Good for you Pres. Nelson!

[Hamba Tuhan]

25 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't want a stagnant church without ongoing revelation.  But I also don't want to feel like what I am being taught is something less than eternal truth.  If that makes sense.  These almost seem like competing ideas that we believe in

Yes, it makes sense. And I think this is a paradox that all faithful Saints have had to negotiate from the very beginning of time.

Quote

I'm being sincere in this, not argumentative.

Understood and appreciated. I believe you.

Quote

So how is that so many seem to be able to accept that past prophets did stuff that our current prophet has declared is offensive to the Lord but they couldn't possibly be wrong on gay marriage?  Logically and spiritually, I can't make that work.

To be perfectly consistent (and logical), I think we have to accept that, theoretically, the current prophets could be wrong on gay 'marriage'. I don't think they are for a whole raft of scriptural, doctrinal, academic and personal reasons, but I have to be open to the Lord correcting me on that at some point.

At the same time, if someone had asked me anytime in the past seven years if the 'I'm a Mormon' campaign might be misdirected and might need to be walked back, I would have said yes  -- for personal reasons but also because there was no scriptural or doctrinal support for it. In addition, I'm not aware of any prophet specifically saying that it was inspired.

(In fact, I have a vague memory that the earliest form of the campaign was launched by Elder Ballard and one of the Seventy, who, it was leaked, said that they were going to try it and see what happened. As a result, critics then were complaining that the prophets don't have inspiration. Does anyone else remember that???)

When it comes to 'spiritually' making it all work, that's a completely different experience, in my opinion. This is where it all comes together. We can know what works even when we don't grasp the how or the why yet. As Keats noted, we can revel in truth/beauty even when it's accompanied by intellectual uncertainty.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps because they believe they have had spiritual witnesses on gay marriage that they believe confirm this one position as eternal truth.

Fair enough.

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Understood and appreciated.

To be perfectly consistent (and logical), I think we have to accept that, theoretically, the current prophets could be wrong on gay 'marriage'. I don't think they are for a whole raft of scriptural, doctrinal, academic and personal reasons, but I have to be open to the Lord correcting me on that at some point.

At the same time, if someone had asked me anytime in the past seven years if the 'I'm a Mormon' campaign might be misdirected and might need to be walked back, I would have said yes  -- for personal reasons but also because there was no scriptural or doctrinal support for it. In addition, I'm not aware of any prophet specifically saying that it was inspired.

(In fact, I have a vague memory that the earliest form of the campaign was launched by Elder Ballard and one of the Seventy, who, it was leaked, said that they were going to try it and see what happened. As a result, critics then were complaining that the prophets don't have inspiration. Does anyone else remember that???)

When it comes to 'spiritually' making it all work, that's a completely different experience, in my opinion. But it does work for me, and consistently. 

I could easily accept "misdirected".  I have a hard time with Pres. Nelson's declaration that it offends the Lord and is a victory for Satan.  That takes it a step too far for me... if these men are talking to the Lord he shouldn't be allowing one to run a campaign promoting the name Mormon and then instructing the next to pronounce in general conference that it offends the Lord (my definition of sin).  I cannot reconcile those in my head or heart.

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

That takes it a step too far for me... if these men are talking to the Lord he shouldn't be allowing one to run a campaign promoting the name Mormon and then instructing the next to pronounce in general conference that it offends the Lord (my definition of sin).  I cannot reconcile those in my head or heart.

You've never allowed a child to keep doing something you know is wrong and will need to be corrected at some point because you knew that the time wasn't quite right yet or because you knew that the eventual lesson wasn't clear yet?

Edited October 12, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

 

11 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You've never allowed a child to get away with something you know is wrong and will need to be corrected at some point because you knew that the time wasn't quite right yet or because you knew that the lesson wasn't clear yet?

That feels different than "a major victory for Satan".

