Good for you Pres. Nelson!

[RevTestament]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For years the church has sent mixed messages about "Mormon". Now the church is trying to get it's act together. That's cool. If it succeeds I think many will follow, but claiming it's a Satanic victory when people occasionally use Mormon is a little bit funny. It sounds like fear mongering to me. 

I agree. I believe it is cool that the Church is trying to get its act together, and follow the Lord more closely rather than relying on the arm of man. I don't really agree about discussing Satanic victory. That seems like shaming the Church to me. I think we have enough of that right now. The Church needs to feel uplifted. The Church needs to feel like it is on the right path. I believe what Pres Nelson is doing will help. Mormon was an honorable man. I am not going to use fear mongering or try to shame anybody for saying Mormon Church or saying I am a Mormon. I am just going to do my part to call the Church by the name given by our Savior. Hopefully, we can dispense with the other baggage. I am glad you are on board with the change. 

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Humility is vital but also very difficult.

ive been trying to humble myself for years and yet I continue to see how my pride impedes me

Very humbly spoken my friend. I realize I am a rebellious servant. I rebel at times against the promptings of the Lord. Usually because I am upset about my work or something like that. To be as humble as our Savior is not an easy task, but a daunting one really. It requires great courage to flow against the ways of the world. We all have ideas of receiving recognition for our work, the ideal work, or Church calling, or whatever, and sometimes we just have to accept that the Lord chooses to give us something else - to give us weakness. Thanks for your input about your efforts to achieve something so gospel oriented but also intangible. I describe it by saying let go and let God, but I see how I don't even do it myself, so feel rather sheepish in giving it as advice.

(PS. And his name was Prof Cole. I doubt you would know him. He is probably retired. I have not been able to locate him in a cursory search.  Anyway he taught Con law back east - not out west.)

Edited October 9, 2018 by RevTestament

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

Except as pointed out earlier, melchesidek is a title that can refer to Jesus Christ

The title then is just named after a man, which man's name can then be used in place of the Lord's.  Either way the point seems pretty appropriate here.  If the great ol' holy priesthood can be named after a man, and a title can be named after a man, then what's wrong with the nickname for followers of his church?  it doesn't seem to matter in one case but in another somehow it's so bad that to do so is letting Satan get a victory.  

[Exiled]

On 10/8/2018 at 8:05 AM, Gray said:

I would have predicted the same, but so much emphasis now is being made on Mormon being a Satanic name, the church would lose a lot of face to revert back again. Of course all the previous leaders have kind of been thrown under the bus here, too. So pick your poison, I guess.

So, is the name change the go to answer when a non-member asks what the latest word is from the Lord?

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

If it's so important, Scott, why is it not until now that it is so emphasized?  Why did the Church seemingly get tricked by the devil or rather how did the devil get a victory, as Pres Nelson has put it, when pushing programs like mormonsandgays, Mormon helping hands and the I'm a Mormon campaign?  

None of those indicate the Church has been trying to get rid of "Mormon" for years, as you claim.  

This is my question... what does Pres. Nelson’s conference address say about the prophets and apostles over the last decade or so?  Were they not unified when deciding to brand everything with “Mormon”?  Was the Lord offended at their decisions?  Was the church led astray since Satan was having all of those victories?  

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This is my question... what does Pres. Nelson’s conference address say about the prophets and apostles over the last decade or so?  Were they not unified when deciding to brand everything with “Mormon”?  Was the Lord offended at their decisions?  Was the church led astray since Satan was having all of those victories?  

It's a fair question.

Not only did Nelson throw THE prophet under the bus, but also the entire prophetic quorum system. How many talks have there been about consensus and unanimity in the 1Q & Q12 being a protections? How could 15 righteous men (at any one time) be wrong? And how could the entire Q15 be wrong for decades?

It seems clear that Pres. Nelson has a long history regarding the use of "Mormon" in our language, yet I suppose he sustained the sitting prophet at the time, despite what he likely felt were misguided programs emphasizing "Mormon". What good is a quorum or how is it a protection when everyone must yield their own conscience to sustain their leader instead. The prophetic system is shown to be unreliable.

