"Now that he's president of [the Church], he can do those things.”

[Ouagadougou]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

Interesting comment from Sister Nelson about President Nelson finally feeling free to make changes he's wanted to make for years.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/latter-day-saint-prophet-wife-apostle-share-insights-global-ministry

 

 

That would definitely include abandoning the name Mormon, as he has been concerned with that for many decades. Kind of gives you a window into the politics of the senior leadership. Not everyone agrees with everything, but they do present a united front.

I don't consider abandoning the term "Mormon" to be a divine revelation; rather, I view it as a matter of personal opinion. I think the late President Joseph F. Smith Jr. would probably disagree with President Nelson, who wrote the following about five years before he became an apostle:

"Did you know that "the term Mormon" has always been applied to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? That the name attached to the Church with the publication and promulgation of the Book of Mormon? That it was first applied by the enemies of the Church as an opprobrium; but that during the lifetime of Joseph Smith the Martyr, and ever since it has been a term accepted by the Church because of popular custom, as an appellation?"

Author: Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr.

Title: Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage A Discussion

REPLY TO R. C. EVANS

The following letter was published in the Toronto Daily Star in answer to the false charges which appeared in Mr. Evans' interview.

Salt Lake City, Feb. 19, 1905.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/50535/50535-h/50535-h.htm

[california boy]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Good example.

In the case of Pres. Nelson, he would have received the revelation as an apostle. He then would have had access to the other apostles, FP and prophet to share what he believed was revelation from God. So what happened? 1- he never shared his revelation with them or 2- they rejected his revelation  3- they all agreed to wait to implement the revelation until he became prophet

1- if he received revelation I would expect an apostle to share that with the others in top leadership. Would you?

2- If they rejected his revelation, why?

3- If they all agreed to wait, it must not have been all that pressing of a matter

I suppose that could be revelation. But I usually call it "planning". I did it as bishop but I do the same thing at my job. Calling it revelation could apply, I guess, but it seems to import a rather routine activity into a more grandiose one.

I honestly believe this is the biggest issue the church will face in the near future.  I believe when the leadership of the church starts to assign an aura of divine revelation to every decision they make, then the very concept of Christ running the church gets put in jeopardy. I think there are indications of that already where so many members push back against "divine guidance" on things that just don't seem to be much more than a consensus among the leadership.  I have never seen such pushback on revelations from God by otherwise faithful members of the church as what is going on now.  Did God actually command that the church drop the name Mormon?  Did God institute the changes in how the priesthood is organized?  Did God decide that 2 hour block is the way to go?  Did God decide to drop some of the pageants?  Did God change the age of missionary service?  Did God demand that women wear less earings?  The list is endless.

 I believe this is why there are huge groups of faithful members who now believe that not everything that is claimed as revelation is.  This has caused a loss of credibility in claims of prophetic communication with God.  For many members, the prophet of the church is now looked upon as more just the current leader of the church and less the divine spokesman for God on earth.  These claims of divine revelation on what most would view as organizational adjustments seem of such little importance compared to many significant questions that God could be addressing, but hasn't.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

He got the revelation before he could use it and had it confirmed now is the time to use it. Happens all the time on the local level of the church.

Yes, I've seen it many times in Church leadership roles. Moreover, it happens all the time in my personal life, too ... including very recently.

As I have noted numerous times in the past, Saints who are intimately familiar with the processes of revelation don't seem to get their knickers in a knot as they watch the prophets engage in the exact same processes.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

I honestly believe this is the biggest issue the church will face in the near future.  I believe when the leadership of the church starts to assign an aura of divine revelation to every decision they make, then the very concept of Christ running the church gets put in jeopardy. I think there are indications of that already where so many members push back against "divine guidance" on things that just don't seem to be much more than a consensus among the leadership.  I have never seen such pushback on revelations from God by otherwise faithful members of the church as what is going on now.  Did God actually command that the church drop the name Mormon?  Did God institute the changes in how the priesthood is organized?  Did God decide that 2 hour block is the way to go?  Did God decide to drop some of the pageants?  Did God change the age of missionary service?  Did God demand that women wear less earings?  The list is endless.

