Good for you Pres. Nelson!

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Your comparison is not apt.

Agreed. Like all good teachers, God seems not to provide all correction at once, thus avoiding overwhelming us. I'm OK with that. No doubt, there are things that we are doing now that will require future corrections. This does not = leading the Church astray. It's more a matter of 'further light and knowledge', if I may include that quotation.

When I used to teach writing, I would always start with the most global issues when assisting students. Matters of concern in descending order would be things like clarity of argument, strength of content, organisation of content, construction of paragraphs and sentences, mechanics (spelling, punctuation, grammar). I'd be surprised if God didn't have a similar hierarchy of concerns as He works with the prophets and us.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Avatar4321]

36 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I personally always felt that way about the entire 'I'm a Mormon' branding. 

I felt the same way

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

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. 

Back to the ship analogy...course corrections can be needed because the ship was headed in the wrong direction or the wind has shifted.  The captain is not at fault if the winds change or if in the past, use of sails and rudder required choices that pointed the ship's bow in a direction not pointing to the desired destination.

I think though, it may be more a semantic issue (how you view what "course correction" means as opposed to how I view it or others, including Pres. Nelson defines it).  If so, the below can probably be ignored and it would be better to discuss whether it makes sense or not to insist on defining "course correction" in certain ways.

-----

The environment the Church exists in has changed.  There is a different level of awareness and new tools for affecting that awareness.

In order to teach, one has to build on what is already known.  When so little was known by so many about the Church, it made sense to use the label "Mormon" rather than trying to start from scratch (reminds me of the story I heard a couple of decades ago of a community thanking two organizations that showed up to help after a disaster, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Mormons).  The Church now has a visible presence in the world, the wind has shifted and we now have a motorized craft (internet) we can use when relying on the wind (attention from the public) would require tacking methods that would waste resources and time.  (Hopefully .Rod will speak up if my analogy is off).

----

A possible explanation of the Satan comment (I am not committing to it as this is just reason based)....It was not following Satan's instructions when church leaders made use of the tools (sails and a rudder) they had to spread awareness of the Church and therefore increased opportunities to teach the Gospel, even if it pleased Satan that those were the only tools available to us because they were limited in what they could achieve.  Using them was required to avoid stagnation or regression, but there was still a cost to their use (only certain courses could be taken at certain times and this meant at times moving away from a straight line course to the desired destination).

It would be feeding into Satan's vision of mankind if we continued to insist using sails to deliver the good news just because that is what worked well for us in the past when we now have a motor to use to both speed up the craft and resist the inconsistencies of the world (I assume it is still wise to pay attention to the winds these days, but having a motor for a ship means we are not solely or even much dependent on it).

Edited October 10, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

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.

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

[JAHS]

45 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Yes, he said the Lord revealed it to him. We agree there.

But, we seem to disagree about whether or not this is, or if President Nelson characterized this as a course correction or as part of a planned out path for the church.

I agree it is a course correction, but like I said before the correction was made at the best time it could be made and we have always been heading towards the same destination, regardless of whether the past prophets were supporting an incorrect policy that was taking us a little off course. I have never believed the past prophets of the church were perfect in everything they have done. God does not take over their brains and force them to do everything perfectly; they live by faith the same as we do. He allows them their agency to sometimes learn by mistakes. But they are the best we have on this earth as a resource of God's will for us. 
I honestly don't believe my eternal life has been put in any kind of jeopardy. The "I'm a Mormon" campaign most likely brought a lot of interest to the church resulting in many new members who have found the gospel. 
That deviation of the course made that possible but has not completely removed us from the path to our destination. 

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Agreed. Like all good teachers, God seems not to provide all correction at once, thus avoiding overwhelming us. I'm OK with that. No doubt, there are things that we are doing now that will require future corrections. This does not = leading the Church astray. It's more a matter of 'further light and knowledge', if I may include that quotation.

