Good for you Pres. Nelson!

[10THAmendment]

One thing about all of this is that it just comes off as a new leader's personal opinion on how things should be. Why would The Lord tell Pres. Monson to launch the "I'm a Mormon" campaign and place heavy emphasis on referring to the church as the "Mormon Church" and its members as "Mormons" and then tell Pres. Nelson the exact opposite months after becoming president?

I would venture to guess that 99/9% of what the presidents do are because of personal preference/opinion. This helps explain things like the Adam-God Theory, the black priesthood ban, possibly polygamy, etc.

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

One thing about all of this is that it just comes off as a new leader's personal opinion on how things should be. Why would The Lord tell Pres. Monson to launch the "I'm a Mormon" campaign and place heavy emphasis on referring to the church as the "Mormon Church" and its members as "Mormons" and then tell Pres. Nelson the exact opposite months after becoming president?

I would venture to guess that 99/9% of what the presidents do are because of personal preference/opinion. This helps explain things like the Adam-God Theory, the black priesthood ban, possibly polygamy, etc.

President Nelson was also the only apostle to claim the policy on children of gay parents was a result of revelation. He seems to have had some outlier opinions/interpretations  among the senior leadership for some time now.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Seriously not trying to twist your words.  I promise. 

You said:

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...

Or would you rather try to clarify your response?

I’ve already explained this to you. The word “Mormon” was already generally known among the public. The intent of the campaigns was to correct any erroneous understanding among the public regarding the people to which they were applying that name. It was not to promote the use of that name, as you have repeatedly and erroneously asserted. 

Yes, you are twisting my words, and frankly, I think it’s intentional. 

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve already explained this to you. The word “Mormon” was already generally known among the public. The intent of the campaigns was to correct any erroneous understanding among the public regarding the people to which they were applying that name. It was not to promote the use of that name, as you have repeatedly and erroneously asserted. 

Yes, you are twisting my words, and frankly, I think it’s intentional. 

So the intent of the I’m a Mormon campaign was to correct any erronerous understanding among the public.  Trying to understand you correctly.

But the campaign also promoted the Mormon name.  You can argue that we still wanted to be called by the full name of the church.  I won’t disagree.  But the campaign promoted the idea of calling us Mormon.  That’s a fact: I’m a Mormon, Meet the Mormons, Mormon Helping Hands.  These efforts promoted the concept of calling us Mormon.  To dispute that is to ignore the reality of what we did and is revisionist, as I stated earlier. 

[stemelbow]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For many years now, prophets and apostles have urged us not to call it “the Mormon church” or “the LDS Church.” The response has largely ranged from indifference to neglect to outright resistance, derision and defiance. I believe the Lord is now telling us through His prophet that it’s time we got serious about this directive. The words “not negotiable” are still ringing in my ears from his conference address. 

With all the misuse of the term anti-Mormon over the years, it seems clear that you side with Nelson in being officially and accurately anti-Mormons, right?  

Edited October 10, 2018 by stemelbow

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

With all the misuse of the term anti-Mormon over the years, it seems clear that you side with Nelson in being officially and accurately anti-Mormons, right?  

The term anti-Mormon is not misused all that often, not in my observation. 

[stemelbow]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve already explained this to you. The word “Mormon” was already generally known among the public. The intent of the campaigns was to correct any erroneous understanding among the public regarding the people to which they were applying that name. It was not to promote the use of that name, as you have repeatedly and erroneously asserted. 

Yes, you are twisting my words, and frankly, I think it’s intentional. 

THat is an interesting, or rather convoluted, explanation, Scott.  Why didn't the campaign attempt in some way explain that Mormon is an inaccurate name?  Without doing so it certainly promoted the name Mormon.  To say otherwise seems completely foolish at this point.  

[stemelbow]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

The term anti-Mormon is not misused all that often, not in my observation. 

So do you welcome the notion of being called an anti-Mormon at this point?  I'm not really into name calling, but as I recall you've used the term over the years.  It seems quite fitting to those who oppose the term Mormon being used for the Church and its members.  

