Good for you Pres. Nelson!

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

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?

 

 

If you want to know what President Nelson is saying, I suggest you read or listen to his general conference talk. He was more than clear. 

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

We should be ashamed for taking that instruction lightly even though the church was spending millions to promote the Mormon name?

What did the Lord think of all those other applications of Mormon?  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]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you want to know what President Nelson is saying, I suggest you read or listen to his general conference talk. He was more than clear. 

Wow, I will take that as a yes.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

We should be ashamed for taking that instruction lightly even though the church was spending millions to promote the Mormon name?

What did the Lord think of all those other applications of Mormon?  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?

It was never promoted as <the name of the Church.> On the contrary, we were explicitly asked <not> to use it for that, and many were cavalier about receiving that instruction. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It was never promoted as <the name of the Church.> On the contrary, we were explicitly asked <not> to use it for that, and many were cavalier about receiving that instruction. 

So do you interpret President Nelson's instructions as it being okay to call oneself a Mormon?  Because that certainly isn't the feeling I got when listening to his conference address.

What did the Lord think of all those other applications of Mormon that were being used in church marketing campaigns?  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?

[SouthernMo]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think we as a people should be ashamed for taking that instruction so lightly. 

Shame is not a healthy feeling. Satan inspires shame, as we learn in holy places. 

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

What did the Lord think of all those other applications of Mormon that were being used in church marketing campaigns?  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?

I guarantee you that President Nelson sustained the use of the word Mormon in all those applications when he was a member of the 12 before joining the first presidency.  He likely sustained the initiatives because the man in charge LDS church president) wanted them.

Now that he’s in charge, he’s asking us to sustain him because he wants these changes - even if they are changes back.

This statement by President Nelson has hurt my testimony that the president of the church is a prophet of God.  Who got it wrong - President Nelson, or those ‘prophets’ who came before him who so happily took on the Mormon label?

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So do you interpret President Nelson's instructions as it being okay to call oneself a Mormon?  Because that certainly isn't the feeling I got when listening to his conference address.

 

No, I think we should try to follow with precision his current teachings which, I suspect, may have been inspired due to past inclination on the part of many to ignore prophetic instruction pertaining to the name of the Church. 

Edited October 9, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[SouthernMo]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I think we should try to follow with precision his current teachings which, I suspect, may have come about due to past inclination on the part of many to ignore prophetic instruction pertaining to the name of the Church. 

But Scott, we were asked to support the I’m a Mormon campaign, and create cute little profiles. We were asked to encourage our friends to go see the Meet the Mormons movie. 

We received prophetic instruction to call ourselves Mormon!

To claim that prophets have always asked us to reject the Mormon moniker is just wrong. It’s revisionist history!

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

No, I think we should try to follow with precision his current teachings which, I suspect, may have been inspired due to past inclination on the part of many to ignore prophetic instruction pertaining to the name of the Church. 

It seems to defeat the purpose of having a prophet as defined in Eph 4:14 --

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men...

One prophet heavily promotes the Mormon name.

The next says it is offensive to the Lord and a victory for Satan.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

But Scott, we were asked to support the I’m a Mormon campaign, and create cute little profiles. We were asked to encourage our friends to go see the Meet the Mormons movie. 

We received prophetic instruction to call ourselves Mormon!

To claim that prophets have always asked us to reject the Mormon moniker is just wrong. It’s revisionist history!

All I’ve said is that we were asked in the past to use the proper name of the Church and not to substitute “Mormon Church” or “LDS Church” andbthat many have ignored or resisted that instruction. That is true. It is not “revisionist history.” I call on you to stop mischaracterizing my words. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It seems to defeat the purpose of having a prophet as defined in Eph 4:14 --

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men...

One prophet heavily promotes the Mormon name.

The next says it is offensive to the Lord and a victory for Satan.

Prophets give instruction according to changing needs and conditions. Wise people hearken to them resisting or reviling them. 

