Views on Name Correction vs. Wrong Name Continuance

[stemelbow]

I imagine after Nelson is gone other GAs will continue to bring it up and condemn everyone for not strictly obeying the laws of God or something, but I remain intrigued how much at issue this is and I suppose I'll be intrigued by how much at issue it will remain going forward.  As we know Nelson brought this up, pushed for this to some extent 30 years ago.  he used the same logic then as he does today.  Yet, as we see from all the efforts by the Church to push "Mormon" we know Nelson's efforts we largely ignored.  

Nelson from 1990:

Quote

But a nickname may offend either the one named or the parents who gave the name.

The name of which I shall speak is not a personal name, yet the same principles apply. I refer to a name given by the Lord:

Thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (D&C 115:4.)

Note carefully the language of the Lord. He did not say, “Thus shall my church be named.” He said, “Thus shall my church be called.” Years ago, its members were cautioned by the Brethren who wrote: “We feel that some may be misled by the too frequent use of the term ‘Mormon Church.’” (Member-Missionary Class—Instructor’s Guide, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982, p. 2.) Before any other name is considered to be a legitimate substitute, the thoughtful person might reverently consider the feelings of the Heavenly Parent who bestowed that name.

Surely every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord is precious. So each word in this name must be important—divinely designated for a reason. If we study the key words in that name, we can better understand the name’s full significance.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1990/04/thus-shall-my-church-be-called?lang=eng

He's explaining the same reasoning, it seems to me, he's used since he's become the president.  No one seemed to buy it 30 years ago, we should note.  Nicknames may offend, says Nelson.  I suppose that's true.  He seems to have inferred from the D&C that God finds offense in the nickname (since it's possible the nickname could offend).  Not the most convincing line of reasoning in my mind.  In fact, since it's also possible nicknames don't offend the parent or the person nicknamed, and in fact often get embraced as adored by the parent and the person, then we can also assume, since it's happened and God is in charge and all of that, that God is not in the least bit offended, and actually has embraced the great push by leaders pre-Nelson to adore the nickname. 

It seems the question he fails to address is how are scriptural accounts of God speaking God's word?  Some take the words literally as from God--as it appears Nelson has done here.  many take scriptural pronouncements, as Nelson has done, as more directive.  People have found themselves scouring scriptural words and trying to dig meaning out of them to the point of building a philosophy about their pet issues. 

After all, we know, past leaders were aware that Nelson took D&C as saying since God says the Church should be called The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, that means any reference to it should not be a nickname.  We should wonder, is that what God meant?  I mean the Church is called precisely what is outlined in section 115.  But, it really took God nearly 200 more years to get the message to his followers that he's offended by the use of a nickname?  

I've noticed something very interesting though as this has unfolded.  There's definitely a growing pressure within the Church org to obey Nelson.  Obeying someone's ideas have always been a hallmark of churchdom, within Mormonism.  Some new faddish idea, or pet issues by certain leaders, comes up and suddenly the faddish new letter of the law is a gauge on one's level of faithfulness.  I've not seen an end to the notion that we must follow the prophet on this very thing.  It's quite an in your face defiance of many of the messages of the NT, as Jesus often condemned the very thing that most often, it seems to me, drives members of the Church.  Ah well, I guess I'll sit back and observe it all the more going forward.

One other point I think worthy of consideration on this topic--Jesus was purported to have once said "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.  Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

If God was so concerned about what's in a name I'd wonder if he literally spoke the words found in Matthew?  I don't know of any reported incident wherein Church members in our day have cast out devils in the name of Jesus.  I can think of Nelson's own claim of saying he has prophesied in the name of Jesus, but those "revelations" as termed in today's vernacular hardly seem significant.  

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t remember the Brethren “vigorously marketing the Church under the Mormon name” — unless that is your snide characterization of what they were actually doing. 

huh?

Quote

The Church's national media campaign called “I’m a Mormon” (launched in 2010) included television spots, billboards, and ads on buses and on the Internet. The ads give a glimpse into the lives of Latter-day Saints from all over the world and refer people to the mormon.org website, where they can read the profiles of tens of thousands of Mormons, chat live with representatives who will answer questions about the faith and watch dozens of videos about members of the Church.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/-i-m-a-mormon-campaign

You mean on "Mormon"newsroom there's an explanation that the Church used the Mormon name to vigorously market the Church and you weren't familiar with such vigorous efforts?  Or are you saying the leaders or brethren weren't really behind this vigorous marketing?  Or are you saying since Nelson's announcement you either consciously or unconsciously wiped your brain of anything that related to the Church using the name Mormon?  

I'd be surprised to learn you were so completely unaware of what the Church has done over the past several years.  