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's a fair question.

Not only did Nelson throw THE prophet under the bus, but also the entire prophetic quorum system. How many talks have there been about consensus and unanimity in the 1Q & Q12 being a protections? How could 15 righteous men (at any one time) be wrong? And how could the entire Q15 be wrong for decades?

It seems clear that Pres. Nelson has a long history regarding the use of "Mormon" in our language, yet I suppose he sustained the sitting prophet at the time, despite what he likely felt were misguided programs emphasizing "Mormon".

THE prophet never said it was OK to use Mormon Church. Since this is what has happened after allowing ourselves to be called Mormons for all these years, maybe it was just not foreseen at the time what an issue it would become.

Quote

What good is a quorum or how is it a protection when everyone must yield their own conscience to sustain their leader instead. The prophetic system is shown to be unreliable.

I thought the whole idea of a living prophet was to keep us on the best path for the times. If people have trouble with this, why didn't they have trouble when Kimball disavowed the "Adam-God" teachings of BY? Man has never been reliable. God gave tests for prophets because He wanted men to learn to distinguish who to follow. Is there something wrong with learning to pray about teachings of our GAs? Does that show irreverence? or disrespect? Or is that perhaps the best way to determine what should be included in our standard works? What could be better than if a teaching is confirmed to the whole Church as revelation?:

[rockpond]

49 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

THE prophet never said it was OK to use Mormon Church. Since this is what has happened after allowing ourselves to be called Mormons for all these years, maybe it was just not foreseen at the time what an issue it would become.

I thought the whole idea of a living prophet was to keep us on the best path for the times. If people have trouble with this, why didn't they have trouble when Kimball disavowed the "Adam-God" teachings of BY? Man has never been reliable. God gave tests for prophets because He wanted men to learn to distinguish who to follow. Is there something wrong with learning to pray about teachings of our GAs? Does that show irreverence? or disrespect? Or is that perhaps the best way to determine what should be included in our standard works? What could be better than if a teaching is confirmed to the whole Church as revelation?:

We should all be praying for a confirmation that what the prophet and apostles teach is correct.  The problem comes when some of us get the answer that what they have taught is not correct and then we’re told to keep quiet about it or lose our tecommends/membership.  This is, again, the difference between our professed belief in fallible prophets but our practice of prophetic infallibility.  

The previous prophets and apostles didn’t just allow people to use the term Mormon... the heavily promoted it and ran major ad campaigns.  They put the Mormon name on T-shirt’s, websites, social media channels, and billboards.  Even produced a movie with it in the title. 

I was fine with all of the above AND the renewed emphasis on the proper name of the church until President Nelson stood in conference and declared that using the Mormon name offends the Lord and is a victory for Satan.  The implications of that pronouncement are profound for our understanding the our prophets, seers, and revelators. If we believe Pres. Nelson to be correct now than it means our previous prophets had led the church astray. 

[Benk]

20 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The implications of that pronouncement are profound for our understanding the our prophets, seers, and revelators. If we believe Pres. Nelson to be correct now than it means our previous prophets had led the church astray. 

This is true from Joseph Smith onwards, and I agree that it raises all sorts of questions:

And in relation to his almost making a Mormon of yourself, it puts me in mind of the saying of Paul in his reply to Agrippa Acts xxvi. 29, “I would to God that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day; were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds”. And I will here remark, my dear Sir; that Mormonism is the pure doctrine of Jesus Christ; of which I myself am not ashamed. -- http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-d-1-1-august-1842-1-july-1843/41