My husband thinks I am making too big of a deal about that one phrasing.  My problem is it feels like Pres. Nelson felt it was a bigger deal than even I do and so I understand why some people are having a hard time reconciling this.

I am not having a hard time, disturbed because I feel comfortable saying " I think he may have made an incorrect assumption or interpreted a specific inspired  condemnation as a general (all uses of Mormon referring to the Church as victories for Satan rather than just one or some), but this is based on my limited knowledge and I am certain Pres. Nelson is more knowledgeable in the ways and mind of the Lord than I am and therefore I may change my mind when I know more...also I am very okay not knowing right now, I don't think that is meant to be my calling, I believe I need to not know, to be uncertain about many things to fulfill what God wants of me now".

I do feel bad that there are those who are troubled by it.

Edited October 12, 2018 by Calm

[Avatar4321]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

 

That feels different than "a major victory for Satan".

My husband thinks I am making too big of a deal about that one phrasing.  My problem is it feels like Pres. Nelson felt it was a bigger deal than even I do and so I understand why some people are having a hard time reconciling this.

I am not having a hard time, disturbed because I feel comfortable saying " I think he may have made an incorrect assumption or interpreted a specific inspired  condemnation as a general (all uses of Mormon referring to the Church as victories for Satan rather than just one or some), but this is based on my limited knowledge and I am certain Pres. Nelson is more knowledgeable in the ways and mind of the Lord than I am and therefore I may change my mind when I know more...also I am very okay not knowing right now, I don't think that is meant to be my calling, I believe I need to not know, to be uncertain about many things to fulfill what God wants of me now".

I do feel bad that there are those who are troubled by it.

There is only one option. Ask God.

And yes I'm sure you already known that and are, but I think all of us need to get revelation on this matter, which likely will come by doing it.

 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

There is only one option. Ask God.

And yes I'm sure you already known that and are, but I think all of us need to get revelation on this matter, which likely will come by doing it.

 

And if one asks God and the personal revelation they receive is that the church name isn't really that big of a deal?

[rockpond]

8 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You've never allowed a child to keep doing something you know is wrong and will need to be corrected at some point because you knew that the time wasn't quite right yet or because you knew that the eventual lesson wasn't clear yet?

Of course.

But under the understanding of prophets that we've discussed here, President Nelson could be wrong and President Monson could have been correct about the church name.  Who's on the wrong road?

From this conference, I believe President Nelson is correct about the name of the church but overstated when he said it offends the Lord.  Also, I believe President Oaks is on a wrong road when it comes to gay marriage and gender roles.  I believe the Lord is anxiously awaiting a time when the church is ready for Him to get us on the right road.

[rongo]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

That feels different than "a major victory for Satan".

My husband thinks I am making too big of a deal about that one phrasing.  My problem is it feels like Pres. Nelson felt it was a bigger deal than even I do and so I understand why some people are having a hard time reconciling this.

Do you remember discussion on this board about whether the Brethren are completely unanimous in their feelings on all things, or whether they sometimes disagree but don't stand in the way of the majority? I was really taken to task in suggesting that this is actually common, and how this works in our presidencies, wards, and stake councils (so why would we expect that it is different in the upper councils of the Church?). I gave the example of President Packer's disagreement with YSA wards, while not going against them. 

One thing I think this has highlighted is that this has been an important issue and topic for President Nelson for decades, as evidenced by his 1990 talk, which made many of the same points he just made in 2018. As his 2018 conference talk attempted to directly address many of President Hinckley's points in his response to his talk, it appears that President Nelson disagreed profoundly (but privately) with President Hinckley's approach of embracing "Mormon" and putting it to good use. Others have pointed out graphically the extent of the "I'm a Mormon" campaign (and many other manifestations of the Hinckley approach). I think it's clear that President Nelson did not agree with this approach, and felt that it was not good, but didn't fight against it. When he was in a position to do something about it using the unique bully pulpit of the Church presidency, then he did. 