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

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?

Hey Navidad,

I'll give you my answer, but many saints may differ from me. Yes, many can be prophets. I also tend to define prophets more narrowly than others I think. A prophet is someone who gives us prophecy - as distinguished from say a seer, who gives various types of revelation - visions and interpretations of scriptures and visions from past, present and future. Our scripture tells us when the Holy Spirit moves us to speak on a matter, that revelation can be scripture or is scripture. So for instance a story comes to mind about the Maori of New Zealand. Perhaps 50 years before the first convert a family patriarch told his family not to join with the churches then in New Zealand:

Quote

• In 1830, a patriarch named Arama Toiroa told his extended family: “‘There will come to you a true form of worship; it will be brought from the east, even from beyond the heavens. It will be brought across the great ocean and you will hear of it coming to Poneke (Wellington) and afterwards its representatives will come to Te Mahia. They will then go northward to Waiapu but will return to Te Mahia.  When this Karakia (religion), is introduced amongst you, you will know it, for one shall stand and raise both hands to heaven.  When you see this sign, enter into that church. Many of you will join the church and afterwards one will go from amongst you the same way that the ministers came even unto the land from afar off.”  In 1884, two missionaries followed the path that Arama Toiroa had described.  According to Brother Whaanga: “In journeying northward they reached … Korongata, where many of us were assembled on the Sabbath day. Amongst the people who were there was a grandson of Arama Toiroa whose name was Te Teira Marutu. The meeting was conducted by Elder Stewart and his friends. The services were opened with singing and prayer, and a Gospel address was delivered, after which they sang again, and Brother Stewart arose to dismiss with prayer. In doing so he raised both hands and invoked God’s blessing upon the people.  As soon as the grandson of Arama Toiroa saw this he arose and declared that this was the church of which his forefather prophesied which would surely be firmly established amongst the Maori people.”
• https://www.lds.org/new-era/1981/06/maori-traditions-and-the-mormon-church?lang=eng

So was the grandfather a prophet? Yes, he was. When these missionaries began arriving a similar version got repeated to several thousand Maori by Potangaroa.  In March 1881, he spoke in a gathering of several thousand Maori family members.  When he was asked what the right church was for the Maori, he fasted and prayed for three days.  Then he returned and said:  “You will recognize it when it comes. Its missionaries will travel in pairs. They will come from the rising sun. They will visit with us in our homes. They will learn our language and teach us the gospel in our own tongue. When they pray they will raise their right hands.”

Revelation 7 tells us that at the end of the sixth seal 144,000 have been sealed among the peoples of the earth. These are mostly the unsung servants of the Lord steering people to YHWH. Obviously, there are not 144,000 prophetic books in the Bible, nor anywhere near that many GAs in the Church of Jesus Christ. 

Quote

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?

Joseph Smith was a prophet, but his translation activity of the Book of Mormon, I would characterize as a seer. Nevertheless, several of his prophecies in D&C have already come true. Perhaps the best known are the civil war prophecies. If one goes to a common evangelical "Prophecy Conference" which travels around the country selling books and tapes, however, one is probably not going to find even one true prophecy. Their theology is so jumbled, it is a mess. I am not familiar with any other true non-LDS prophets in the American scene, but I suspect that humble men and women of God of other sects have led people to God, and had revelatory dreams and such. 

However, to hold the keys of the kingdom of God on earth, we do believe one has to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Edited October 10, 2018 by RevTestament
typos

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, rockpond said:

So the intent of the I’m a Mormon campaign was to correct any erronerous understanding among the public.  Trying to understand you correctly.

But the campaign also promoted the Mormon name.  You can argue that we still wanted to be called by the full name of the church.  I won’t disagree.  But the campaign promoted the idea of calling us Mormon.  That’s a fact: I’m a Mormon, Meet the Mormons, Mormon Helping Hands.  These efforts promoted the concept of calling us Mormon.  To dispute that is to ignore the reality of what we did and is revisionist, as I stated earlier. 

It did not “promote” the name so much as realistically recognize its existence and pervasiveness. 