How long can rolling waters remain impure, what power shall stay the heavens, as well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri River in its decreed course or to turn it up Stream as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down Knowledge from Heaven upon the heads of the Latter Day Saints, what is Boggs or his murderous party but Wimbling Willows upon the shore to catch the flood wood, as well might we argue that Water is not Water because the Mountain torrents, send down Mire and Riles the Chrystal Stream altho afterwards renders it more pure than before, Or that Fire is not Fire because it is of a quenchable nature by poring on the flood, as to say that our Cause is down because renegadoes, liars, priests, thieves and murderers, who are all alike tenacious of their crafts and creeds have poured down from their Spiritual wickedness in high places and from their strong holds of the devil a flood of dirt and mire, and filthiness and vomit upon our heads, no God forbid. hell may pour forth its rage like the burning lava of Mount Vesuvius or of Etna, or of the most terrible of the burning mountains, and yet shall Mormonism stand, Water Fire, truth and god are all the same, truth is Mormonism, God is the Author of it, he is our shield, it is by him we received our birth, it was by his voice that we were called to a dispensation of his Gospel in the beginning of the fullness of times -- http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-c-1-2-november-1838-31-july-1842/87

Sunday July 9 [th]. 1843 Joseph remarced [remarked] that all was well between him and the heavens that he had no emnity against any one. and as the prayer of Jesus. or his pattern so prayed Joseph. Father forgive me my trespasses. as I forgive those who trespass. against me. for I freely forgive all men.—— if we would s[e]cure & cultivate the love of others we must love others. even our enemies— as well as friends “why is it this babler gains so many followers. & retains them”? because I possess the principle of love, All I can offer the world a good heart & a good hand. Mormons can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for a mormon; If it has been demonstrated that I am have been willing to die for a mormon I am bold to declare <befo[r]e heaven> that I <am> just as ready to die for a presbytiran. a baptist or any other denomination.— It is a love of libe[r]ty which inspires my soul. civil and religious liberty— were diffused into my soul by my grandfathers. while they dandld me on their knees.— and shall I want friends? no!——“Where in do you differ from other in your  religious views?"— In reality & essence we do not differ so far in our religion[us] views but that we could all doing [drink] into one principle of love one of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism <is> to receive thruth [truth] let it come from where it may. --http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-2-10-march-1843-14-july-1843/308

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by Benk

[RevTestament]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We should all be praying for a confirmation that what the prophet and apostles teach is correct.  The problem comes when some of us get the answer that what they have taught is not correct and then we’re told to keep quiet about it or lose our tecommends/membership.  This is, again, the difference between our professed belief in fallible prophets but our practice of prophetic infallibility.  

The previous prophets and apostles didn’t just allow people to use the term Mormon... the heavily promoted it and ran major ad campaigns.  They put the Mormon name on T-shirt’s, websites, social media channels, and billboards.  Even produced a movie with it in the title. 

I was fine with all of the above AND the renewed emphasis on the proper name of the church until President Nelson stood in conference and declared that using the Mormon name offends the Lord and is a victory for Satan.  The implications of that pronouncement are profound for our understanding the our prophets, seers, and revelators. If we believe Pres. Nelson to be correct now than it means our previous prophets had led the church astray. 

But BY didn't? If not, why did his teaching get publicly disavowed by Kimball? Which was not leading the Church astray? It seems someone did.

I look at the promotion of the Mormon nomenclature as an idea of trying to push the Church into the mainstream... complete with advertisers, etc. Where was the revelation that this was the thing to do? I don't remember it. Now it seems 20 years later it didn't really work or at least didn't help so much. It certainly did not make the Church mainstream. The Church is maybe 15% bigger as compared to 20 years ago. So Nelson is pointing the Church in the scriptural direction, and the Church has a small kaniption fit. I don't see it as a reversal of any revelation and hence not a correction of any teaching. It is a redirection of the Church. I was actually surprised by it, but personally, I welcome it, and have been waiting for 18 years for it. I believe the Book of Mormon that the Father will bless the Church for its efforts, now pointed in a scriptural direction as opposed to a non-revealed and non-scriptural direction before. If you want to characterize that as having led the Church astray, I can't stop you, but I don't agree - at least not at an official level. I kind of see Hinckley as almost just giving lip service to the name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints while pushing ahead with his own idea of promoting the Mormon nomenclature as a way of mainstreaming the Church. Perhaps, you should be pointing fingers at him and not Pres Nelson who is just teaching us to follow scripture on the issue.