I see this whole thing as illustrating what I had said about "unity does not equal unanimity." We all experience that at the local level, and I think it's clear that the same phenomenon exists at the macro level. We find ways to be unified, even when we don't agree (sometimes profoundly). 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

Do you remember discussion on this board about whether the Brethren are completely unanimous in their feelings on all things, or whether they sometimes disagree but don't stand in the way of the majority? I was really taken to task in suggesting that this is actually common, and how this works in our presidencies, wards, and stake councils (so why would we expect that it is different in the upper councils of the Church?). I gave the example of President Packer's disagreement with YSA wards, while not going against them. 

One thing I think this has highlighted is that this has been an important issue and topic for President Nelson for decades, as evidenced by his 1990 talk, which made many of the same points he just made in 2018. As his 2018 conference talk attempted to directly address many of President Hinckley's points in his response to his talk, it appears that President Nelson disagreed profoundly (but privately) with President Hinckley's approach of embracing "Mormon" and putting it to good use. Others have pointed out graphically the extent of the "I'm a Mormon" campaign (and many other manifestations of the Hinckley approach). I think it's clear that President Nelson did not agree with this approach, and felt that it was not good, but didn't fight against it. When he was in a position to do something about it using the unique bully pulpit of the Church presidency, then he did. 

I see this whole thing as illustrating what I had said about "unity does not equal unanimity." We all experience that at the local level, and I think it's clear that the same phenomenon exists at the macro level. We find ways to be unified, even when we don't agree (sometimes profoundly). 

Perfectly stated.  I think it's unrealistic to believe that all of the brethren agree on everything.  They are all good men, but good men can disagree.....and then still work together and support each other in the final decision.

I am finding that what members are struggling with is that President Nelson almost seems bitter about his disagreement with Pres. Hinckley and now that he has the power, he's not just getting what he's wanted (which I have no issue with and support him in that), but he's going too far by inferring that the past leaders were  following Satan or giving a victory to Satan.  I really do wish he hadn't made that accusation.  

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Do you remember discussion on this board about whether the Brethren are completely unanimous in their feelings on all things, or whether they sometimes disagree but don't stand in the way of the majority? I was really taken to task in suggesting that this is actually common, and how this works in our presidencies, wards, and stake councils (so why would we expect that it is different in the upper councils of the Church?). I gave the example of President Packer's disagreement with YSA wards, while not going against them. 

One thing I think this has highlighted is that this has been an important issue and topic for President Nelson for decades, as evidenced by his 1990 talk, which made many of the same points he just made in 2018. As his 2018 conference talk attempted to directly address many of President Hinckley's points in his response to his talk, it appears that President Nelson disagreed profoundly (but privately) with President Hinckley's approach of embracing "Mormon" and putting it to good use. Others have pointed out graphically the extent of the "I'm a Mormon" campaign (and many other manifestations of the Hinckley approach). I think it's clear that President Nelson did not agree with this approach, and felt that it was not good, but didn't fight against it. When he was in a position to do something about it using the unique bully pulpit of the Church presidency, then he did. 

I see this whole thing as illustrating what I had said about "unity does not equal unanimity." We all experience that at the local level, and I think it's clear that the same phenomenon exists at the macro level. We find ways to be unified, even when we don't agree (sometimes profoundly). 

I agree.

But if Nelson had these strong feelings about the name of the church, going so far that he believed using "Mormon" was a victory for Satan, and an offense to God, why did he support Pres. Hinkley and Monson? Is it reasonable/righteous/understandable that an apostle would choose to support the Pres. of the church over God? Does loyalty to church trump loyalty to God? It appears that's exactly what he did. If it is, I find that very offensive and a victory for Satan.

[10THAmendment]

40 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And if one asks God and the personal revelation they receive is that the church name isn't really that big of a deal?