[Exiled]

Let's just come out and say it plainly. This is obviously a product of President Nelson's personal thoughts on the matter. John Dehlin recently interviewed John Anderson, a former church employee, who worked with President Eyring on occasion. Mr. Anderson related at one point in the series of interviews that President Eyring confided to Mr. Anderson that he, President Eyring, always internally questioned himself about whether what he thought was inspiration was from God or from his own desires. First of all, one would think the distinction would be easier for President Eyring by now, but, it goes to show how the highest leaders struggle with this. 

https://www.mormonstories.org/episodes/

President Nelson was and continues to have one of those moments and continues to misread his emotions. Perhaps Wendy should get him a new pen?

In any event, take your vitamins and get ready for some more scheduling changes, name changes, program changes and marching orders. President Nelson's pen has been active lately and the autopen has been temporarily mothballed.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Exiled

[JulieM]

12 hours ago, stemelbow said:

huh?

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/-i-m-a-mormon-campaign

You mean on "Mormon"newsroom there's an explanation that the Church used the Mormon name to vigorously market the Church and you weren't familiar with such vigorous efforts?  Or are you saying the leaders or brethren weren't really behind this vigorous marketing?  Or are you saying since Nelson's announcement you either consciously or unconsciously wiped your brain of anything that related to the Church using the name Mormon?  

I'd be surprised to learn you were so completely unaware of what the Church has done over the past several years.  

I agree.  I don’t understand why some deny the history of the usage of the words Mormon (church) and Mormons (members).  It’s something to be proud of as President Hinckley expressed so well.

I get that President Nelson wants to emphasize the name of the church and include the name Jesus Christ.  I support that.  But let’s not be ashamed of being a Mormon or of our Mormon heritage and identity.

Edited April 3, 2019 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, stemelbow said:

huh?

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/-i-m-a-mormon-campaign

You mean on "Mormon"newsroom there's an explanation that the Church used the Mormon name to vigorously market the Church and you weren't familiar with such vigorous efforts?  Or are you saying the leaders or brethren weren't really behind this vigorous marketing?  Or are you saying since Nelson's announcement you either consciously or unconsciously wiped your brain of anything that related to the Church using the name Mormon?  

I'd be surprised to learn you were so completely unaware of what the Church has done over the past several years.  

I didn't see that as "marketing the Church" so much as endeavoring to improve the public image of its members. To me, marketing implies selling of doctrines, overt recruiting, etc.

 

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn't see that as "marketing the Church" so much as endeavoring to improve the public image of its members. To me, marketing implies selling of doctrines, overt recruiting, etc.

 

Marketing doesn’t have to include selling.  But if that word trips you up, you can change my statement to the Brethren were vigorously promoting the Church under the Mormon name. 

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Marketing doesn’t have to include selling.  But if that word trips you up, you can change my statement to the Brethren were vigorously promoting the Church under the Mormon name. 

But even while doing that, they were earnestly asking people not to drop the name of Christ from the name of the Church itself, not to call it “the Mormon church” or “the LDS Church.”  

The problem as stated all along is calling the Church by some other name than by the name of Christ. Apparently, President Nelson now feels that, in order to put a stop to that, it is necessary to not use the names “Mormon” or “LDS” even in some heretofore common usages apart from those directly referencing the Church. It’s all part of the course correction. I’m not going to gainsay him on it. 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But even while doing that, they were earnestly asking people not to drop the name of Christ from the name of the Church itself, not to call it “the Mormon church” or “the LDS Church.”  

The problem as stated all along is calling the Church by some other name than by the name of Christ. Apparently, President Nelson now feels that, in order to put a stop to that, it is necessary to not use the names “Mormon” or “LDS” even in some heretofore common usages apart from those directly referencing the Church. It’s all part of the course correction. I’m not going to gainsay him on it. 

And as I stated in my post, what Pres. Nelson is doing now “makes sense” (quoting myself  ).

I also stand by my statement that past prophets, seers, and revelators (presumably including President Nelson himself since the Quorum always operates in unity, right?) vigorously marketed (or promoted, if you prefer) the Mormon name.  So, calling such offensive to the Lord and a victory for Satan could be understood as a strong condemnation of those men.  

[Joshua Valentine]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But even while doing that, they were earnestly asking people not to drop the name of Christ from the name of the Church itself, not to call it “the Mormon church” or “the LDS Church.”  

The problem as stated all along is calling the Church by some other name than by the name of Christ. Apparently, President Nelson now feels that, in order to put a stop to that, it is necessary to not use the names “Mormon” or “LDS” even in some heretofore common usages apart from those directly referencing the Church. It’s all part of the course correction. I’m not going to gainsay him on it. 