[Navidad]

I certainly have no personal opinion about this mandate (It now seems like more of a mandate). Living in a foreign country and surrounded by a small but powerful Anglo Mormon community, I think it is going to be very very very hard for the locals to make this change. Granted, there are more Mexican Mormons in our area than Anglo and they will, in my opinion be faithful to the change. We simply have a huge non-Mormon Catholic and Protestant Mexican community who only know of the Saints as "Mormons." This August I served on a committee that put on a local festival celebrating the four dominant cultures of our area: the Mormon, Mennonite, Mestizo, and Chinese cultures. The pavilions, tents, everything said Cultura Mormona on them. This change is really going to confuse the locals, and I believe they (the locals) will largely ignore it. There will be cross-cultural and linguistic barriers. Mormona is a word now in Spanish. Everyone knows it. Latter-day Saint has virtually no meaning in Spanish. Before you jump on me, I know there is a Spanish translation for the official name of the church. But I doubt that the phrase Latter-day means anything to the folks around here. I know the Church is up to the task and will make it work, but I think it will really be hard here, especially with the term Mormon colonies so much in use. I wonder what our small but very powerful Lebaron communities will do with it, in the sense of making the linguistic change for their LDS cousins?

I guess I do have one personal thought. I think the word Mormon has recently taken on a much better connotation among non-Mormons. I almost think the term Mormon has developed some affectionate overtones that will be lost, especially if the faithful correct folks and make a big deal about it in the non-Mormon community. My concern isn't so much the change, but what will happen if the faithful overdo it, especially the missionaries. Even for those non-Mormons for whom the word Mormon has negative overtones, they  will be more suspicious if the folks in the white shirts and black tags say "Oh no, we aren't Mormons!"  "Yeh, right" will be the reply and "you are trying to deceive me" antennas will go up.

Edited October 9, 2018 by Navidad

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

But BY didn't? If not, why did his teaching get publicly disavowed by Kimball? Which was not leading the Church astray? It seems someone did.

I look at the promotion of the Mormon nomenclature as an idea of trying to push the Church into the mainstream... complete with advertisers, etc. Where was the revelation that this was the thing to do? I don't remember it. Now it seems 20 years later it didn't really work or at least didn't help so much. It certainly did not make the Church mainstream. The Church is maybe 15% bigger as compared to 20 years ago. So Nelson is pointing the Church in the scriptural direction, and the Church has a small kaniption fit. I don't see it as a reversal of any revelation and hence not a correction of any teaching. It is a redirection of the Church. I was actually surprised by it, but personally, I welcome it, and have been waiting for 18 years for it. I believe the Book of Mormon that the Father will bless the Church for its efforts, now pointed in a scriptural direction as opposed to a non-revealed and non-scriptural direction before. If you want to characterize that as having led the Church astray, I can't stop you, but I don't agree - at least not at an official level. I kind of see Hinckley as almost just giving lip service to the name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints while pushing ahead with his own idea of promoting the Mormon nomenclature as a way of mainstreaming the Church. Perhaps, you should be pointing fingers at him and not Pres Nelson who is just teaching us to follow scripture on the issue.

I’m not pointing fingers at Presidents Nelson or Hinckley.  I’m pointing out the implications of President Nelson’s pronouncement.  If doing something offends the Lord and is a victory for Satan and our previous prophet promoted that very thing, it is difficult for me to see it any other way than a proclamation that the Church had gone astray.  And if it had been astray all these years, why should I trust other teachings the prophets and apostles gave us if they had already led us astray?

Personally, I don’t believe President Nelson’s declaration that using the Mormon name offends the Lord God omnipotent, creator of the Universe.  And it is clear to me from what has been taught lately that the church is being led by consensus rather than revelation (at least that’s what the 15 have been saying).  But if one is going to believe what was taught by Pres. Nelson on Sunday, there are serious implications. 

As for BY and Adam-God... I think BY led the church astray.  