This is a very interesting dynamic that I have recently become open to. What if we are inspired to believe something that is contrary to what the prophets teach? I don't really know what to do with that quite yet. After learning of the many false doctrines taught by leaders, I think it is absolutely warranted to question everything they say. Orson Pratt did that when he rejected Brigham Young's Adam-God thing, and he turned out to be correct in the end when the Adam-God theory was labeled as false doctrine. 

I would say to go with your gut and to listen to your own conscience. Put all your faith in the Lord, not a man - even a very good and spiritual man like Pres. Nelson.

 

 

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Perhaps because they believe they have had spiritual witnesses on gay marriage that they believe confirm this one position as eternal truth.

Hi Calm:  I need a little "calm" in my life right now! Question for you......I am intrigued by your use of the term "eternal truth." Do the LDS Christians believe that any "modern - ongoing revelation" constitutes "eternal truth?" It seems to me that logically if the next prophet can add revelation that may be more differing than new, then none of the modern revelation that is received is "eternal." Is that right? Not arguing or even debating; just trying to sort it out. All Protestant churches that I know of believe in ongoing revelation as well, but also that, if it is from God it is unchangeable. On very view times in all of history has God repented - used in the context of changing His mind. I am trying to understand the meaning of "revelation" to a LDS Christian. Protestants talk all the time about praying to "seek God's will." It might be about whom to marry, or where to go to college. My own personal view is that God doesn't have a will in those kinds of decisions, but many Protestants do believe that. I believe he has a moral will - revealed in Scripture-no need to seek further revelation, we can read it, not pray about it. He has a sovereign will - based on His foreknowledge- He will not reveal this to us because we can't handle what might lie in the future! No need to pray about it because He isn't going to tell us. He also has an individual will for each individual specifically. This is largely left up to us if we are living in his moral will as revealed in Scripture. In other words God doesn't care who we marry as long as we marry within his moral will as revealed in Scripture. God doesn't care where we go to college as long as we do so within his moral will as already revealed to us. I don't know if LDS Christians break things down like that or not? The concept of on-going eternal revelation that is different from that of 100 years ago is foreign to me. If it is different, then it isn't eternal. Culture changes; God doesn't. Again, just seeking to understand; nothing more.

[JAHS]

23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Perfectly stated.  I think it's unrealistic to believe that all of the brethren agree on everything.  They are all good men, but good men can disagree.....and then still work together and support each other in the final decision.

I am finding that what members are struggling with is that President Nelson almost seems bitter about his disagreement with Pres. Hinckley and now that he has the power, he's not just getting what he's wanted (which I have no issue with and support him in that), but he's going too far by inferring that the past leaders were  following Satan or giving a victory to Satan.  I really do wish he hadn't made that accusation.  

I look at his statement as a going forward type of application; that now since he had this revelation from God impressing upon him the seriousness about it, from now on when we call it the Mormon Church it is a victory for Satan.
There have been other similar revelations that were meant to be a going forward type of command, like the Word of Wisdom being more strictly followed but not a condemnation of how it was followed in previous times.

[Navidad]

43 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Perfectly stated.  I think it's unrealistic to believe that all of the brethren agree on everything.  They are all good men, but good men can disagree.....and then still work together and support each other in the final decision.

I am finding that what members are struggling with is that President Nelson almost seems bitter about his disagreement with Pres. Hinckley and now that he has the power, he's not just getting what he's wanted (which I have no issue with and support him in that), but he's going too far by inferring that the past leaders were  following Satan or giving a victory to Satan.  I really do wish he hadn't made that accusation.  

Is it not ok within LDS Christian orthodoxy to believe that Elder Nelson made the "victory to Satan" comment out of his human (fallible) nature, recognize it as such, support him as God's prophet, however fallible,  and move on?

[Navidad]

29 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

This is a very interesting dynamic that I have recently become open to. What if we are inspired to believe something that is contrary to what the prophets teach? I don't really know what to do with that quite yet. After learning of the many false doctrines taught by leaders, I think it is absolutely warranted to question everything they say. Orson Pratt did that when he rejected Brigham Young's Adam-God thing, and he turned out to be correct in the end when the Adam-God theory was labeled as false doctrine. 