Although its been a day or two since I read through it, I don´t recall his conference message giving this ¨in order to finally fix misunderstandings of the name of the Church we need to also fix what we call members¨ reasoning at all. In fact, his reasoning from taking on the name of Christ and the issue of leaving Christ out of the term for members clearly indicates that this is a name issue separate unto itself.  I do not recall any connection of member term correction to help with (what´s really important) the church name correction.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, rockpond said:

And as I stated in my post, what Pres. Nelson is doing now “makes sense” (quoting myself  ).

I also stand by my statement that past prophets, seers, and revelators (presumably including President Nelson himself since the Quorum always operates in unity, right?) vigorously marketed (or promoted, if you prefer) the Mormon name.  So, calling such offensive to the Lord and a victory for Satan could be understood as a strong condemnation of those men.  

But it was not promoted as a substitute name for the Church. For more than a decade now, Church leaders have been pleading with members not to drop the name of Christ from the name of the Church He founded. Can you not at least concede that much? As I read President Nelson in context, the “victory for Satan” refers to the insistence by some in using some other name besides the name of Christ to refer to His Church.** None of the Brethren, so far as I’m aware, have been OK with that. 

** Edited to add: This is how President Nelson put it in his October general conference address: “To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan.”

Edited April 3, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn't see that as "marketing the Church" so much as endeavoring to improve the public image of its members. To me, marketing implies selling of doctrines, overt recruiting, etc.

 

Ok.  If marketing the church is not marketing the church in your view, so be it.  I can now see why you are adamant about this.  

I still find this whole episode quite fascinating.  Nearly 30 years ago, Nelson brought this up.  he even suggested it could be possible that God is offended by the nickname.  Hinckley 6 mos afterward said we need to embrace the nickname--making clear God is not offended.  During the next near 3 decades the Church used "Mormon" to market the Church (or what you would call not market the Church, but endeavoring to improve the public image of the Church's members), and then after all of that, suddenly, Nelson gets the authority to push his pet issue and voila, God is offended.  Since God is unchanging he was likely offended the whole time.  And to boot, the only reason Satan gets excited and a win is because God is offended.  Then again, as followers of God, we were told nothing should offend us.  

What a silly little saga, huh?  

[JulieM]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But it was not promoted as a substitute name for the Church. 

Maybe not specifically saying it’s a “substitute name”, but the leaders have certainly promoted it as a name to be known by and a name to be proud of.

“For more than a decade now, Church leaders have been pleading with members not to drop the name of Christ from the name of the Church He founded.”

”Pleading”?  No.  Suggesting? Yes.

And not from all of “the leaders”.  I’ve seen mainly talks over the years by Russell M. Nelson addressing this.

Edited April 3, 2019 by JulieM

[stemelbow]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But it was not promoted as a substitute name for the Church.

https://www.lds.org/topics/mormon-church?lang=eng

Actually, as you can see in the link, the Church still officially suggests Mormon Church is a substitute name for the Church.  

 

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For more than a decade now, Church leaders have been pleading with members not to drop the name of Christ from the name of the Church He founded.

Actually for more than a decade now, Church leaders have promoted the Church and it's members under the nickname Mormon.  I think you know that.  

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Can you not at least concede that much? As I read President Nelson in context, the “victory for Satan” refers to the insistence by some in using some other name besides the name of Christ to refer to His Church. None of the Brethren, so far as I’m aware, have been OK with that. 

All of them have.  I've linked you to the official source on lds.org.  You are practicing some weird mental gymnastics to deny the obvious.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Maybe not specifically saying it’s a “substitute name”, but the leaders have certainly promoted it as a name to be known by and a name to be proud of.

“For more than a decade now, Church leaders have been pleading with members not to drop the name of Christ from the name of the Church He founded.”

”Pleading”?  No.  Suggesting? Yes.

And not from all of “the leaders”.  I’ve seen mainly talks over the years by Russell M. Nelson addressing this.

President Russell M. Nelson has addressed it repeatedly. And the instruction to use the proper name of the Church (I.e. not dropping out the name of Christ from it) has been part of The Church’s official style guide and in the Church handbooks for many years now. You are wrong if you think it has never been more than a mere “suggestion” that the Church be called after the name of the Savior. It has been a matter of some urgency. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

https://www.lds.org/topics/mormon-church?lang=eng

Actually, as you can see in the link, the Church still officially suggests Mormon Church is a substitute name for the Church.  

 

Actually for more than a decade now, Church leaders have promoted the Church and it's members under the nickname Mormon.  I think you know that.  