We could compare it to the “ The Book of Mormon” musical. Instead of railing against it, as the Church justifiably could have done, the Church recognized it’s fame and popularity and shrewdly turned that around to the Church’s own advantage by taking out ads in “Playbill,” having missionaries distribute copies of the Book of Mormon outside the theaters, etc. But I don’t believe it could be sensibly and honestly stated that in doing this, the Church promoted the musical itself. You don’t promote something merely by recognizing its existence and using it to your own advantage. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So do you welcome the notion of being called an anti-Mormon at this point?  I'm not really into name calling, but as I recall you've used the term over the years.  It seems quite fitting to those who oppose the term Mormon being used for the Church and its members.  

This kind of provoking argumentation is not welcome on this thread.

Please stay in line with subject matter of the OP:

How do you plan to follow  Pres. Nelson's admonition?

If you are not an LDS Christian, what do you think of the new emphasis not to be labeled "a Mormon"?

[Navidad]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So do you welcome the notion of being called an anti-Mormon at this point?  I'm not really into name calling, but as I recall you've used the term over the years.  It seems quite fitting to those who oppose the term Mormon being used for the Church and its members.  

I am not sure that you two aren't being facetious, but let me assure you, the slinging about of the term anti-Mormon has done great harm to individual non-Mormons and to the Church as well. I have great respect for Scott's views and his staunch advocacy for the church, but down through the years the term anti-Mormon has done much damage as it has loosely been applied to everyone who disagrees with something in the Church. An apostate is a Mormon who disagrees. An anti-Mormon is a non-Mormon who disagrees. Hugh Nibley was a very smart man, but his treatises of anti-Mormons were not funny and did some harm to thoughtful non-Mormons.

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It did not “promote” the name so much realistically recognize its existence and pervasiveness. 

We could compare it to the “ The Book of Mormon” musical. Instead of railing against it, as the Church justifiably could have done, the Church recognized it’s fame and popularity and shrewdly turned that around to the Church’s own advantage by taking out ads in “Playbill,” having missionaries distribute copies of the Book of Mormon outside the theaters, etc. But I don’t believe it could be sensibly and honestly stated that in doing this, the Church promoted the musical itself. You don’t promote something merely by recognizing its existence and using it to your own advantage. 

Haha... so the I’m a Mormon campaign didn’t promote the name Mormon.  Funny. 

[Navidad]

16 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Hey Navidad,

I'll give you my answer, but many saints may differ from me. Yes, many can be prophets. I also tend to define prophets more narrowly than others I think. A prophet is someone who gives us prophecy - as distinguished from say a seer, who gives various types of revelation - visions and interpretations of scriptures and visions from past, present and future. Our scripture tells us when the Holy Spirit moves us to speak on a matter, that revelation can be scripture or is scripture. So for instance a story comes to mind about the Maori of New Zealand. Perhaps 50 years before the first convert a family patriarch told his family not to join with the churches then in New Zealand:

So was the grandfather a prophet? Yes, he was. When these missionaries began arriving a similar version got repeated to several thousand Maori by Potangaroa.  In March 1881, he spoke in a gathering of several thousand Maori family members.  When he was asked what the right church was for the Maori, he fasted and prayed for three days.  Then he returned and said:  “You will recognize it when it comes. Its missionaries will travel in pairs. They will come from the rising sun. They will visit with us in our homes. They will learn our language and teach us the gospel in our own tongue. When they pray they will raise their right hands.”

Revelation 7 tells us that at the end of the sixth seal 144,000 have been sealed among the peoples of the earth. These are mostly the unsung servants of the Lord steering people to YHWH. Obviously, there are not 144,000 prophetic books in the Bible, nor anywhere near that many GAs in the Church of Jesus Christ. 

Joseph Smith was a prophet, but his translation activity of the Book of Mormon, I would characterize as a seer. Nevertheless, several of his prophecies in D&C have already come true. Perhaps the best known are the civil war prophecies. If one goes to a common evangelical "Prophecy Conference" which travels around the country selling books and tapes, however, one is probably not going to find even one true prophecy. Their theology is so jumbled, it is a mess. I am not familiar with any other true prophets in the American scene, but I suspect that humble men and women of God of other sects have led people to God, and had revelatory dreams and such. 

