us follow His will to call the Church by His name.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I’m actually a very firm believer in the law of chastity. 

Yes, as you define it. I suspect you know full well that those tasked with establishing the laws and doctrines of the Church don't accept your private definition.

Quote

But it has been comforting for me to see so many here defend the idea that the prophet, apostles, and church in general can go for a long time being off course and then quickly accept a correction when the prophet so indicates.  

This is always as it has been. Both scripture and Church history make it clear that at any point in time, we are all off course in some way or another. Inherent in a belief in continuing revelation is the acceptance that such revelation is needed. Elder Bednar, when he was here for training 3.5 years ago, made that very point. The Church is not yet what the Lord intends it to be. We are a work in progress. As I have noted several times before, he (Elder Bednar) stated that the Lord has only just finished laying the foundation of the Restoration.

The important thing, as you noted, is how we respond to correction when it comes. The Saints mostly seem to be good at this. Another issue is how we respond before any hypothetical or hoped-for correction comes. I think we may be less good at this.

[Thinking]

23 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Really? What makes you think that? If true, i am more impressed with him than before. I really have to be honest. I haven't noticed his tendencies in this regard over the years. 

Nelson gave a talk on the correct name of the Church in April 1990 GC.

In October 1990 GC, Hinckley referenced Nelson's talk.

Quote

Six months ago in our conference Elder Russell M. Nelson delivered an excellent address on the correct name of the Church. He quoted the words of the Lord Himself:

“Thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (D&C 115:4.)

He then went on to discourse on the various elements of that name. I commend to you a rereading of his talk.

The Mormon church, of course, is a nickname. And nicknames have a way of becoming fixed. I think of the verse concerning a boy and his name:

Father calls me William,

Sister calls me Will,

Mother calls me Willie,

But the fellers call me Bill.

I suppose that regardless of our efforts, we may never convert the world to general use of the full and correct name of the Church. Because of the shortness of the word Mormon and the ease with which it is spoken and written, they will continue to call us the Mormons, the Mormon church, and so forth.

They could do worse. More than fifty years ago, when I was a missionary in England, I said to one of my associates, “How can we get people, including our own members, to speak of the Church by its proper name?”

He replied, “You can’t. The word Mormon is too deeply ingrained and too easy to say.” He went on, “I’ve quit trying. While I’m thankful for the privilege of being a follower of Jesus Christ and a member of the Church which bears His name, I am not ashamed of the nickname Mormon.”

“Look,” he went on to say, “if there is any name that is totally honorable in its derivation, it is the name Mormon. And so, when someone asks me about it and what it means, I quietly say—‘Mormon means more good.’” (The Prophet Joseph Smith first said this in 1843; see Times and Seasons, 4:194; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 299–300.)

His statement intrigued me—Mormon means “more good.” I knew, of course, that “more good” was not a derivative of the word Mormon. I had studied both Latin and Greek, and I knew that English is derived in some measure from those two languages and that the words more good are not a cognate of the word Mormon. But his was a positive attitude based on an interesting perception. And, as we all know, our lives are guided in large measure by our perceptions. Ever since, when I have seen the word Mormon used in the media to describe us—in a newspaper or a magazine or book or whatever—there flashes into my mind his statement, which has become my motto: Mormon means “more good.”

We may not be able to change the nickname, but we can make it shine with added luster.

After all, it is the name of a man who was a great prophet who struggled to save his nation, and also the name of a book which is a mighty testament of eternal truth, a veritable witness of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I believe that Nelson disagreed with Hinckley but kept it to himself.

[SouthernMo]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

How about  ' I was going straight following the roads others provided, but now I have got my own construction company, so I can make my own roads and now I am going right even if it means tunneling through mountains, etc. because now I can make that choice '?

Maybe - but that implies that God is not in charge of the direction. President Nelson is. Which is fine by me; God can give leaders latitude to make their own choices. But, let’s not call it “the command of the Lord” as he did in his remarks. 

[SouthernMo]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

What are the specifics you are struggling with?  Perhaps making a list identifying them can help with getting more on target responses?

