Views on Name Correction vs. Wrong Name Continuance

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

He also stated that as a Bishopric they’re making an effort to always use the proper name.  I think that’s support.

I find his observations that you quote above to be spot on and see the same in my ward.

 

Ok.  No doubt there are lots of members also trying to respect Pres. Nelson's request.  I have no idea what people do in my ward.  I haven't paid any attention.

Edited March 29, 2019 by bluebell

[let’s roll]

I note for the OP that there was a recent thread on this topic with hundreds of responses which I invite you to peruse.

If Pres. Nelson has a pet peeve, I’d suggest that it is the fact that there are members of Christ’s church that have no working knowledge of, and no functioning relationship with, the Savior.  

I suggest those with eyes to see and ears to hear see what has been characterized as a naming issue as part of a larger tapestry, which includes the Prophet’s emphasis on the need for all of us to receive personal revelation.  The totality of the tapestry is preparing ourselves to receive all that the Father has prepared for us.

Those who take a myopic view of the guidance see what they choose to see.  Those whose eyes can see afar off see the Prophet lovingly inviting God’s children to realize, or remember, whose we are, at what price we were bought, and the debt we owe which we can never repay.  Those with that perspective will embrace every invitation to have His name on their lips.  

A first step to the relationship and communion with Deity, which both Deity and the Prophet desire for each of us.

[Stargazer]

Nothing is being called into question.  Past practices are being sharpened because circumstances have changed or are about to change.  

Your insistence that past leaders are being disrespected calls into question your own beliefs, assuming that you're a Christian, @Joshua Valentine.   Until Moses was instructed otherwise, the laws before Leviticus consisted only of sacrifice of certain animals.  But then the complex system of Leviticus became the law. Until Peter was directed otherwise, the Gospel was only sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.  Then the Lord directed that the work was to expand to all others.  And the Law of Moses was fulfilled.  Moses was not disrespected.  Abraham was not disrespected.  The situation changed, and Lord's system of worship changed with it.

Insisting upon absolute consistency over all time is man's game, not God's.  Besides, men have changed the ordinances and the teachings to suit themselves -- is not God allowed to make His own changes when and how it suits Him?

Edited March 29, 2019 by Stargazer

[JAHS]

Old habits are hard to break. Recently the wards in our stake were changed from a number (eg. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th ward) to each one having a unique name based on where the ward boundaries were.
It was very hard to call each ward by their new name because we had called them by the other number for so long. Slowly everyone has been able to make the change. But it has taken some time to do it.
With this new effort spearheaded by President Nelson, I think at least the members will eventually be able to make the change to calling the Church by it's real name, but it will take some time. 

[changed]

The church of Yeshua?  The church of Jeshua?  ... seems like the JW's have a more correct name... 

A rose by any other name...

[changed]

25 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I note for the OP that there was a recent thread on this topic with hundreds of responses which I invite you to peruse.

If Pres. Nelson has a pet peeve, I’d suggest that it is the fact that there are members of Christ’s church that have no working knowledge of, and no functioning relationship with, the Savior.  

I suggest those with eyes to see and ears to hear see what has been characterized as a naming issue as part of a larger tapestry, which includes the Prophet’s emphasis on the need for all of us to receive personal revelation.  The totality of the tapestry is preparing ourselves to receive all that the Father has prepared for us.

Those who take a myopic view of the guidance see what they choose to see.  Those whose eyes can see afar off see the Prophet lovingly inviting God’s children to realize, or remember, whose we are, at what price we were bought, and the debt we owe which we can never repay.  Those with that perspective will embrace every invitation to have His name on their lips.  

A first step to the relationship and communion with Deity, which both Deity and the Prophet desire for each of us.

 

If the push is for members to go directly to the Savior with no middle-men, and to rely on their family above the organization, I think that is a wonderful step in the right direction.  

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that all mortals are foolish, including President Nelson, when compared to a perfect deity.  

The idea of a God that cares about labels and names more than other seemingly much more important priorities, like poverty, slavery, abuse, is concerning to me theologically speaking.  

There are two solutions to the problems to the problems you rate as more important. Convert people to the gospel or burn all the wicked. We are not ready for the latter yet or a lot of people would be much blacker and crispier. The emphasis on the name emphasis is to make it easier for people to convert to the gospel and thus mitigate those problems. Talking about all the serious problems in the world is a copout. There is nothing the prophet can say that will end abuse but if everyone in the world would listen to and heed the prophet abuse would end but even our own members seem resistant to it.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Another possible analogy would be the Adam God doctrine, that Brigham Young was passionate about, but quickly fell out of favor and is now considered heretical.  