 I believe this is why there are huge groups of faithful members who now believe that not everything that is claimed as revelation is.  This has caused a loss of credibility in claims of prophetic communication with God.  For many members, the prophet of the church is now looked upon as more just the current leader of the church and less the divine spokesman for God on earth.  These claims of divine revelation on what most would view as organizational adjustments seem of such little importance compared to many significant questions that God could be addressing, but hasn't.

It's an interesting dilemma as to how to approach prophetic counsel. 

1- The prophet is only the prophet when he is acting as such and we acknowledge that prophets are fallible while simultaneously claiming...

2- Follow the prophet, even if he is wrong. It doesn't matter if he's declaring doctrine or policy, it is God's will.

IOW- some members try to have it both ways. God is absolutely leading this church through the prophet who is His mouthpiece...except for when he isn't.

 

[Jeanne]

Sometimes, with all the changes I have seen in the church since Pres. Nelson....I wonder if those changes would have been the same if for some reason the Apostle Oaks was President instead?

Would ideas and prophecies/policy changes been even the same at all?  Does anyone wonder how much they all agree on things?  They are united because they need to be...but where is the line in change as fora as a church that is said to be headed by the Savior?

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes, I've seen it many times in Church leadership roles. Moreover, it happens all the time in my personal life, too ... including very recently.

As I have noted numerous times in the past, Saints who are intimately familiar with the processes of revelation don't seem to get their knickers in a knot as they watch the prophets engage in the exact same processes.

Interesting how those who refuse to acknowledge the hand of God governing in the affairs of His children insist on seeing it in terms of earthly political intrigue.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Interesting how those who refuse to acknowledge the hand of God governing in the affairs of His children insist on seeing it in terms of earthly political intrigue.

It's really not all that interesting, or surprising.

On one hand, we see that men with power generally behave a certain way. Politics is a part of every institution we are a part of and every institution we see on earth. We have experience that leads us to see things a certain way.

On the other hand some would have us believe that the church is different than every other organization on earth. We are told that it operates differently, yet we can't see how it operates differently.

Why would/should we expect the church to be free of politics, and thus political intrigue. It goes against everything we know about people, relationships, power, and organizations.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Politics is a part of every institution we are a part of and every institution we see on earth ...

On the other hand some would have us believe that the church is different than every other organization on earth. We are told that it operates differently, yet we can't see how it operates differently.

I suspect your experiences serving in the Church have been radically different to my experiences then.

[ttribe]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I quoted this same section on another thread but it got deleted   I've been having problems posting lately.

In any case, it seems clear that "revelation" may be synonymous with "agenda". Pres. Nelson has had some long term beliefs about the way things work in the church and only now that he is President, can he make those changes. I'm wondering how he views revelation playing a role. Was it revelation in the 80's when he first spoke about "Mormon" and that revelation is now more important because he's president? Or is it a current revelation telling him that his long-held position needs to be enacted now?

It seems to me that he receives revelation just like every other president, but he talks about it differently to make it feel more momentous, or to give the  actions greater authority/import. I wonder if he felt the previous presidents didn't receive revelation as they acted in ways contrary to his personal preference, or if he's simply a firm believer in Benson's 14 fundamentals, especially the one about the living prophet being more important than a dead prophet.

Funny how this backward looking spin labels as some kind of preparatory "revelation" any idea which popped into the head of the now-President of the Church prior to his elevation to that office.  I wonder how many "revelations" L. Tom Perry had, but never got to use because he died too soon, for example?  It's all too convenient.  Not to mention, without this hindsight approach, the entire thing is indistinguishable from a change in leadership in just about any other large organization; religious, or otherwise.

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, halconero said:

I have no problem with a "leashed" President Nelson receiving revelations in preparation for his ministry now. It doesn't make the old presidents wrong, nor does it mean the revelations not valid.

If President Nelson had said "While the name 'Mormon' has served us well in the past, it's time for us to focus on the correct name of the Church going forward...", then you might have a point.  But the way he phrased it made it sound like it was never okay. 

And since at least one previous President (Monson) kind of went all-in on us being called "Mormons", it kind of does make him "wrong."

Edited October 31, 2018 by cinepro

[Ouagadougou]

15 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If President Nelson had said "While the name 'Mormon' has served us well in the past, it's time for us to focus on the correct name of the Church going forward...", then you might have a point.  But the way he phrased it made it sound like it was never okay. 

And since at least one previous President (Monson) kind of went all-in on us being called "Mormons", it kind of does make him "wrong."

Exactly!