When I used to teach writing, I would always start with the most global issues when assisting students. Matters of concern in descending order would be things like clarity of argument, strength of content, organisation of content, construction of paragraphs and sentences, mechanics (spelling, punctuation, grammar). I'd be surprised if God didn't have a similar hierarchy of concerns as He works with the prophets and us.

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

Seems odd. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Seems like a stretch of an explanation to me.

If I was asked how I got from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’, and described how I went straight, then turned right to get to point ‘B’, I would not say:

“I was going straight, which was the wrong way, then I corrected my course and went right.  It supports Satan to go straight, and we have always been commanded to go right.”

Maybe not a perfect analogy. If President Nelson had said that this was a new direction, or that the Lord had revealed to him that it was now time for us to retake the full name of the church, I wouldn’t struggle so much.

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

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Seems odd. 

Your choice.

When I was teaching undergraduate writing, I actually had a number of students who would be angry with me as I worked with them on a single assignment for waiting to point out certain weaknesses until they had corrected other, more important weaknesses. I never knew how to satisfy these students either. They seemed to think that I was under obligation to tell them everything they needed to correct in their writing from the very first instance or not bring it up at all. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So the Lord let the Church leaders spend millions in tithing dollars to promote the Mormon name ...

By the way, I don't think Church leaders at any point were seeking to 'promote the Mormon name'; I strongly believe that they were willing to use the name to promote the Restored Church. But as always, to each his own interpretation.

[Calm]

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng

Quote

Today I feel compelled to discuss with you a matter of great importance. Some weeks ago, I released a statement regarding a course correction for the name of the Church.1 I did this because the Lord impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He decreed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.2

As you would expect, responses to this statement and to the revised style guide3 have been mixed. Many members immediately corrected the name of the Church on their blogs and social media pages. Others wondered why, with all that’s going on in the world, it was necessary to emphasize something so “inconsequential.” And some said it couldn’t be done, so why even try? Let me explain why we care so deeply about this issue. But first let me state what this effort is not:

It is not a name change.

It is not rebranding.

It is not cosmetic.

It is not a whim.

And it is not inconsequential.

Instead, it is a correction. It is the command of the Lord. Joseph Smith did not name the Church restored through him; neither did Mormon. It was the Savior Himself who said, “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”4

Even earlier, in AD 34, our resurrected Lord gave similar instruction to members of His Church when He visited them in the Americas. At that time He said:

“Ye shall call the church in my name. …

“And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church.”5

Thus, the name of the Church is not negotiable. When the Savior clearly states what the name of His Church should be and even precedes His declaration with, “Thus shall my church be called,” He is serious. And if we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, He is offended.

What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement.

 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Calm

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

If the church’s course had to be corrected, doesn’t that indicate the church was “astray” (off course)?

I look at it like a game of golf. We hit the ball down the fairway but it is not always in a straight line; it goes off course a little.
But we make corrections here and there to finally still get to the same destination.

[Calm]

Not allowing me to add on, so sorry for multiple posts (just putting up specifics about change that might be controversial):

Quote

After all He had endured—and after all He had done for humankind—I realize with profound regret that we have unwittingly acquiesced in the Lord’s restored Church being called by other names, each of which expunges the sacred name of Jesus Christ!

Every Sunday as we worthily partake of the sacrament, we make anew our sacred promise to our Heavenly Father that we are willing to take upon us the name of His Son, Jesus Christ.8 We promise to follow Him, repent, keep His commandments, and always remember Him.

When we omit His name from His Church, we are inadvertently removing Him as the central focus of our lives.

Taking the Savior’s name upon us includes declaring and witnessing to others—through our actions and our words—that Jesus is the Christ. Have we been so afraid to offend someone who called us “Mormons” that we have failed to defend the Savior Himself, to stand up for Him even in the name by which His Church is called?

If we as a people and as individuals are to have access to the power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ—to cleanse and heal us, to strengthen and magnify us, and ultimately to exalt us—we must clearly acknowledge Him as the source of that power. We can begin by calling His Church by the name He decreed.