Struggle #1: He termed this a “course correction,” and this implies that previous church presidents got it wrong.  How can one present be so right on this issue when others were wrong?

Struggle #2: He informed us that God is offended when we sponsor those nicknames (like Mormons). First, I don’t believe Christ is offended; I don’t think he’s that insecure. Second, how could Elder Nelson have sustained the many very public, intentional, and church-sponsored uses of the term Mormon before he was president of the church when he believes it is offensive to Christ when we omit His name?

Struggle #3: He said “ I realize with profound regret that we have unwittingly acquiesced in the Lords restores church being called by other names, each of which expunged the sacred name of Jesus Christ.”  This statement indicates that the arguments in this thread that suppose that earlier uses of the term Mormon to name our faith were supported by God might not be false, but that is clearly not the position of President Nelson.

Struggle #4: He said “To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s church is a major victory for Satan.”  It is odd to me that for years, we and he have used the term Mormon, and that he seems to suddenly be condemning all the previous church presidents who have used the term as supporting Satan.  It’s a bold statement. Maybe he’s right, but I doubt he would ever say that by his earlier support of the Mormon initiatives that he helped Satan to victory. I also doubt he would admit that previous church presidents helped Satan by using the term Mormon. He’s likely using hyperbole here. If Elder Nelson is using hyperbole in this statement, I have to consider that he’s using hyperbole when he calls this “correction” a command of the Lord.

Struggle #5: He said “Have we been so afraid to offend someone who called us Mormons that we have failed to defend the Savior Himself, to stand up for him even by the name by which is church is called?”  Hyperbole.  Just because I use a nickname for someone does not mean I am not defending someone.

Struggle #6: He said “When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtley discarding all that Jesus Christ has done for us - even His atonement.” This is pretty clearly hyperbole/exaggeration.  I don’t even know where to start with what an exaggeration this is!

Struggle #7: He said “Many people think we worship Mormon.”  This is an oratory tactic Donald Trump often uses.  Many describes nothing objective here, and likely exaggerates a small problem.  I’ve never met anyone who thinks we worship Mormon (but I admit my perspective is limited).  Seems like hyperbole to me.

It’s hard to take a person’s words seriously when he’s prone to exaggeration.  I’m guessing that President Nelson and other strong members want me to take this man’s words seriously.

Sorry for the long post. Hope that helps summarize my current struggles.

[RevTestament]

38 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Nelson gave a talk on the correct name of the Church in April 1990 GC.

In October 1990 GC, Hinckley referenced Nelson's talk.

I believe that Nelson disagreed with Hinckley but kept it to himself.

Here is a link to Nelson's talk from 28 years ago so people can compare it, and see he is really not teaching anything too new:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1990/04/thus-shall-my-church-be-called?lang=eng

Hinckley was gregarious and well-loved President. i believe he had big dreams, and was the impetus behind the push to embrace the Mormon nomenclature. He almost says as much in his talk you quoted - to add "luster." 

Well, if you ask me, we didn't get much luster added since that time. I don't know how much money was spent, but my guess is that the Lord's idea is to work in small, personal ways. We don't need the expense anymore to get testimonies and experiences in front of people. We have youtube, and all kinds of social media. 

So, let's summarize

1, the expensive campaigns did not seem to help the growth rate of the Church, which is significantly lower now.

2. We can now probably spread awareness of the Church more effectively and for free through social media and various modern media outlets. 

3. If anything the campaigns encouraged increased use of the the term Mormon Church.

Is it time for a new direction? I'd say so. So much for the added luster.

i can't be sure if Nelson disagreed with Hinckley, but I did - and on more than one front.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

You can say it that way... I don’t disagree.  Either way, we were spending money to associate the word Mormon with us and our church. 

It’s not two ways of saying the same thing; it’s two different concepts. You falsely characterized it as money spent to promote a name when, in reality, the intent was to promote a more accurate image of a people. 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s not two ways of saying the same thing; it’s two different concepts. You falsely characterized it as money spent to promote a name when, in reality, the intent was to promote a more accurate image of a people. 