The conclusions members built around are heretical. I am not so sure that what Brigham Young said was.

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The conclusions members built around are heretical. I am not so sure that what Brigham Young said was.

I think another Prophet called his teachings false doctrine.  

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think another Prophet called his teachings false doctrine.  

President Kimball. I have been reading old Conference reports and hit that one not too long ago:

“We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.”

The Adam God theory is the idea that Adam who dwelt in Eden is the Eternal Father and I agree with President Kimball that this teaching is heresy.

[hope_for_things]

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There are two solutions to the problems to the problems you rate as more important. Convert people to the gospel or burn all the wicked. We are not ready for the latter yet or a lot of people would be much blacker and crispier. The emphasis on the name emphasis is to make it easier for people to convert to the gospel and thus mitigate those problems. Talking about all the serious problems in the world is a copout. There is nothing the prophet can say that will end abuse but if everyone in the world would listen to and heed the prophet abuse would end but even our own members seem resistant to it.

Those "solutions" aren't even close to satisfying to me.  Sounds like a shallow and petty God, the kind I might encounter playing some online video game with prepubescents.  The idea that the prophet or anyone else can't possibly eliminate all abuse everywhere, so shouldn't even try to work towards those ends is a good example of the perfectionist fallacy.  Why should we do any good at all then if we can't fix these problems 100% of the time, whats the point?    

[hope_for_things]

39 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The conclusions members built around are heretical. I am not so sure that what Brigham Young said was.

Its heretical according to contemporary church leaders like President Kimball.  Or are you claiming that the doctrines Brigham taught on Adam God are still compatible with contemporary Mormon doctrine?  I haven't seen any examples where these teachings are considered acceptable in our modern church during my lifetime.  

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, changed said:

 

If the push is for members to go directly to the Savior with no middle-men, and to rely on their family above the organization, I think that is a wonderful step in the right direction.  

For some, that’s always been our understanding, and the Church has reinforced that.  I’ve been taught countless times in Church that James 1 is the cornerstone of the restoration and that God’s promise that He will give His wisdom to ANYONE (member or non-member, no middleman) who asks with the requisite intent is real and to be acted upon.

I’ve also been invited countless times in Church to act on the Savior’s invitation to “come unto me” (no middleman) and receive His rest (freedom from fear and doubt).

My experience has been that as those invitations are acted upon, Divine wisdom and rest are, in fact experienced, a portion of which is the ability to understand the words spoken by the servants of Deity, in the way Deity and their servants intend them to be understood.

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

First, I am curious to know how members view the possible implication that by ¨correcting¨ the habits and policies of the naming of the LDS Church and its members Nelson is calling into question the leadership of previous presidents. Nelson did not simply say that this is what we are going to try to do now because God has said this is a good time to do it, he indicated that God had been offended for all the years and all the presidents that the Christ-less terms were used (and somehow either did not speak, was not heard, or was not obeyed).

As the Salt Lake Tribune related about Gordon B. Hinckley:

Gordon B. Hinckley, who became church president in 1995, understood the dilemma.

“‘The Mormon church,’ of course, is a nickname. And nicknames have a way of becoming fixed,” he preached in the October 1990 General Conference. “I suppose that regardless of our efforts, we may never convert the world to general use of the full and correct name of the church. Because of the shortness of the word ‘Mormon’ and the ease with which it is spoken and written, they will continue to call us the Mormons, the Mormon church, and so forth.”

Hinckley recalled a member in England telling him: “While I’m thankful for the privilege of being a follower of Jesus Christ and a member of the church which bears his name, I am not ashamed of the nickname ‘Mormon.’”

When someone asked him about it, the man replied, “‘Mormon’ means ‘more good.’”

Hinckley knew that wasn’t the actual meaning, but adopted the man’s thinking about the tag.

“We may not be able to change the nickname,” the affable leader concluded, “but we can make it shine with added luster.”

After all, Hinckley said, Mormon is the “name of a man who was a great [Book of Mormon] prophet who struggled to save his nation, and also the name of a book which is a mighty testament of eternal truth, a veritable witness of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ.”

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/08/16/lds-church-wants-everyone/

 

Second, I would like to know what members have heard or plan to do themselves when it specifically comes to referring to members of the LDS Church. The statements by Nelson seem to indicate that ¨Latter-day Saint¨ (not LDS) is fine or ¨member of the Church of...¨. What will you call fellow members/yourselves? Thanks!

 

This really is quite humorous.  It is pretty clear this has been a pet peeve of Nelson's for some time. Now he has the power, he can mandate it as a revelation.  Yet all his predecessors apparently were not in tune enough with God to fix it.