[Benk]

A couple of sincere questions to those saying it doesn't throw previous prophets "under a bus" or who are purporting a narrative that this has always been the injunction that President Nelson is now making explicit:

April 1990, then Elder Nelson gives a talk in Conference entitled "Thus Shall My Church Be Called," including some reasoning and rhetoric that he used this weekend -- https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1990/04/thus-shall-my-church-be-called?lang=eng -- six months later, President Hinckley, in a very unusual move, directly responds with a talk entitled "Mormon Should Mean "More Good." It's a cracking talk, which also has subtle interplays with the way in which President Nelson framed his remarks this weekend. This was President Hinckley's concluding testimony: "I testify that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and that when people speak of us by the name of this book, they will compliment us, if we will live worthy of the name, remembering that in a very real sense Mormonism must mean that greater good which the Lord Jesus Christ exemplified." -- We've gone from it's use complimenting us if we "live worthy of" it, to its use being a victory for Satan. So my first question(s): How do you reconcile these two statements? And in what way does it not constitute throwing previous prophets "under the bus"?

My second question is this. Part of the reasoning President Nelson gave was that the word Mormon was initially applied as a derogatory nickname by people antagonistic to the church. By the same token, the word Christian, in both the old and new worlds, was originally applied as a derogatory nickname by people antagonistic to the church. If it is part of the reason for disavowing the name Mormon, are we also going to drop our campaign to be recognised as Christians on the same grounds?

Edited October 9, 2018 by Benk
remove extra word

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

All I’ve said is that we were asked in the past to use the proper name of the Church and not to substitute “Mormon Church” or “LDS Church” andbthat many have ignored or resisted that instruction. That is true. It is not “revisionist history.” I call on you to stop mischaracterizing my words. 

Perhaps I am mischaracterizing your words. Will you be very clear with me then: is it your interpretation that President Nelson is just fine with calling members of our church Mormons?

Because to me, his talk on Sunday was pretty clear that calling ourselves Mormons was supporting Satan as well as calling our church the Mormon church.

[RevTestament]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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 think that is exactly the point - or at least one of the points in favor of stressing  the use of  Jesus Christ in the name of the Church. I still hear of stories where people in America do not realize that Mormons worship Jesus Christ. To me that is sad, but is the result of becoming known as the Mormon Church.  And here we are for the last 20 years seemingly actively continuing to promote it - actually for my entire life in the Church. Why would Satan want that to stop? The apparent plan to overwhelm the press,  and make Mormons known as Christians just didn't work imho. The Saints can continue to be proud about being Mormon, or they can shift gears,  and do something else that works better at defeating Satan.

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

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?

Not to be picky, but I think our Lord gets offended if we break our covenants, which I don't know if that is technically a sin. I guess it could be considered a sin against Him, since we are breaking our word to Him. If it is a sin not to refer to the Church as the Church of Jesus Christ, he didn't seem to tell the Jews who converted. There is no record of such in the Bible or early Middle East history. It seems the instruction was meant for the branches of Joseph and the modern Church for reasons much like Scott is indicating above, although it is possible the instruction was lost in the early Church in Eurasia - much like we believe the instruction for baptism for the dead was lost.

Using the name Mormon is obviously not a sin or we won't be referring anyone to the Book of Mormon anymore. The real issue is that in acceding to be called Mormons by others, and doing it ourselves that over time, the Church has become referred to as the Mormon Church, so now we are stuck with how to discourage this, and Pres Nelson is saying not to refer to ourselves as Mormons anymore or accede to that usage by others - if I hear him correctly. After doing this for so long, and even having been acceded to by Joseph Smith, I can understand some of the reaction by the Church. For me, however, since I never refer to myself as a Mormon, it is no loss of identity. However, I used to refer to the Church at large often as the LDS Church, and it looks like I will now need to be more formal, and have started being so for a number of weeks now.

[JAHS]

10 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

This statement by President Nelson has hurt my testimony that the president of the church is a prophet of God.  Who got it wrong - President Nelson, or those ‘prophets’ who came before him who so happily took on the Mormon label?

There have been many on this board who have explained the reason for this change quite well.  I have a feeling that those who won't accept the explanations will not be satisfied with anything more that is said about it. 
In my opinion I think God was quite please that we took a name (Mormon) that at one time was meant as an insult and turned it around to something good and helpful in the proclaiming of the Gospel.
All past prophets of course knew that it was not the real name of the church, but went with it anyway because it was the best way to get the gospel message out.
Now that we have done that successfully it's time to try and get people to realize and accept the true name of the church. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, SouthernMo said:

Perhaps I am mischaracterizing your words. Will you be very clear with me then: is it your interpretation that President Nelson is just fine with calling members of our church Mormons?