Wait... does calling ourselves Mormon promote a more accurate image of us?  Because that seems quite contrary to Pres. Nelson’s message.  

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Struggle #1: He termed this a “course correction,” and this implies that previous church presidents got it wrong.  How can one present be so right on this issue when others were wrong?

Struggle #2: He informed us that God is offended when we sponsor those nicknames (like Mormons). First, I don’t believe Christ is offended; I don’t think he’s that insecure. Second, how could Elder Nelson have sustained the many very public, intentional, and church-sponsored uses of the term Mormon before he was president of the church when he believes it is offensive to Christ when we omit His name?

Struggle #3: He said “ I realize with profound regret that we have unwittingly acquiesced in the Lords restores church being called by other names, each of which expunged the sacred name of Jesus Christ.”  This statement indicates that the arguments in this thread that suppose that earlier uses of the term Mormon to name our faith were supported by God might not be false, but that is clearly not the position of President Nelson.

Struggle #4: He said “To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s church is a major victory for Satan.”  It is odd to me that for years, we and he have used the term Mormon, and that he seems to suddenly be condemning all the previous church presidents who have used the term as supporting Satan.  It’s a bold statement. Maybe he’s right, but I doubt he would ever say that by his earlier support of the Mormon initiatives that he helped Satan to victory. I also doubt he would admit that previous church presidents helped Satan by using the term Mormon. He’s likely using hyperbole here. If Elder Nelson is using hyperbole in this statement, I have to consider that he’s using hyperbole when he calls this “correction” a command of the Lord.

Struggle #5: He said “Have we been so afraid to offend someone who called us Mormons that we have failed to defend the Savior Himself, to stand up for him even by the name by which is church is called?”  Hyperbole.  Just because I use a nickname for someone does not mean I am not defending someone.

Struggle #6: He said “When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtley discarding all that Jesus Christ has done for us - even His atonement.” This is pretty clearly hyperbole/exaggeration.  I don’t even know where to start with what an exaggeration this is!

Struggle #7: He said “Many people think we worship Mormon.”  This is an oratory tactic Donald Trump often uses.  Many describes nothing objective here, and likely exaggerates a small problem.  I’ve never met anyone who thinks we worship Mormon (but I admit my perspective is limited).  Seems like hyperbole to me.

It’s hard to take a person’s words seriously when he’s prone to exaggeration.  I’m guessing that President Nelson and other strong members want me to take this man’s words seriously.

Sorry for the long post. Hope that helps summarize my current struggles.

Great summary.  I feel similarly. 

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

This is always as it has been. Both scripture and Church history make it clear that at any point in time, we are all off course in some way or another. Inherent in a belief in continuing revelation is the acceptance that such revelation is needed. Elder Bednar, when he was here for training 3.5 years ago, made that very point. The Church is not yet what the Lord intends it to be. We are a work in progress. As I have noted several times before, he (Elder Bednar) stated that the Lord has only just finished laying the foundation of the Restoration.

Well said, thank you. 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Struggle #1: He termed this a “course correction,” and this implies that previous church presidents got it wrong.  How can one present be so right on this issue when others were wrong?

Struggle #2: He informed us that God is offended when we sponsor those nicknames (like Mormons). First, I don’t believe Christ is offended; I don’t think he’s that insecure. Second, how could Elder Nelson have sustained the many very public, intentional, and church-sponsored uses of the term Mormon before he was president of the church when he believes it is offensive to Christ when we omit His name?

Struggle #3: He said “ I realize with profound regret that we have unwittingly acquiesced in the Lords restores church being called by other names, each of which expunged the sacred name of Jesus Christ.”  This statement indicates that the arguments in this thread that suppose that earlier uses of the term Mormon to name our faith were supported by God might not be false, but that is clearly not the position of President Nelson.

Struggle #4: He said “To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s church is a major victory for Satan.”  It is odd to me that for years, we and he have used the term Mormon, and that he seems to suddenly be condemning all the previous church presidents who have used the term as supporting Satan.  It’s a bold statement. Maybe he’s right, but I doubt he would ever say that by his earlier support of the Mormon initiatives that he helped Satan to victory. I also doubt he would admit that previous church presidents helped Satan by using the term Mormon. He’s likely using hyperbole here. If Elder Nelson is using hyperbole in this statement, I have to consider that he’s using hyperbole when he calls this “correction” a command of the Lord.