[ksfisher]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

If we believe Pres. Nelson to be correct now than it means our previous prophets had led the church astray.

It doesn't.  It just means that now is the time that the Lord has chosen to make this course correction.  We are only accountable for what we know.  If the Lord has not chosen to impress this upon the mind of His prophet until now then no one is wrong in the past.  We know this now, we didn't know it then.  No worries about then.  No being led astray.  No one being thrown under any bus.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The title then is just named after a man, which man's name can then be used in place of the Lord's.  Either way the point seems pretty appropriate here.  If the great ol' holy priesthood can be named after a man, and a title can be named after a man, then what's wrong with the nickname for followers of his church?  it doesn't seem to matter in one case but in another somehow it's so bad that to do so is letting Satan get a victory.  

I find this interesting. We really don't know if the use of the word Melchizedek was a name or a title. The Hebrew root Melek or Melech is used in both. For example Abimelech was the name of various kings. It also could be used as a title, but we know from secular history that it was a common name. It comes from the same root. The Bible in neither testament makes it clear if it was a name or a title. Scholars are split.

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It doesn't.  It just means that now is the time that the Lord has chosen to make this course correction.  We are only accountable for what we know.  If the Lord has not chosen to impress this upon the mind of His prophet until now then no one is wrong in the past.  We know this now, we didn't know it then.  No worries about then.  No being led astray.  No one being thrown under any bus.

So under our previous prophets the Lord wasn’t offended by our promoting the name Mormon for the church and Satan wasn’t victorious.  But now, they will be if we call ourselves Mormons?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I agree. I believe it is cool that the Church is trying to get its act together, and follow the Lord more closely rather than relying on the arm of man. I don't really agree about discussing Satanic victory. That seems like shaming the Church to me. I think we have enough of that right now. The Church needs to feel uplifted. The Church needs to feel like it is on the right path. I believe what Pres Nelson is doing will help. Mormon was an honorable man. I am not going to use fear mongering or try to shame anybody for saying Mormon Church or saying I am a Mormon. I am just going to do my part to call the Church by the name given by our Savior. Hopefully, we can dispense with the other baggage. I am glad you are on board with the change. 

While I don’t think one is consciously serving Satan by innocently referring to the Church by one of the nicknames or abbreviations, I do think Satan rejoices in the cumulative effect over time that the proper name of the Church gets neglected or pushed into the background to the point that many outsiders are apparently unaware that asa religious body we believe in and worship Christ. I thus agree with President Nelson. 

[JAHS]

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So under our previous prophets the Lord wasn’t offended by our promoting the name Mormon for the church and Satan wasn’t victorious.  But now, they will be if we call ourselves Mormons?

The Lord did not choose to make this known to previous prophets.  He has to President Nelson.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So under our previous prophets the Lord wasn’t offended by our promoting the name Mormon for the church and Satan wasn’t victorious.  But now, they will be if we call ourselves Mormons?

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. 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The Lord did not choose to make this known to previous prophets.  He has to President Nelson.

Good to know that something this serious could be withheld from the prophet and apostles.  That explains why other things that I personally believe offend the Lord also haven’t been changed... yet. 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Benk said:

This is true from Joseph Smith onwards, and I agree that it raises all sorts of questions:

And in relation to his almost making a Mormon of yourself, it puts me in mind of the saying of Paul in his reply to Agrippa Acts xxvi. 29, “I would to God that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day; were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds”. And I will here remark, my dear Sir; that Mormonism is the pure doctrine of Jesus Christ; of which I myself am not ashamed. -- http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-d-1-1-august-1842-1-july-1843/41