Because to me, his talk on Sunday was pretty clear that calling ourselves Mormons was supporting Satan as well as calling our church the Mormon church.

No. President  Nelson is telling us that we should now cease to refer to ourselves as Mormons. That part is new, but it is no less prophetic instruction. 

Let us be wise and not make the mistakes of the past, which have been to resist or revile the instruction. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I think that is exactly the point - or at least one of the points in favor of stressing  the use of  Jesus Christ in the name of the Church. I still hear of stories where people in America do not realize that Mormons worship Jesus Christ. To me that is sad, but is the result of becoming known as the Mormon Church.  And here we are for the last 20 years seemingly actively continuing to promote it - actually for my entire life in the Church. Why would Satan want that to stop? The apparent plan to overwhelm the press,  and make Mormons known as Christians just didn't work imho. The Saints can continue to be proud about being Mormon, or they can shift gears,  and do something else that works better at defeating Satan.

Not to be picky, but I think our Lord gets offended if we break our covenants, which I don't know if that is technically a sin. I guess it could be considered a sin against Him, since we are breaking our word to Him. If it is a sin not to refer to the Church as the Church of Jesus Christ, he didn't seem to tell the Jews who converted. There is no record of such in the Bible or early Middle East history. It seems the instruction was meant for the branches of Joseph and the modern Church for reasons much like Scott is indicating above, although it is possible the instruction was lost in the early Church in Eurasia - much like we believe the instruction for baptism for the dead was lost.

Using the name Mormon is obviously not a sin or we won't be referring anyone to the Book of Mormon anymore. The real issue is that in acceding to be called Mormons by others, and doing it ourselves that over time, the Church has become referred to as the Mormon Church, so now we are stuck with how to discourage this, and Pres Nelson is saying not to refer to ourselves as Mormons anymore or accede to that usage by others - if I hear him correctly. After doing this for so long, and even having been acceded to by Joseph Smith, I can understand some of the reaction by the Church. For me, however, since I never refer to myself as a Mormon, it is no loss of identity. However, I used to refer to the Church at large often as the LDS Church, and it looks like I will now need to be more formal, and have started being so for a number of weeks now.

This!

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

There have been many on this board who have explained the reason for this change quite well.  I have a feeling that those who won't accept the explanations will not be satisfied with anything more that is said about it. 
In my opinion I think God was quite please that we took a name (Mormon) that at one time was meant as an insult and turned it around to something good and helpful in the proclaiming of the Gospel.
All past prophets of course knew that it was not the real name of the church, but went with it anyway because it was the best way to get the gospel message out.
Now that we have done that successfully it's time to try and get people to realize and accept the true name of the church. 

If this was the message being given by Pres. Nelson, I wouldn’t say that past prophets were leading the church astray.  I’ll read his talk when published but I got a very different impression when listening to him. 

[Benk]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Not to be picky, but I think our Lord gets offended if we break our covenants

I think I'm with Navidad that God is not easily offended, if ever. We've certainly had enough talks in past Conferences warning the dangers of taking offence! Enoch's encounter with the weeping God would suggest a profound sadness, which seems to me to be more consistent with a divine nature than taking offence.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Benk said:

A couple of sincere question to those saying it doesn't throw previous prophets "under a bus" or who are purporting a narrative that this has always been the injunction that President Nelson is now making explicit:

April 1990, then Elder Nelson gives a talk in Conference entitled "Thus Shall My Church Be Called," including some reasoning and rhetoric that he used this weekend (although -- https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1990/04/thus-shall-my-church-be-called?lang=eng -- six months later, President Hinckley, in a very unusual move, directly responds with a talk entitled "Mormon Should Mean "More Good." It's a cracking talk, which also has subtle interplays with the way in which President Nelson framed his remarks this weekend. This was President Hinckley's concluding testimony: "I testify that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and that when people speak of us by the name of this book, they will compliment us, if we will live worthy of the name, remembering that in a very real sense Mormonism must mean that greater good which the Lord Jesus Christ exemplified." -- We've gone from it's use complimenting us if we "live worthy of" it, to its use being a victory for Satan. So my first question(s): How do you reconcile these two statements? And in what way does it not constitute throwing previous prophets "under the bus"?