Struggle #5: He said “Have we been so afraid to offend someone who called us Mormons that we have failed to defend the Savior Himself, to stand up for him even by the name by which is church is called?”  Hyperbole.  Just because I use a nickname for someone does not mean I am not defending someone.

Struggle #6: He said “When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtley discarding all that Jesus Christ has done for us - even His atonement.” This is pretty clearly hyperbole/exaggeration.  I don’t even know where to start with what an exaggeration this is!

Struggle #7: He said “Many people think we worship Mormon.”  This is an oratory tactic Donald Trump often uses.  Many describes nothing objective here, and likely exaggerates a small problem.  I’ve never met anyone who thinks we worship Mormon (but I admit my perspective is limited).  Seems like hyperbole to me.

It’s hard to take a person’s words seriously when he’s prone to exaggeration.  I’m guessing that President Nelson and other strong members want me to take this man’s words seriously.

Sorry for the long post. Hope that helps summarize my current struggles.

Well said, Southern MO.

With my most generous reading of Nelson's talk I can only, at best, say he was exaggerating and employing hyperbole as a rhetorical tactic to get people to take him seriously on this issue. But IMO he WAY oversold the problem of using the term Mormon. In my life I've generally avoided that term precisely because I didn't want people to think I belonged to the church of Mormon. So I get that part. But calling it a victory for Satan? Saying God is offended? He really just undercut the trust of members as well as his own authority, and I don't think he even realizes it.

Edited October 10, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Wait... does calling ourselves Mormon promote a more accurate image of us?  Because that seems quite contrary to Pres. Nelson’s message.  

That’s not even close to what I said. 

Please don’t twist my words. 

[Rain]

Interesting discussion with a neighbor last night. She kept referring to the "temple", but the context seemed to be about the meeting house near us. 

I asked her about it and long story short, she told me how a member of "that church" had been "upset" with her because she was mixing up "ward" and "temple" and "church".

So after she got done with her story I told her I was a membe of "that" church and explained the difference briefly between the 3, but if she mixed them up I would be ok with it.

I said, "that church" because we have been asked not to use "mormon" and because she was still fuzzy on the whole church/temple/ward thing and I figured I didn't need to throw in the whole name of the church thing and worry her that she was now upsetting me. I suspect that we will now be seeing quite a bit more of her, given the circumstances we were together and I figure that can wait till later.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That’s not even close to what I said. 

Please don’t twist my words. 

Seriously not trying to twist your words.  I promise. 

You said:

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s not two ways of saying the same thing; it’s two different concepts. You falsely characterized it as money spent to promote a name when, in reality, the intent was to promote a more accurate image of a people. 

You were responding to my comments about the I’m a Mormon campaign.  If the intent of that campaign was to promote a more accurate image of us, than we were using the Mormon name to promote a more accurate image of ourselves.  But that seems contrary to Pres. Nelson’s recent teaching on the matter. 

So I ask again...

43 minutes ago, rockpond said:

...does calling ourselves Mormon promote a more accurate image of us?

Or would you rather try to clarify your response?

[Navidad]

Just a simple quick question about prophets. Here is a book cover from a book I own about a very prominent turn of the twentieth century Presbyterian leader. He was not the titular head of the Presbyterian Church like President Nelson is, but he was the head of their world-wide missionary effort and was very active in Latin America. I believe he and Apostle/President Ivins were more than mere acquaintances. So, my question is this, is it reasonable to think of the existence of apostles and prophets - speaking for God in other denominations? Or from an LDS perspective may only LDS men hold the priesthood so only LDS men could be apostles or prophets, even though priests, apostles and prophets were all different offices with very different functions in the Bible? Not trying to start anything; I have been curious about this for some time. Joseph Smith was translating prior to the priesthood being restored, right? Was he a prophet while he was translating?