I would say to go with your gut and to listen to your own conscience. Put all your faith in the Lord, not a man - even a very good and spiritual man like Pres. Nelson.

 

 

You bring up a good point. I highly recommend Gary Bergera's book "Conflict in the Quorum." It is very insightful. And there is no question about his faithfulness of his LDS Christian orthodoxy.

[10THAmendment]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

You bring up a good point. I highly recommend Gary Bergera's book "Conflict in the Quorum." It is very insightful. And there is no question about his faithfulness of his LDS Christian orthodoxy.

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check that out.

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Is it not ok within LDS Christian orthodoxy to believe that Elder Nelson made the "victory to Satan" comment out of his human (fallible) nature, recognize it as such, support him as God's prophet, however fallible,  and move on?

You bet.  I believe that's exactly what took place here, but others will disagree.  I suspect that there may have been some strong feelings behind why Pres. Nelson stated what he did (without naming the names of those he had disagreed with in the past over this).  But, each Prophet brings their own personalities and views into the calling (just like every other human who is issued a call to serve whether it be on a ward level, stake level or general authority level).  I do wish he'd stopped short of stating it was a "victory for Satan", but he probably privately felt that way during the years the name Mormon was promoted and praised by other leaders.

Edited October 12, 2018 by ALarson

[RevTestament]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

Was their intent solely to promote the name Mormon?  Probably not but I’ve never made such an assertion. 

But they did promote the name Mormon.

And if they did not want to promote the name Mormon, they really should have chosen a different campaign rather than one the so prominently featured the word Mormon.  

To me it kinda seems like these things stem from the idea that the Church can't go astray, or can't fall into habits it shouldn't do. To me it's a little pride issue for the saints. As an outsider growing up in the Church it seemed to me that using the word Mormon as a title became like a badge of honor. That is basically the way Joseph Smith used it - yes, I'm a Mormon, so what are you going to do about it? kinda idea. Well, that was all fine and dandy until the next step became Mormon Church. Should we continue on without changing? Should we continue to accede to this usage? And then use it ourselves? I think that scripturally, the answer is no. Yet, the leadership seemed to try to make the best of the situation, and rather than depart from the past path, to try to make the best of it, rather than imply the Church should change what it was doing. I disagreed with it then, and still do. Personally, I wouldn't call it a victory for Satan, but it seems to me that the chosen path did not help the growth of the Church. Does, that make a victory for Satan? Possibly. It seems to me that we should be doing everything to please the Lord, if we wish to grow His Church, rather than seemingly ignore His instruction. Granted, the leadership instructed us not to call the Church the Mormon Church, but in acceding to the title Mormon, it was the next step the public was taking. And I disagree with Hinckley that we could not change that. Members of the Community of Christ don't get called the Mormon Church. Why? Apparently, because they did not stubbornly cling to being called Mormons - nor promoting it no less.

The idea that the Church cannot go astray is simply not scriptural imho. Traditionally, what did the Lord do when the people went astray? He sent a servant to teach the correct path. Often the people stubbornly resisted the change. Yeshua tells us the people killed the prophets. Well, at least we haven't killed our presidents, but I think we do resist change. Hence, there are various split-off groups such as the FLDS who didn't want to accept the new direction. (And yes I realize the public at large killed Joseph Smith). Rather than heaping all the blame on the Church leaders, the Church should take some of the responsibility for itself, and its stubborn refusal to stop calling themselves Mormons, and hence almost inviting the usage of Mormon Church which has come into play. It seems to me past Presidents tried to make the best of the situation rather than really trying to correct the Church, so now we are in deeper, and some strong language is being bantered about. I don't encourage the change the same way - I wouldn't blame Satan - I just think he is having success at taking what was meant to be a unique modifier, Mormons, and turning it into a contravention of the Lord's word - "the Mormon Church." He owns the world. It is his playground, so he is going to try to do exactly that, and we need to be as wise as serpents, and realize what has happened, and be willing to adjust our course to prevent it. What was once not a victory for Satan can become a victory for Satan. When Mormons become known world-wide as "the Mormon Church" is that a victory for Satan? I think that is the question Nelson is addressing, and not whether the attempts of past Presidents to make the best of the situation were a victory for Satan. To stave this off, I think it has become apparent that we need to change. We have to give up our little pet name - the Mormons. Embracing it didn't work. If anything, it only made the Mormon Church identifier more prevalent. I think it was a mistake, and voiced my opinion back then, but was ignored - I was just a small sapling in the forest. I think the Church needs to own the fact that as a group - especially in the intermountain west - they identified themselves with the title, the Mormons, and didn't want to give that up. To the extent they resisted any change can also readily be seen as a victory for Satan. So let's stop heaping all the blame for the reference on the leaders, and let's move on in a new, better and scriptural course.