However, to hold the keys of the kingdom of God on earth, we do believe one has to a member of the Church of Jesus Christ.

That is a great answer. Thanks so very much. I had never heard of the Maori prophecies before. Very interesting. You must be talking about D&C 87 and the South Carolina prophecy, right?

[stemelbow]

26 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

This kind of provoking argumentation is not welcome on this thread.

Please stay in line with subject matter of the OP:

How do you plan to follow  Pres. Nelson's admonition?

If you are not an LDS Christian, what do you think of the new emphasis not to be labeled "a Mormon"?

I'm fine dropping the question.  I didn't find it provoking at all, but to each his own, I suppose.

I think Nelson's directive is much ado about nothing.  I'm not much into the culture of following the prophet nor do I see any need whatsoever in following this.  I'm fine with others doing it though.  Have at it, I say.  But i'm sad to think the waste of money and energy here.  

[RevTestament]

25 minutes ago, Navidad said:

That is a great answer. Thanks so very much. I had never heard of the Maori prophecies before. Very interesting. You must be talking about D&C 87 and the South Carolina prophecy, right?

Yes. Joseph Smith reiterated this prophecy a few months later in his own words. It is found in D&C 130:

12 I prophesy, in the name of the Lord God, that the commencement of the difficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina.

13 It may probably arise through the slave question. This a voice declared to me, while I was praying earnestly on the subject, December 25th, 1832.

He also made other prophecies, which are beginning to come to pass even as we type....

Edited October 10, 2018 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

39 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not sure that you two aren't being facetious, but let me assure you, the slinging about of the term anti-Mormon has done great harm to individual non-Mormons and to the Church as well. I have great respect for Scott's views and his staunch advocacy for the church, but down through the years the term anti-Mormon has done much damage as it has loosely been applied to everyone who disagrees with something in the Church. An apostate is a Mormon who disagrees. An anti-Mormon is a non-Mormon who disagrees. 

I appreciate your sentiments, and hopefully this will put to rest this diversion on this thread slinging about the term anti-Mormon. I will say that I personally use the term critic for the vast majority of critics of the Church - this would include scholarly critics, etc. I reserve apostate for critics who leave the church. Many are simply inactives rather than apostates. I reserve the term anti-Mormon to what I would call mud-slingers who care nothing about accuracy, accurate history, etc, but simply seem to throw just about anything anti at the Church in hopes that it will stick, including many late, hearsay accounts, fabrications, etc. Historical examples would be Eber D. Howe, and his Mormonism Unvailed[sic]. I would just assume keep that term rather than anti-LDS or similar, however, I have never called anyone that term personally. And I agree it is probably usually more damaging than helpful.

[Navidad]

Written in all good fun . . . No offense meant. . . my tongue buried in cheek perspective as a Non-LDS Person:

A Conversation between a (L)Latter-day Saint and her non-Mormon New (N)neighbor

(L) Hi, welcome to the community. Please tell us if you need anything and we would like to invite you to attend services with us.

(N) Thanks, where do you go to church?

(L) We go to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

(N) Oh, you’re Mormons!

(L) Well, actually we are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

(N) Oh, you’re Mormons!

(L) Well, we prefer to use the term “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”

(N) Starting to frown – Oh you’re Mormons?

(L) Well . . . Yes, but it is more accurate to say we are “members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

(N) Do you believe in the Book of Mormon?

(L) Sure! But we prefer to think of ourselves as “members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

(N) Oh! Well, no thanks on the invite to go to church with you. We are actually looking for a Mormon Church somewhere in the area! A Mormon missionary came by our house and we liked what he had to say!

(L) No, actually please come with us; my husband is the bishop of the ward.

(N) Your husband is a Mormon bishop?

(L) Well, no . . . err . . . yes, he is a bishop of the local ward of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

(N) Confused . . .  Well, we love playing our music from the Mormon Tabernacle Choir! They are so inspiring!