How long can rolling waters remain impure, what power shall stay the heavens, as well might man stretch forth his puny arm to stop the Missouri River in its decreed course or to turn it up Stream as to hinder the Almighty from pouring down Knowledge from Heaven upon the heads of the Latter Day Saints, what is Boggs or his murderous party but Wimbling Willows upon the shore to catch the flood wood, as well might we argue that Water is not Water because the Mountain torrents, send down Mire and Riles the Chrystal Stream altho afterwards renders it more pure than before, Or that Fire is not Fire because it is of a quenchable nature by poring on the flood, as to say that our Cause is down because renegadoes, liars, priests, thieves and murderers, who are all alike tenacious of their crafts and creeds have poured down from their Spiritual wickedness in high places and from their strong holds of the devil a flood of dirt and mire, and filthiness and vomit upon our heads, no God forbid. hell may pour forth its rage like the burning lava of Mount Vesuvius or of Etna, or of the most terrible of the burning mountains, and yet shall Mormonism stand, Water Fire, truth and god are all the same, truth is Mormonism, God is the Author of it, he is our shield, it is by him we received our birth, it was by his voice that we were called to a dispensation of his Gospel in the beginning of the fullness of times -- http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-c-1-2-november-1838-31-july-1842/87

Sunday July 9 [th]. 1843 Joseph remarced [remarked] that all was well between him and the heavens that he had no emnity against any one. and as the prayer of Jesus. or his pattern so prayed Joseph. Father forgive me my trespasses. as I forgive those who trespass. against me. for I freely forgive all men.—— if we would s[e]cure & cultivate the love of others we must love others. even our enemies— as well as friends “why is it this babler gains so many followers. & retains them”? because I possess the principle of love, All I can offer the world a good heart & a good hand. Mormons can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for a mormon; If it has been demonstrated that I am have been willing to die for a mormon I am bold to declare <befo[r]e heaven> that I <am> just as ready to die for a presbytiran. a baptist or any other denomination.— It is a love of libe[r]ty which inspires my soul. civil and religious liberty— were diffused into my soul by my grandfathers. while they dandld me on their knees.— and shall I want friends? no!——“Where in do you differ from other in your  religious views?"— In reality & essence we do not differ so far in our religion[us] views but that we could all doing [drink] into one principle of love one of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism <is> to receive thruth [truth] let it come from where it may. --http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/journal-december-1842-june-1844-book-2-10-march-1843-14-july-1843/308

 

Wow, I love those quotes - what is a wimbling willow? Sounds like a great title for a book!

[rockpond]

2 minutes 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. 

Yes there were times when we received those messages but most recently the Church has gone to great efforts to promote the Mormon name:

I’m a Mormon 

Meet the Mormons

Mormon Helping Hands

Mormon.org

etc

What did the Lord think of all those initiatives?  If He was going to instruct His prophet in 2018 that using the proper name of the church was non-negotiable, why let previous prophets spend so much time and effort promoting the Mormon name?

[Navidad]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So under our previous prophets the Lord wasn’t offended by our promoting the name Mormon for the church and Satan wasn’t victorious.  But now, they will be if we call ourselves Mormons?

I will simply suggest that I don't think God is easily offended. He is complete within Himself. We get offended when we feel incomplete - less than. God gets offended at unrighteousness - sin. Is President Nelson saying the use of the word Mormon has been sinful?

 

 

[ksfisher]

Just now, rockpond said:

Good to know that something this serious could be withheld from the prophet and apostles.  That explains why other things that I personally believe offend the Lord also haven’t been changed... yet. 

The process that the Lord has used to reveal His will to His church has never been an all at once kind of thing.  Line upon line seems to have always been the process.

We are accountable for what the Lord has revealed to us now.  Not for what was in the past and not for what may be in the future.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes there were times when we received those messages but most recently the Church has gone to great efforts to promote the Mormon name:

I’m a Mormon 

Meet the Mormons

Mormon Helping Hands

Mormon.org

etc

What did the Lord think of all those initiatives?  If He was going to instruct His prophet in 2018 that using the proper name of the church was non-negotiable, why let previous prophets spend so much time and effort promoting the Mormon name?

The Mormon name has been used for some applications in recent times, but my point is that it during that period it has never been approved to be used as a substitute for the proper name of the Church. I think we as a people should be ashamed for taking that instruction so lightly. 

Edited October 9, 2018 by Scott Lloyd