All of them have.  I've linked you to the official source on lds.org.  You are practicing some weird mental gymnastics to deny the obvious.

Can you cite even one who has been OK with calling it “the Mormon Church” or “the LDS Church” or “church of the Latter-day Saints” instead of making the name of Christ part of the name? Direct quote, please. And I’m not talking here about the “I’m a Mormon” campaign. I’m referring to the name of the Church itself. 

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

President Russell M. Nelson has addressed it repeatedly. And the instruction to use the proper name of the Church (I.e. not dropping out the name of Christ from it) has been part of The Church’s official style guide and in the Church handbooks for many years now. You are wrong if you think it has never been more than a mere “suggestion” that the Church be called after the name of the Savior. It has been a matter of some urgency. 

Yes, Russell M. Nelson has, but other leaders (Ie. Gordon B. Hinckley) have said otherwise.  And so have the actions, money spent and campaigns approved by the church leaders (promoting the name “Mormon”).

I’m not sure why you’re fighting documented history here of what has taken place.  No one is claiming that this hasn’t been a concern of President Nelson’s for years.  That much is obvious.  But it’s also obvious all other leaders didn’t feel strongly about it (enough to nix the usages of the word Mormon to describe the church and the members).  In fact, they approved money be spent to promote the name.

Edited April 3, 2019 by JulieM

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Can you cite even one who has been OK with calling it “the Mormon Church” or “the LDS Church” or “church of the Latter-day Saints” instead of making the name of Christ part of the name? Direct quote, please. And I’m not talking here about the “I’m a Mormon” campaign. I’m referring to the name of the Church itself. 

I"m not sure what more you want.  I just gave you the link wherein it says "Mormon Church" across the page.  Under it the line says "A commonly used term to describe Christ's restored Church".  Yes, I acknowledge under that it tells us the official name of the Church.  But you are being silly if you think this is somehow pleading with members to not drop the name of Christ from the Church.  It is endorsing the use of Mormon Church.  It is clearly stating the term Mormon Church is an acceptable alternative.  And we know the brethren don't allow things to be officially published unless they give their ok.  

Now, look.  This will get corrected at some point.  The Church will feel embarrassed due to Nelson's latest revelations on the matter and will change this, perhaps pretending that this never was.  

Edited April 3, 2019 by stemelbow

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, JulieM said:

Yes, Russell M. Nelson has, but other leaders (Ie. Gordon B. Hinckley) has said otherwise.  And so have the actions, money spent and campaigns approved by the church leaders (promoting the name “Mormon”).

Im not sure why you’re fighting documented history here of what has tearing place.  No one is claiming that this hasn’t been a concern of President Nelson’s for years.  That much is obvious.  But it’s also obvious all other leaders didn’t feel strongly about it (enough to nix the usages of the word Mormon to describe the church and the members).  In fact, they approved money be spent to promote the name.

President Hinckley (or any others of the Brethren) never gave approval for calling it “the Mormon church” or “the LDS Church” instead of calling it by Christ’s name. He presided over the Church at the time when the official statement was made that the proper name of the Church (or the shortened form Church of Jesus Christ) was to be used always and when that became boilerplate in official  Church news releases and was included in Church policy guidelines. 

Again, can you cite even one instance in which a high Church leader has indicated approval of calling it “the Mormon Church” or “the LDS church” instead of calling it after the name of Christ?  

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I"m not sure what more you want.  I just gave you the link wherein it says "Mormon Church" across the page.  Under it the line says "A commonly used term to describe Christ's restored Church".  Yes, I acknowledge under that it tells us the official name of the Church.  But you are being silly if you think this is somehow pleading with members to not drop the name of Christ from the Church.  It is endorsing the use of Mormon Church.  It is clearly stating the term Mormon Church is an acceptable alternative.  And we know the brethren don't allow things to be officially published unless they give their ok.  

Now, look.  This will get corrected at some point.  The Church will feel embarrassed due to Nelson's latest revelations on the matter and will change this, perhaps pretending that this never was.  

This is not an endorsement of the use of “Mormon Church”. It is only an acknowledgement in a reference work that it has commonly been used in the past and an occasion to give the correct  name of the Church. When you consider this in light of the numerous occasions when Church leaders have said not to remive Christ’s name from the name of the Church, it is absurd for you to call this an endorsement. 

Yoi say you are not sure what more I want. I’ve been very clear: Cite even one instance in which a high Church leader has expressed approval for leaving the name of Christ out of the name of the Church or admit that you can’t. 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

President Hinckley (or any others of the Brethren) never gave approval for calling it “the Mormon church” or “the LDS Church” instead of calling it by Christ’s name. He presided over the Church at the time when the official statement was made that the proper name of the Church (or the shortened form Church of Jesus Christ) was to be used always and when that became boilerplate in official  Church news releases and was included in Church policy guidelines. 