And how many videos of the "I am a Mormon" campaign has the put church put out over the last five years?  So, just a few years ago, the term "Mormon" was 100% ok with God, but then he just suddenly changed his stance in 2018? Additionally, out of everything taking place across the world on a daily basis, one of the major revelations is that the term "Mormon" is now obsolete?  

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/categories/im-a-mormon?lang=eng

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

The amount of grumbling and complaining has shocked me a little. Do we believing in a loving prophet or not?

I do. And I’m not at all shocked the Lord would reveal things earlier. Especially when I’ve had experiences like that myself. I knew who the new elders quorum President would be before he did. If I can learn things from revelation before the changes are implemented why wouldn’t any of the apostles?

Yep.

4 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I hope your binary view of faith brings you peace.

Agreed, death to those idiots who see things in binary terms!!!!

I mean....look at this binary idiot:

"When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Well, in all the years the church has been around, God didn't change a prophet that probably should have been dealt with, I can think of the first two. 

I disrespectfully disagree. I love Brother Joseph and Brother Brigham.

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

It is very clear to me that he shared his revelation with others. This is what apostles do in general conference (share what the Lord has impressed upon their minds in various ways—dreams, visions, workings of the heart and mind whether quickly or over a lifetime, answer to prayer, etc.).

 

I have no doubt that as an Apostle he shared his revelation in council when appropriate. I think the topics for discussion are driven by the Lord through the First Presidency who have the keys to do this. I attribute this latest initiative being done after so many years of Elder Nelson feeling impressed about it to the Lord’s timing through someone He had been preparing to do it.

 

I think this, as with other initiatives, is important enough for the Lord to have on His timetable and at the right time and with those prepared to do so impress upon the First Presidency to obtain unanimous council approval.

 

We are counseled to incorporate revelation into our planning all the time, whether we plan for temporal or Church-related pursuits.

Yep. A lot of these changes were being discussed while President Monson was still alive and some of them while he was still in good health and I would bet that parts of these changes came from other apostles. They do talk.

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Aren’t we all?  ‘Course it’ll fade away

Doubt it. We are talking about the one institution that will survive until at least the ending of the world. We will change the emphasis. Some others will too; some will not. Both will eventually be wiped out. I expect in the Millenium when teaching history the teacher will have to explain what the term Mormon means to the students when perusing old documents.

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Ok then but it’s also not in any sense unique to the church.  Every org out there has been running on continuing revelation just as the church, under such considerations.  

Saying revelation can be about simple and humdrum things does not mean that I think revelation is every random neuron firing in everyone's brain or that revelation is common.

[Gray]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

This says nothing of his priesthood office as President of the Church or how/when successorship is handled, or if the President can be removed from office or not.  

From my understanding, corporation sole structure simply means that the corporation can "pass without interval in time from one office holder to the next successor - in-office, giving the positions legal continuity with subsequent office holders having identical powers and possessions to their predecessors."

D&C 107 is still in force as far as his office goes. 

 

From what I understand, from the way the church has been specifically set up, the President of the Church is actually the sole legal owner of the organization.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I don't consider abandoning the term "Mormon" to be a divine revelation; rather, I view it as a matter of personal opinion. I think the late President Joseph F. Smith Jr. would probably disagree with President Nelson, who wrote the following about five years before he became an apostle:

I expect that if President Joseph F. Smith were here he would tell you he fully supports President Nelson in this decision. For all we know he might be one of the people who is for it on the other side.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I honestly believe this is the biggest issue the church will face in the near future.  I believe when the leadership of the church starts to assign an aura of divine revelation to every decision they make, then the very concept of Christ running the church gets put in jeopardy. I think there are indications of that already where so many members push back against "divine guidance" on things that just don't seem to be much more than a consensus among the leadership.  I have never seen such pushback on revelations from God by otherwise faithful members of the church as what is going on now.  Did God actually command that the church drop the name Mormon?  Did God institute the changes in how the priesthood is organized?  Did God decide that 2 hour block is the way to go?  Did God decide to drop some of the pageants?  Did God change the age of missionary service?  Did God demand that women wear less earings?  The list is endless.

 I believe this is why there are huge groups of faithful members who now believe that not everything that is claimed as revelation is.  This has caused a loss of credibility in claims of prophetic communication with God.  For many members, the prophet of the church is now looked upon as more just the current leader of the church and less the divine spokesman for God on earth.  These claims of divine revelation on what most would view as organizational adjustments seem of such little importance compared to many significant questions that God could be addressing, but hasn't.