Of all the issues in the world now this is the one thing the God of the universe has decided to emphasize to his current so called prophet? Really?  This just makes it clear an LDS Prophet really isn't all that valuable in navigating the challenges the 7 billion humans in the world have to deal with.

Thank you President Nelson for showing the world that you really don't have much to offer.

[Teancum]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think in recent years, the Brethren have been united in trying to get the membership to use the full and proper name of the Savior’s Church. I believe it is members who have refused to comply who have played into the adversary’s hands and, to the extent they continue to refuse, continue to do so. 

I think you are dissembling and not being honest at all about what past leaders thought about the use of the name Mormon Church. Its clear this is a pet peeve of President Nelson and now he has the power to elevate it. 

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think God felt we were done with the transition period of getting away from the nicknames and abbreviations and, through President Nelson, is now making it a command. It seems petty to many but they are comparatively foolish mortals (many with an axe to grind) whereas God sees the end from the beginning and sees that this change will have positive effects for at least one and more likely many of his children.

This is really stretching it. 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Teancum

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Those "solutions" aren't even close to satisfying to me.  Sounds like a shallow and petty God, the kind I might encounter playing some online video game with prepubescents.  The idea that the prophet or anyone else can't possibly eliminate all abuse everywhere, so shouldn't even try to work towards those ends is a good example of the perfectionist fallacy.  Why should we do any good at all then if we can't fix these problems 100% of the time, whats the point?    

So you are suggesting the prophet should give partial solutions. I agree. Hence, convert people to Christ so they oppose these evils. Done.

[10THAmendment]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes. I am not saying it would be a particularly serious sin but it would be one unless done out of ignorance or accidentally out of habit. I did it when I was teaching two weeks ago but I caught myself and corrected it.

If the prophet cannot give commandements from God then no one can and since all of the General commands we have (absenting those given by personal revelation or by local leaders or to families) were usually received by prophets and were virtually always recorded by prophets if we cannot trust a prophet’s counsel we should either chuck the scriptures or admit we prefer to garnish the sepulcheres of dead prophets while defying the living ones. President Nelson was very clear about how serious this is. It is ironic. If he makes it clear how serious it is some people accuse him of hyperbole and being petty. If he had soft-pedaled it the same people would have dismissed it as vague counsel.

Brigham Young was also very serious and clear on his teachings that Adam is God the Father and that black people are inherently evil. 

The whole prophet thing is not as black and white as many try to make it seem. If the church's presidents didn't have a history of preaching false doctrine and/or contradicting each other then I would be out of place to question whether they are speaking for themselves or for God. 

 

 

[The Nehor]

31 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its heretical according to contemporary church leaders like President Kimball.  Or are you claiming that the doctrines Brigham taught on Adam God are still compatible with contemporary Mormon doctrine?  I haven't seen any examples where these teachings are considered acceptable in our modern church during my lifetime.  

I suspect they are compatible and go beyond what is commonly taught but the mysteries of God are revealed to many but they are commanded to only preach what is generally taught.

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, Teancum said:

This is really stretching it. 

I disrespectfully disagree.

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So you are suggesting the prophet should give partial solutions. I agree. Hence, convert people to Christ so they oppose these evils. Done.

No, I'm suggesting the prophet focus on real issues that help this world and not name changes and labels.  

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I suspect they are compatible and go beyond what is commonly taught but the mysteries of God are revealed to many but they are commanded to only preach what is generally taught.

Kimball didn't think they were compatible.  I'm pretty sure you'd be disciplined if the church caught you teaching Adam God doctrine today in church.  How is it possibly compatible?  

[10THAmendment]

13 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Kimball didn't think they were compatible.  I'm pretty sure you'd be disciplined if the church caught you teaching Adam God doctrine today in church.  How is it possibly compatible?  

Because if it's incompatible that means prophets can be misled and in turn lead people astray. It really is a tough thing to accept.

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

No, I'm suggesting the prophet focus on real issues that help this world and not name changes and labels.  

The real issue is to lead the children of God unto Christ which this counsel is intended to help. 

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Kimball didn't think they were compatible.  I'm pretty sure you'd be disciplined if the church caught you teaching Adam God doctrine today in church.  How is it possibly compatible?  

I would be told to stop and rightfully so. We are only meant to teach the doctrines publicly revealed by the apostles. Even if what I taught was correct and revealed to me personally I should still keep my mouth shut.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

Because if it's incompatible that means prophets can be misled and in turn lead people astray. It really is a tough thing to accept.

This is one of a many many things that prophets have been wrong about.  No surprises, humans make mistakes every day.