P.S. And thank you for changing the acerbic tone of your posts. Apparently, the Mods liked the change of mood in the thread enough to keep discussion on my OP open.

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

The idea that the Church cannot go astray is simply not scriptural imho.

I agree.

Edited October 12, 2018 by rockpond

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Do you remember discussion on this board about whether the Brethren are completely unanimous in their feelings on all things, or whether they sometimes disagree but don't stand in the way of the majority? I was really taken to task in suggesting that this is actually common, and how this works in our presidencies, wards, and stake councils (so why would we expect that it is different in the upper councils of the Church?). I gave the example of President Packer's disagreement with YSA wards, while not going against them. 

One thing I think this has highlighted is that this has been an important issue and topic for President Nelson for decades, as evidenced by his 1990 talk, which made many of the same points he just made in 2018. As his 2018 conference talk attempted to directly address many of President Hinckley's points in his response to his talk, it appears that President Nelson disagreed profoundly (but privately) with President Hinckley's approach of embracing "Mormon" and putting it to good use. Others have pointed out graphically the extent of the "I'm a Mormon" campaign (and many other manifestations of the Hinckley approach). I think it's clear that President Nelson did not agree with this approach, and felt that it was not good, but didn't fight against it. When he was in a position to do something about it using the unique bully pulpit of the Church presidency, then he did. 

I see this whole thing as illustrating what I had said about "unity does not equal unanimity." We all experience that at the local level, and I think it's clear that the same phenomenon exists at the macro level. We find ways to be unified, even when we don't agree (sometimes profoundly). 

Makes me wonder on what other issues/doctrines have the Brethren achieved "unity" but not "unanimity".

[JAHS]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

33 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

The idea that the Church cannot go astray is simply not scriptural imho.

I agree.

I agree as long as "astray" does not mean a permanent diversion towards an incorrect destination. That will never happen. If a course correction is all that is needed and is applied then we are moving towards the right destination.  

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Do you remember discussion on this board about whether the Brethren are completely unanimous in their feelings on all things, or whether they sometimes disagree but don't stand in the way of the majority? I was really taken to task in suggesting that this is actually common, and how this works in our presidencies, wards, and stake councils (so why would we expect that it is different in the upper councils of the Church?). I gave the example of President Packer's disagreement with YSA wards, while not going against them. 

One thing I think this has highlighted is that this has been an important issue and topic for President Nelson for decades, as evidenced by his 1990 talk, which made many of the same points he just made in 2018. As his 2018 conference talk attempted to directly address many of President Hinckley's points in his response to his talk, it appears that President Nelson disagreed profoundly (but privately) with President Hinckley's approach of embracing "Mormon" and putting it to good use. Others have pointed out graphically the extent of the "I'm a Mormon" campaign (and many other manifestations of the Hinckley approach). I think it's clear that President Nelson did not agree with this approach, and felt that it was not good, but didn't fight against it. When he was in a position to do something about it using the unique bully pulpit of the Church presidency, then he did. 