I think it is more likely that they never really believed in continuing revelation or ascribe only to the canon. I do expect an exodus of members over stuff coming from the prophets but that is probably sadly inevitable. If we have people pushing back on the two hour block or combining priesthood quorums imagine what will happen if we announce a program to implement consecration or encourage saints to lobby to legalize plural marriage, or start speaking with things that strongly contradict our political or social views to where we have to abandon our sacred cows/idols to be obedient. That is when things get interesting.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's an interesting dilemma as to how to approach prophetic counsel. 

1- The prophet is only the prophet when he is acting as such and we acknowledge that prophets are fallible while simultaneously claiming...

2- Follow the prophet, even if he is wrong. It doesn't matter if he's declaring doctrine or policy, it is God's will.

IOW- some members try to have it both ways. God is absolutely leading this church through the prophet who is His mouthpiece...except for when he isn't.

Or you just use the Holy Ghost while acknowledging that the Church is the Kingdom of God and you do owe it loyalty. So if you are convinced that something an Apostle has said is wrong you keep quiet to avoid creating dissension and trust to God to correct the error in His own time and in His own way. I think your choice is a false dichotomy.

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's really not all that interesting, or surprising.

On one hand, we see that men with power generally behave a certain way. Politics is a part of every institution we are a part of and every institution we see on earth. We have experience that leads us to see things a certain way.

On the other hand some would have us believe that the church is different than every other organization on earth. We are told that it operates differently, yet we can't see how it operates differently.

Why would/should we expect the church to be free of politics, and thus political intrigue. It goes against everything we know about people, relationships, power, and organizations.

It is not completely free but those who try to play political games are inevitably frustrated. People can't see that it operates differently because they use their own earthy motivations or those they have observed in others to explain everything. If all you have is a hammer the Church looks like a nail. If you diversify your toolkit and have seen righteous government in action (in a family or in the church) it looks much different.

56 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Funny how this backward looking spin labels as some kind of preparatory "revelation" any idea which popped into the head of the now-President of the Church prior to his elevation to that office.  I wonder how many "revelations" L. Tom Perry had, but never got to use because he died too soon, for example?  It's all too convenient.  Not to mention, without this hindsight approach, the entire thing is indistinguishable from a change in leadership in just about any other large organization; religious, or otherwise.

Funnier how you made all that up. Every "idea which popped into the head"? Really?

I suppose it might appear indistinguishable unless you have the Spirit confirming it. If you do it is exciting and very different. I highly recommend it.

33 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If President Nelson had said "While the name 'Mormon' has served us well in the past, it's time for us to focus on the correct name of the Church going forward...", then you might have a point.  But the way he phrased it made it sound like it was never okay. 

And since at least one previous President (Monson) kind of went all-in on us being called "Mormons", it kind of does make him "wrong."

Or more likely he knew that stronger language was needed to bash it into our heads. Soft words like "focus" have been used before to emphasize the name. It is like the Word of Wisdom. Originally it was a suggestion that was only slowly moved to full enforcement to give people time to adjust. Adjustment time is now over. Now it is a command and he used strong language to convey that it is serious. Even as strong as it was people are already trying to soft-pedal it. Maybe he should break out a stronger hellfire sermon for next conference?

15 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Exactly!

And how many videos of the "I am a Mormon" campaign has the put church put out over the last five years?  So, just a few years ago, the term "Mormon" was 100% ok with God, but then he just suddenly changed his stance in 2018? Additionally, out of everything taking place across the world on a daily basis, one of the major revelations is that the term "Mormon" is now obsolete?  

A few. It did what good it could. It is done now. And the term was not 100% okay. It was a concession to culture and commonplace usage for years. I was hearing talks about emphasizing the real name of the church when I was a teenager over 20 years ago. This is not a bolt of lightning out of nowhere.

And I have to admit I find the argument that something is unimportant to be a trite overused argument against revelation. As if God is holding back the answer to world hunger or world peace so he can give this revelation instead. We already have the answers to those. We aren't living them.

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

From what I understand, from the way the church has been specifically set up, the President of the Church is actually the sole legal owner of the organization.