Again, can you cite even one instance in which a high Church leader has indicated approval of calling it “the Mormon Church” or “the LDS church” instead of calling it after the name of Christ?  

Can you site any leaders telling members we’re playing into the hands of the devil to call ourselves Mormons (other than Pres. Nelson)?

We can however site leaders stating it’s a name to be proud of and also site many campaigns, promotions and money spent proclaiming the name Mormon/Mormons as something good.

We could continue going round and round here, but the facts and history don’t support your claims.  You seem to think if you just keep strongly stating certain things, that makes them true.  It does not.

Edited April 3, 2019 by JulieM

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is not an endorsement of the use of “Mormon Church”. It is only an acknowledgement in a reference work that it has commonly been used in the past and an occasion to give the correct  name of the Church. When you consider this in light of the numerous occasions when Church leaders have said not to remive Christ’s name from the name of the Church, it is absurd for you to call this an endorsement. 

My goodness.  I posted a link to an official Church publication where it says Mormon Church is a term used to describe the Church.  

As I said, earlier, this is all a very fascinating saga and will remain as much, particularly as long as members feel the need to contradict themselves and the Church.  

Quote

Yoi say you are not sure what more I want. I’ve been very clear: Cite even one instance in which a high Church leader has expressed approval for leaving the name of Christ out of the name of the Church or admit that you can’t. 

You've gotten support for the claims I made.  Church leaders don't allow publications put out without approval from them.  I leave what I've linked as evidence for what I said.  I didn't use the term endorse or approve.  I showed that the Church did exactly the opposite of what you claimed the Church has done.  It certainly did not, on the site, say, in anyway, the use of the term Mormon Church is not acceptable.  I was merely posting it to counter your point.  

Edited April 3, 2019 by stemelbow

[JulieM]

The press is still using “LDS Church” and following Satan 😜

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2019/04/02/lds-church-planning-new/

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Can you site any leaders telling members we’re playing into the hands of the devil to call ourselves Mormons (other than Pres. Nelson)?

We can however site leaders stating it’s a name to be proud of and also site many campaigns, promotions and money spent proclaiming the name Mormon/Mormons as something good.

We could continue going round and round here, but the facts and history don’t support your claims.  You seem to think if you just keep strongly stating certain things, that makes them true.  It does not.

Go back and re-read President Nelson’s conference address. He didn’t say what you are claiming. 

I’ve not denied there have been campaigns using the name “Mormon” in reference to members of the Church. I’ve held all along that it has been the expressed desire of Church leaders for many years that the name of Christ be included in the name of the Church itself. 

I take it, then, that you can’t cite even one instance in which a high Church leader expressed approval for calling it “the Mormon Church” or “the LDS church” instead of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or, as a shortened form, the Church of Jesus Christ. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

My goodness.  I posted a link to an official Church publication where it says Mormon Church is a term used to describe the Church.  

As I said, earlier, this is all a very fascinating saga and will remain as much, particularly as long as members feel the need to contradict themselves and the Church.  

You've gotten support for the claims I made.  Church leaders don't allow publications put out without approval from them.  I leave what I've linked as evidence for what I said.  I didn't use the term endorse or approve.  I showed that the Church did exactly the opposite of what you claimed the Church has done.  It certainly did not, on the site, say, in anyway, the use of the term Mormon Church is not acceptable.  I was merely posting it to counter your point.  

You are correct... the answer to @Scott Lloyd's request is in the actions of the Brethren.  I don't know if they've ever specifically said:   It's okay to call the Church the Mormon Church and to not use the name of Christ.  I doubt it and I figure that's why Scott is insisting on that level of specificity.  However, for decades the Brethren have used the Church's resources and funds to promote and broaden recognition of the name Mormon for both the Church and its members.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

My goodness.  I posted a link to an official Church publication where it says Mormon Church is a term used to describe the Church.  

As I said, earlier, this is all a very fascinating saga and will remain as much, particularly as long as members feel the need to contradict themselves and the Church.  

You've gotten support for the claims I made.  Church leaders don't allow publications put out without approval from them.  I leave what I've linked as evidence for what I said.  I didn't use the term endorse or approve.  I showed that the Church did exactly the opposite of what you claimed the Church has done.  It certainly did not, on the site, say, in anyway, the use of the term Mormon Church is not acceptable.  I was merely posting it to counter your point.  

You did indeed say “endorse”. Go back and look at your post ( unless you’ve changed it since).