For much of the world, the Lord’s Church is presently disguised as the “Mormon Church.” But we as members of the Lord’s Church know who stands at its head: Jesus Christ Himself. Unfortunately, many who hear the term Mormon may think that we worship Mormon. Not so! We honor and respect that great ancient American prophet.9 But we are not Mormon’s disciples. We are the Lord’s disciples.

In the early days of the restored Church, terms such as Mormon Church and Mormons10 were often used as epithets—as cruel terms, abusive terms—designed to obliterate God’s hand in restoring the Church of Jesus Christ in these latter days.11

Brothers and sisters, there are many worldly arguments against restoring the correct name of the Church. Because of the digital world in which we live and with search ---engine ----optimization that helps all of us find information we need almost instantly—including information about the Lord’s Church—critics say that a correction at this point is unwise. Others feel that because we are known so widely as “Mormons” and as the “Mormon Church,” we should make the best of it.

If this were a discussion about branding a man-made organization, those arguments might prevail. But in this crucial matter, we look to Him whose Church this is and acknowledge that the Lord’s ways are not, and never will be, man’s ways. If we will be patient and if we will do our part well, the Lord will lead us through this important task. After all, we know that the Lord helps those who seek to do His will, just as He helped Nephi accomplish the task of building a ship to cross the sea.12

We will want to be courteous and patient in our efforts to correct these errors. Responsible media will be sympathetic in responding to our request.

Editing for 403, apparently didn't like reference to SEO

Edited October 10, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Your choice.

When I was teaching undergraduate writing, I actually had a number of students who would be angry with me as I worked with them on a single assignment for waiting to point out certain weaknesses until they had corrected other, more important weaknesses. I never knew how to satisfy these students either. They seemed to think that I was under obligation to tell them everything they needed to correct in their writing from the very first instance or not bring it up at all. 

But we’re talking about the prophet who regularly speaks with the Lord.  The Lord couldn’t have mentioned:  “hey, that name that you are spending big bucks to promote — that is giving Satan the victory.”

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I look at it like a game of golf. We hit the ball down the fairway but it is not always in a straight line; it goes off course a little.
But we make corrections here and there to finally still get to the same destination.

We’re not talking about sports or a ship.  This is the man we believe regularly talks to the Lord.  Was the Lord leading the church or not?

[Calm]

Quote

That report provides a pattern. One by one, our best efforts as individuals will be required to correct errors that have crept in through the years.14The rest of the world may or may not follow our lead in calling us by the correct name. But it is disingenuous for us to be frustrated if most of the world calls the Church and its members by the wrong names if we do the same.

Our revised style guide is helpful. It states: “In the first reference, the full name of the Church is preferred: ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.’ When a shortened [second] reference is needed, the terms ‘the Church’ or the ‘Church of Jesus Christ’ are encouraged. The ‘restored Church of Jesus Christ’ is also accurate and encouraged.”15

If someone should ask, “Are you a Mormon?” you could reply, “If you are asking if I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, yes, I am!”

If someone asks, “Are you a Latter-day Saint?”16 you might respond, “Yes, I am. I believe in Jesus Christ and am a member of His restored Church.”

It has related talks as well, but they are recent ones.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But we’re talking about the prophet who regularly speaks with the Lord.  The Lord couldn’t have mentioned:  “hey, that name that you are spending big bucks to promote — that is giving Satan the victory.”

He could have. Your discomfort that He didn't reminds me exactly of my students who were upset that I didn't raise issues in their writing with them earlier in the process. 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

By the way, I don't think Church leaders at any point were seeking to 'promote the Mormon name'; I strongly believe that they were willing to use the name to promote the Restored Church. But as always, to each his own interpretation.

I think this is what is crucially different.

However, now that I have read the talk I can see why some are troubled by it, specifically:

Quote

Have we been so afraid to offend someone who called us “Mormons” that we have failed to defend the Savior Himself, to stand up for Him even in the name by which His Church is called?...