Probably, though I am sure there are provisions in place for disability and possibly for removal.

Edited October 31, 2018 by The Nehor

[Ouagadougou]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I expect that if President Joseph F. Smith were here he would tell you he fully supports President Nelson in this decision. For all we know he might be one of the people who is for it on the other side.

I think it is more likely that they never really believed in continuing revelation or ascribe only to the canon. I do expect an exodus of members over stuff coming from the prophets but that is probably sadly inevitable. If we have people pushing back on the two hour block or combining priesthood quorums imagine what will happen if we announce a program to implement consecration or encourage saints to lobby to legalize plural marriage, or start speaking with things that strongly contradict our political or social views to where we have to abandon our sacred cows/idols to be obedient. That is when things get interesting.

Or you just use the Holy Ghost while acknowledging that the Church is the Kingdom of God and you do owe it loyalty. So if you are convinced that something an Apostle has said is wrong you keep quiet to avoid creating dissension and trust to God to correct the error in His own time and in His own way. I think your choice is a false dichotomy.

It is not completely free but those who try to play political games are inevitably frustrated. People can't see that it operates differently because they use their own earthy motivations or those they have observed in others to explain everything. If all you have is a hammer the Church looks like a nail. If you diversify your toolkit and have seen righteous government in action (in a family or in the church) it looks much different.

Funnier how you made all that up. Every "idea which popped into the head"? Really?

I suppose it might appear indistinguishable unless you have the Spirit confirming it. If you do it is exciting and very different. I highly recommend it.

Or more likely he knew that stronger language was needed to bash it into our heads. Soft words like "focus" have been used before to emphasize the name. It is like the Word of Wisdom. Originally it was a suggestion that was only slowly moved to full enforcement to give people time to adjust. Adjustment time is now over. Now it is a command and he used strong language to convey that it is serious. Even as strong as it was people are already trying to soft-pedal it. Maybe he should break out a stronger hellfire sermon for next conference?

A few. It did what good it could. It is done now. And the term was not 100% okay. It was a concession to culture and commonplace usage for years. I was hearing talks about emphasizing the real name of the church when I was a teenager over 20 years ago. This is not a bolt of lightning out of nowhere.

And I have to admit I find the argument that something is unimportant to be a trite overused argument against revelation. As if God is holding back the answer to world hunger or world peace so he can give this revelation instead. We already have the answers to those. We aren't living them.

IMO, President Nelson hasn't really provided any real revelation at all as the prophet--just some schedule and institutional changes.  Consolidating a quorm requires about as much "revelation" as reorganizing a garage, IMO.  In fact, I would argue that my garage required way more divine intervention and revelation to reorganize.  😀

[Gray]

25 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Probably, though I am sure there are provisions in place for disability and possibly for removal.

Could be. Someone feeling less lazy than me should look it up!

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Could be. Someone feeling less lazy than me should look it up!

I doubt it is publicly available.

[Ouagadougou]

32 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I expect that if President Joseph F. Smith were here he would tell you he fully supports President Nelson in this decision. For all we know he might be one of the people who is for it on the other side.

Not according to what he wrote before he was an apostle...he contradicts what President Nelson stated.  But if God is constant and unchanging (and revelation comes from him), then he is giving different church leaders conflicting advice and suddenly changed his stance on the term "Mormon" in 2018.  

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

The only problem that I see with it is if Pres. Nelson was doing things contrary to the will of God and the direction of the spirit.  I don't see that we can make that argument from the quote being discussed.  Is there something else, in your opinion, to take issue with in regards to the quote?

Quote

It is as though he's been unleashed. He's free to finally do what he came to earth to do. … And also, he's free to follow through with things he's been concerned about

 

The way I see it there are two possibilities.  Let's use the word Mormon as the example.

1. God had two different needs for his Church at two different times so gave two different prophets different instruction.  Absolutely entirely possible.  No problem with that.

2. Two different Presidents of the Church differ on this point and the first gets things his way, then when he passes on the second thinks "he's free to follow through with things he's been concerned about". I have issues with such an attitude.

I  find it very hard (ie impossible) to believe that President Nelson is making all these sweeping changes because God suddenly wanted them made but didn't a year ago, 3 years ago, or longer.  This is President Nelson's vision for the Church.  God may well be ok with it.  Maybe God even gave the go ahead by revelation when asked in prayer.