My second question is this. Part of the reasoning President Nelson gave was that the word Mormon was initially applied as a derogatory nickname by people antagonistic to the church. By the same token, the word Christian, in both the old and new worlds, was originally applied as a derogatory nickname by people antagonistic to the church. If it is part of the reason for disavowing the name Mormon, are we also going to drop our campaign to be recognised as Christians on the same grounds?

President Hinckley never approved using “Mormon Church” in place of the proper name of the Church. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

If this was the message being given by Pres. Nelson, I wouldn’t say that past prophets were leading the church astray.  I’ll read his talk when published but I got a very different impression when listening to him. 

The only one I’ve seen claiming that past prophets were leading the Church astray is you. 

[SouthernMo]

5 minutes ago, JAHS said:

There have been many on this board who have explained the reason for this change quite well.  I have a feeling that those who won't accept the explanations will not be satisfied with anything more that is said about it. 
In my opinion I think God was quite please that we took a name (Mormon) that at one time was meant as an insult and turned it around to something good and helpful in the proclaiming of the Gospel.
All past prophets of course knew that it was not the real name of the church, but went with it anyway because it was the best way to get the gospel message out.
Now that we have done that successfully it's time to try and get people to realize and accept the true name of the church. 

I’m sorry, but this explanation does not make sense to me because President Nelson clearly called this a “course correction.”  A course correction indicates a wrong direction in the past that needed to be changed.

If your explanation that the term Mormon has served its purpose, and now we should move on does not make sense. If that were the case, President Nelson would not have called it a course correction, but something like a new direction. 

[Navidad]

15 minutes ago, Benk said:

A couple of sincere questions to those saying it doesn't throw previous prophets "under a bus" or who are purporting a narrative that this has always been the injunction that President Nelson is now making explicit:

April 1990, then Elder Nelson gives a talk in Conference entitled "Thus Shall My Church Be Called," including some reasoning and rhetoric that he used this weekend -- https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1990/04/thus-shall-my-church-be-called?lang=eng -- six months later, President Hinckley, in a very unusual move, directly responds with a talk entitled "Mormon Should Mean "More Good." It's a cracking talk, which also has subtle interplays with the way in which President Nelson framed his remarks this weekend. This was President Hinckley's concluding testimony: "I testify that the Book of Mormon is the word of God and that when people speak of us by the name of this book, they will compliment us, if we will live worthy of the name, remembering that in a very real sense Mormonism must mean that greater good which the Lord Jesus Christ exemplified." -- We've gone from it's use complimenting us if we "live worthy of" it, to its use being a victory for Satan. So my first question(s): How do you reconcile these two statements? And in what way does it not constitute throwing previous prophets "under the bus"?

My second question is this. Part of the reasoning President Nelson gave was that the word Mormon was initially applied as a derogatory nickname by people antagonistic to the church. By the same token, the word Christian, in both the old and new worlds, was originally applied as a derogatory nickname by people antagonistic to the church. If it is part of the reason for disavowing the name Mormon, are we also going to drop our campaign to be recognised as Christians on the same grounds?

I know that most if not all of you believe the original use of the word Mormon was derogatory. That seems to have been taught to you all somewhere. Might anyone have any references, citations in historical documents to that? I am really curious. Everything I have found all the way back to 1832 uses the word as a sobriquet, a nickname and mostly among the press who were writing about this new group. I am not challenging anyone. I just would like to see an actual study of the use of the name Mormon for the saints, both by saints and by non-Mormons. I am interested in this, that is all.

[SouthernMo]

I am honestly trying to see the truth in President Nelson’s words, but am struggling.  The explanations to validate his words all seem to require logical gymnastics.

The positions start with the assumption that President Nelson is THE prophet, and therefore, what he says MUST be true, so those who vehemently defend his words seem to snake through a complicated maze of logic to come to the conclusion that supports their initial assumption that President Nelson is THE prophet, and his words when stated so emphatically must come from God.

Years ago, there were many who defended the kinderhook plates and the salamander letters.  Both turned out to be forgeries!  Because those who defended their veracity started first with the belief in men’s words (even though these men held high church offices!) validating their authenticity, they were duped.

My experience with the Holy Ghost has been that truth comes clearly and simply.  I’m not feeling the Holy Ghost on this topic.