If someone should ask, “Are you a Mormon?” you could reply, “If you are asking if I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, yes, I am!”

If someone asks, “Are you a Latter-day Saint?”16 you might respond, “Yes, I am. I believe in Jesus Christ and am a member of His restored Church.”

I think one valid interpretation of this is calling ourselves " Mormons" was wrong and thus programs like "I am a Mormon" were wrong.

Otoh, he is primarily referring to the name of the Church throughout the talk.

Hopefully clarification will come if it is not intended to imply that past decisions to use "Mormon" were wrong.

---

If not, I think people will need to work out if they are comfortable with just leaving it as unanswered or have to decide if past choices of prophets and apostles to use the term was wrong or if Pres. Nelson has mistaken a 'good, better, best' situation for wrong/right.  There may be other possible positions that accept past and present prophets are actual prophets as well that just aren't occurring to me yet.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Was the Lord leading the church or not?

Yes. Any further questions?

[Hamba Tuhan]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think one valid interpretation of this is calling ourselves " Mormons" was wrong and thus programs like "I am a Mormon" were wrong.

As I mentioned above, I was always uncomfortable with aspects of the 'I'm a Mormon' campaign. When I made my profile on the old website, it automatically added at the top: 'Hi, my name is Hamba, and I'm a Mormon' or something like that. I remember thinking, I would never actually write or say that.

But I always assumed that, if the direction were misguided in any way, the Lord would correct it. He has. Problem solved.

This is precisely how God works with me in my personal life. I'm not sure why He would have a second method for working with His prophets and/or the Church as an institution.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Avatar4321]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We’re not talking about sports or a ship.  This is the man we believe regularly talks to the Lord.  Was the Lord leading the church or not?

He was.

but the only way to know that is to find out for yourself from Him

[JAHS]

55 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We’re not talking about sports or a ship.  This is the man we believe regularly talks to the Lord.  Was the Lord leading the church or not?

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

Edited October 10, 2018 by JAHS

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

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

Seems odd. 

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

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

 

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As I mentioned above, I was always uncomfortable with aspects of the 'I'm a Mormon' campaign. When I made my profile on the old website, it automatically added at the top: 'Hi, my name is Hamba, and I'm a Mormon' or something like that. I remember thinking, I would never actually write or say that.

But I always assumed that, if the direction were misguided in any way, the Lord would correct it. He has. Problem solved.

This is precisely how God works with me in my personal life. I'm not sure why He would have a second method for working with His prophets and/or the Church as an institution.

I personally don't have a problem with prophets being wrong or even with Satan or whoever works against God taking some delight when they see missteps being made.  I think it is overdoing it taking the comment to a more extreme view where Satan was proclaiming triumph or at least having parties because Church leaders weren't as spiritually insightful in some things as they were with others, even possibly big, costly things like the I am a Mormon program.  I think there is likely going to be a lot of backtracking and redoing in the Church's course because that is what our lives as individuals are like and the Church is first and foremost a community of individuals.  Just having more individuals together, even very inspired ones, doesn't automatically create a shield against making mistakes nor should it, imo

I think there are a lot of big things in our lives God gives us minimal instruction in and then let's us struggle through determining how to fulfill it on our own including to the point that damage is done because that is really the only way to learn in our gut what works and doesn't work for us, what is important.  We can say all we want something is important to us, but until we make actual choices that lead to its elevation we can't tell what we will sacrifice for.  (I am assuming God can't just imprint us with knowledge because that is contrary to how I see things working, but obviously can't prove that isn't an option for God so I understand why some question why God allows mistakes).

[Avatar4321]

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

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

prophets may walk with Christ and yet not be perfect 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

He could have. Your discomfort that He didn't reminds me exactly of my students who were upset that I didn't raise issues in their writing with them earlier in the process. 

I’m actually more comfortable than you might think.  This whole principle is what allows me, for example, to believe that the Brethren are mistaken about things like polygamy and gay marriage.  Just hasn’t been revealed yet.