But this started with Russell M. Nelson.  This is his vision of the Church,  right or wrong.  And I don't think for a second he is done with his overhaul.

[Ouagadougou]

If using the term "Mormon" is a victory for Satan and offensive to the Lord, then shouldn't the name of this website technically be changed from "Mormon Dialogue" to the "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Dialogue?" 

 

Edited November 1, 2018 by Ouagadougou

[JLHPROF]

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I expect that if President Joseph F. Smith were here he would tell you he fully supports President Nelson in this decision. For all we know he might be one of the people who is for it on the other side.

If he was here today he'd be horrified, I guarantee it.  But the usage of "Mormon" wouldn't even crack the top 10.

[Ouagadougou]

57 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I expect that if President Joseph F. Smith were here he would tell you he fully supports President Nelson in this decision. For all we know he might be one of the people who is for it on the other side.

I think it is more likely that they never really believed in continuing revelation or ascribe only to the canon. I do expect an exodus of members over stuff coming from the prophets but that is probably sadly inevitable. If we have people pushing back on the two hour block or combining priesthood quorums imagine what will happen if we announce a program to implement consecration or encourage saints to lobby to legalize plural marriage, or start speaking with things that strongly contradict our political or social views to where we have to abandon our sacred cows/idols to be obedient. That is when things get interesting.

Or you just use the Holy Ghost while acknowledging that the Church is the Kingdom of God and you do owe it loyalty. So if you are convinced that something an Apostle has said is wrong you keep quiet to avoid creating dissension and trust to God to correct the error in His own time and in His own way. I think your choice is a false dichotomy.

It is not completely free but those who try to play political games are inevitably frustrated. People can't see that it operates differently because they use their own earthy motivations or those they have observed in others to explain everything. If all you have is a hammer the Church looks like a nail. If you diversify your toolkit and have seen righteous government in action (in a family or in the church) it looks much different.

Funnier how you made all that up. Every "idea which popped into the head"? Really?

I suppose it might appear indistinguishable unless you have the Spirit confirming it. If you do it is exciting and very different. I highly recommend it.

Or more likely he knew that stronger language was needed to bash it into our heads. Soft words like "focus" have been used before to emphasize the name. It is like the Word of Wisdom. Originally it was a suggestion that was only slowly moved to full enforcement to give people time to adjust. Adjustment time is now over. Now it is a command and he used strong language to convey that it is serious. Even as strong as it was people are already trying to soft-pedal it. Maybe he should break out a stronger hellfire sermon for next conference?

A few. It did what good it could. It is done now. And the term was not 100% okay. It was a concession to culture and commonplace usage for years. I was hearing talks about emphasizing the real name of the church when I was a teenager over 20 years ago. This is not a bolt of lightning out of nowhere.

And I have to admit I find the argument that something is unimportant to be a trite overused argument against revelation. As if God is holding back the answer to world hunger or world peace so he can give this revelation instead. We already have the answers to those. We aren't living them.

If this term is done now, then the name of this website "Mormon Dialogue" should be changed...

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

Not according to what he wrote before he was an apostle...he contradicts what President Nelson stated.  But if God is constant and unchanging (and revelation comes from him), then he is giving different church leaders conflicting advice and suddenly changed his stance on the term "Mormon" in 2018.  

God told Noah to build an ark. Therefore it is always a good idea for people to build arks.

God is unchanging. We are not and nor are out circumstances. His stance did not change. We changed or our situation changed.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has always accepted this. Joseph Smith talked about it. You can disagree with it but you cannot claim to be blindsided by it.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Sometimes, with all the changes I have seen in the church since Pres. Nelson....I wonder if those changes would have been the same if for some reason the Apostle Oaks was President instead?

Would ideas and prophecies/policy changes been even the same at all?  Does anyone wonder how much they all agree on things?  They are united because they need to be...but where is the line in change as fora as a church that is said to be headed by the Savior?

Maybe. Maybe not. I find the Lord uses our strengths and weaknesses to effect change. 

So maybe President Oaks would have done the same thing or maybe he would have done something that goes with his strengths.

I'm not sure it matters for the most part. Obviously there are times like with Joseph of Egypt where timing really matters (saving the grain in the time of plenty), but maybe 1 prophet needs to do something and another one needs to do something before the Lord comes and it doesn’t really matter which one is done first.