I see this whole thing as illustrating what I had said about "unity does not equal unanimity." We all experience that at the local level, and I think it's clear that the same phenomenon exists at the macro level. We find ways to be unified, even when we don't agree (sometimes profoundly). 

I'm sure this is close to what happens.  But, it shows it's far less about revelation, or led by God, then is ever stated.  It's really just business leaders making decisions, the most supported decision amongst the highest level of leadership is what they go with.  For years apparently the highest level of leaders have heard and considered Nelson's push for the name thing and the issue did not get agreement from the top leadership crew.  I've seen this exact thing play out in professional environments for years.  Someone's pet issue doesn't really get notice unless that person gets vaulted to a high position--and in this case the highest.  The Church claiming being led by god via revelation starts to sound silly, unless they are willing to admit their is nothing unique happening there.  It is really just business decisions made in the same way any other business decisions are made in any other company or enterprise.  

Edited October 12, 2018 by stemelbow

[rockpond]

Just now, stemelbow said:

I'm sure this is close to what happens.  But, it shows it's far less about revelation, or led by God, then is ever stated.  It's really just business leaders making decisions, the most supported decision amongst the highest level of leadership is what they go with.  For years apparently the highest level of leaders have heard and considered Nelson's push for the name thing and the issue did not get agreement from the top leadership crew.  I've seen this exact thing play out in professional environments for years.  The Church claiming being led by god via revelation starts to sound silly, unless they are willing to admit their is nothing unique happening there.  It is really just business decisions made in the same way any other business decisions are made in any other company or enterprise.  

Exactly.  This is today's Church.

[Navidad]

I fully understand that there are some intra-family (LDS) disputes into which I should probably not step. I am an outsider and as such my perspective will not always be appreciated. I also realize that I do not always say things well. Anyway, here I go . . .  I only speak from a non-LDS Christian perspective - in no way am I anti-LDS Christians. I spent some of this week studying Joseph Smith's letters from the Liberty jail. I gained insight from those and learned a new phrase - "wimbling willows." He referred to Governor Boggs and his followers as "wimbling willows" beside a river. I checked dictionaries and asked five professors of 19th century American literature what the term "wimbling" might have meant in that context. Not one could identify the word in Smith's context (only the noun as a farm tool designed to bore holes in wood). Those kinds of intellectual pursuits fascinate me. Maybe I am a "wimbling willow," whatever that means! I digress.

I would simply like to reflect that most evangelicals and Protestants who reject LDS doctrine, reject it because of its Christology. That is a major stumbling block. Thinking that using the name Jesus Christ in the name of the Church will be appealing or validating to non-LDS Christians is probably an intent that will never be realized. It makes no matter (remember the OP requested non-LDS Christians to weigh in on this) what is in the name; the LDS doctrine of Christ is a non-starter for many and they reject LDS doctrine out of hand because of it. I don't and I know a growing number who don't, but many, probably the majority do. Obviously I am not suggesting that the LDS Christians change their doctrine, but just pointing out that much of the non-LDS Christian opposition to the Church is based on its doctrine of Christ. This is not a prejudice, it is not a bias, nor is it just because they want to be anti-LDS Christian. It is a genuine, very important doctrinal difference. It may stem from misunderstandings, challenges in the differences of usage of common terms, or it may simply be a difference.

Whatever LDS Christians call themselves will not make a difference to many. I would also suggest that my experiences with the split-off groups from the LDS Christian church suggest that they claim Joseph Smith as their prophet and the Book of Mormon as a founding Scripture of their church. Therefore to most non-LDS Christians they are Mormons too. I think you all may be underestimating that. My personal experience is limited to Lebarons and to Community of Christ members and historians. They gladly accept a "Mormon heritage" and a sense of themselves as Mormons. I have not observed any hesitation in that whether it is at a rodeo in Chihuahua or a conference in Independence. I hope my comments, while they may be irrelevant, have not been offensive. best to each of you.