(L) Yes, we also love the music of the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square!

(N) Ok, but we were talking about the Mormon Tabernacle Choir! We love their music!

(L) Well, we prefer the name Tabernacle Choir at . . . . .

(N) Interrupting, now clearly frustrated: “That’s nice, do you know of a Mennonite Church in the area? We hear they have wonderful congregational singing!”

[HappyJackWagon]

This is pretty funny. Over at Common Consent someone developed a web extension that will replace "Mormon" in your browser with Victory for

https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/10/09/browser-plugin-replaces-word-mormon-to-block-victories-for-satan/

Edited October 10, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[RevTestament]

47 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Written in all good fun . . . No offense meant. . . my tongue buried in cheek perspective as a Non-LDS Person:

A Conversation between a (L)Latter-day Saint and her non-Mormon New (N)neighbor

(L) Hi, welcome to the community. Please tell us if you need anything and we would like to invite you to attend services with us.

(N) Thanks, where do you go to church?

(L) We go to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

(N) Oh, you’re Mormons!

(L) Well, actually we are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

(N) Oh, you’re Mormons!

(L) Well, we prefer to use the term “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”

(N) Starting to frown – Oh you’re Mormons?

(L) Well . . . Yes, but it is more accurate to say we are “members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

(N) Do you believe in the Book of Mormon?

(L) Sure! But we prefer to think of ourselves as “members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

(N) Oh! Well, no thanks on the invite to go to church with you. We are actually looking for a Mormon Church somewhere in the area! A Mormon missionary came by our house and we liked what he had to say!

(L) No, actually please come with us; my husband is the bishop of the ward.

(N) Your husband is a Mormon bishop?

(L) Well, no . . . err . . . yes, he is a bishop of the local ward of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

(N) Confused . . .  Well, we love playing our music from the Mormon Tabernacle Choir! They are so inspiring!

(L) Yes, we also love the music of the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square!

(N) Ok, but we were talking about the Mormon Tabernacle Choir! We love their music!

(L) Well, we prefer the name Tabernacle Choir at . . . . .

(N) Interrupting, now clearly frustrated: “That’s nice, do you know of a Mennonite Church in the area? We hear they have wonderful congregational singing!”

I imagine stuff somewhat like this would actually have happened for a decade or two if we had started two decades ago...

Now by the time this gains any momentum, it probably won't matter...

except to our Savior. Hopefully, I'm wrong.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

Haha... so the I’m a Mormon campaign didn’t promote the name Mormon.  Funny. 

No it didn’t. It promoted the public image of Latter-day Saints, who happen to be widely known as Mormons. Your derision and mockery  does not make you right. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

Haha... so the I’m a Mormon campaign didn’t promote the name Mormon.  Funny. 

Goodness...the gaslighting going on from one of the participants in this exchange is mind-boggling.

"We have always been at war with Eastasia!"

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

One thing about all of this is that it just comes off as a new leader's personal opinion on how things should be. Why would The Lord tell Pres. Monson to launch the "I'm a Mormon" campaign and place heavy emphasis on referring to the church as the "Mormon Church" and its members as "Mormons" and then tell Pres. Nelson the exact opposite months after becoming president?

I would venture to guess that 99/9% of what the presidents do are because of personal preference/opinion. This helps explain things like the Adam-God Theory, the black priesthood ban, possibly polygamy, etc.

The Lord never told President Monson or anyone else to “place heavy emphasis on referring to the Church as ‘the Mormon church.’” For at least the past decade or two the Church leaders have been trying to get people NOT to do that. Obviously you haven’t been paying attention. 

Referring to members as Mormons or using Mormon as a descriptor or Mormonism to refer to the teachings of the Church has been tolerated up to now, but even those things are disallowed now with the recent instruction from President Nelson. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Goodness...the gaslighting going on from one of the participants in this exchange is mind-boggling.

"We have always been at war with Eastasia!"

Cease the personal attack. 

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Cease the personal attack. 

How do you know it’s a personal attack?  Against whom is this attack directed?