Latter-Day Saints is preferred and "Mormons" is acceptable

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I see this tendency as a form of blind faith or obedience. In this case, faith that has been blinded by an inordinate need for proof instead of an inordinate need to abdicate agency or responsibility. Or maybe it's just a clever way to meet both needs!

My hunch is that many who would quibble over whether or not something is given by way of “revelation” would murmur or reject that thing even if it were clearly identified as a “thus saith the Lord” revelation. 

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

So do you believe Brigham Young received a revelation to start the Priesthood Ban?

Yeah, good luck getting Scott to answer that question 

[ALarson]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No.  But this is not an equivalent comparison.

The sections dealing with the Nov 2015 policy were not altered in this latest revision.  Had they been edited but the policy not been changed (per the April news release) I would have questions.

The section dealing with the name of the church was altered in this latest revision.  As others have pointed out, I find it odd that they would review the section, decide to delete the Mormon Tabernacle Choir reference but fail to delete the Mormons reference unless they wanted it to remain.  It's not a long section.

But now that it has been highlighted all over social media, I expect it will happen in the next revision.

I think you may be right regarding that.  Or maybe it'll be addressed in General Conference?  If this is an error, I believe it will be corrected.  Our leaders are not infallible after all  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

Yeah, good luck getting Scott to answer that question 

Asked and answered. The fact I won’t be bullied into giving one-word responses does not mean I haven’t answered the question. 

But we’ve been over this before, and I’m sure it’s boring to most readers, so let’s just drop it. 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Asked and answered. The fact I won’t be bullied into giving one-word responses does not mean I haven’t answered the question. 

I understand.....as long as this same reasoning is applied to Pres. Nelson and this announcement or policy as well.  I think that's fair.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I understand.....as long as this same reasoning is applied to Pres. Nelson and this announcement or policy as well.  I think that's fair.

I don’t know what you mean by this, but I pledge not to try to bully someone into giving a one-word answer. I hate it when I see others doing this. That’s one of the reasons I detested Kamala Harris right off the bat when I first encountered her during the Kavenaugh hearing. My cherished hope is that her presidential campaign crashes and burns, though not for this reason alone. 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t know what you mean by this, but I pledge not to try to bully someone into giving a one-word answer. I hate it when I see others doing this. That’s one of the reasons I detested Kamala Harris right off the bat when I first encountered her during the Kavenaugh hearing. My cherished hope is that her presidential campaign crashes and burns, though not for this reason alone. 

You should cool the rhetoric Scott... being asked a question is not being bullied.

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t know what you mean by this, but I pledge not to try to bully someone into giving a one-word answer. I hate it when I see others doing this.

Scott, you might not recognize it, but you seem to be doing that to others about this (whether this policy is a revelation or not).  I wouldn’t use the word “bully”, but you really seem upset if others won’t admit or agree with you that it is indeed a revelation and you just keep pressuring or questioning them.

I think we each can read his words and come to different conclusions on that and it’s fine to disagree.  We can also disagree with our leaders at times too.

Edited August 28, 2019 by JulieM

[CV75]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

My claim was this:  The prophet is fallible and capable of being wrong about an interpretation of inspiration.

Which part do you disagree with?

Why / how do you interpret my interest (in how misinterpreting inspiration manifests) as disagreement*? I can neither agree nor disagree if you do not provide references and practical examples of someone misinterpreting inspiration. I was trying to understand what you're talking about. I am not familiar with such a phenomenon; it sounds imaginary. Has it happened to you? if so, describe it. Is there a clear example from scripture (or elsewhere) that this has happened before? Please provide it.  But you've avoided answering it, rendering your assertion about President Nelson irrelevant to anything but your imagination.

* I recommend re-reading my post without deflecting: Posted 6 hours ago

 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Why / how do you interpret my interest (in how misinterpreting inspiration manifests) as disagreement*? I can neither agree nor disagree if you do not provide references and practical examples of someone misinterpreting inspiration. I was trying to understand what you're talking about. I am not familiar with such a phenomenon; it sounds imaginary. Has it happened to you? if so, describe it. Is there a clear example from scripture (or elsewhere) that this has happened before? Please provide it.  But you've avoided answering it, rendering your assertion about President Nelson irrelevant to anything but your imagination.

* I recommend re-reading my post without deflecting: Posted 6 hours ago

 

Not interested, sorry.

[CV75]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Not interested, sorry.

Why?

[rockpond]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Why?

I feel my originally statement clearly communicated my thoughts and I'm not in the mood the split hairs with you on specific examples.

I believe the misinterpreting inspiration is not that tough to understand.  Perhaps you are praying about something and a thought comes to mind.  Or in President Nelson's case, he wakes up in the middle of the night with a thought.  Can one believe that it came from God when it may not have, yes.

 

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I feel my originally statement clearly communicated my thoughts and I'm not in the mood the split hairs with you on specific examples.

I believe the misinterpreting inspiration is not that tough to understand.  Perhaps you are praying about something and a thought comes to mind.  Or in President Nelson's case, he wakes up in the middle of the night with a thought.  Can one believe that it came from God when it may not have, yes.

That is different in my mind than "being wrong about an interpretation of inspiration" -- misinterpreting an actual divine inspiration -- and more of a misinterpretation, misidentification or misattribution of one's own thoughts or imagination as divine inspiration.

On what basis do you think President Nelson has done any of this with regards to his statements on the name of the Church?

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

On what basis do you think President Nelson has done any of this with regards to his statements on the name of the Church?

If rockpond believes President Nelson didn't get any inspiration from God to guide him in what the Church should be called it would likely be because rockpond hasn't received any inspiration from God to assure him that President Nelson did.

... or if rockpond did receive that inspiration from  God on that issue perhaps rockpond just dismissed it thinking it wasn't coming from God.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

If rockpond believes President Nelson didn't get any inspiration from God to guide him in what the Church should be called...

He hasn't stated that, so you can stop right there.  At least you added the "if" at the front of your sentence because what you stated is a false speculation.  

Or can you post where rockpond posted that President Nelson didn't get ANY inspiration from God on this topic?

Edited August 28, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That is different in my mind than "being wrong about an interpretation of inspiration" -- misinterpreting an actual divine inspiration -- and more of a misinterpretation, misidentification or misattribution of one's own thoughts or imagination as divine inspiration.

On what basis do you think President Nelson has done any of this with regards to his statements on the name of the Church?

I didn't say that President Nelson had done that.  I responded to another post stating that it is possible.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

He hasn't stated that, so you can stop right there.  At least you added the "if" at the front of your sentence because it's a false speculation.  

Yeah, I know, or at least I didn't see where rockpond had indicated he thought that, which is why I was answering the question from CV75 the way I did.

Generally,  people who don't think God inspired someone with a particular thought, when God actually did, just don't know that God did and usually it's because they haven't received that same inspiration from God.  That was my main point.

 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

He hasn't stated that, so you can stop right there.  At least you added the "if" at the front of your sentence because what you stated is a false speculation.  

Or can you post where rockpond posted that President Nelson didn't get ANY inspiration from God on this topic?

Exactly.  Thank you.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

Yeah, I know, or at least I didn't see where rockpond had indicated he thought that, which is why I was answering the question from CV75 the way I did.

Generally,  people who don't think God inspired someone with a particular thought, when God actually did, just don't know that God did and usually it's because they haven't received that same inspiration from God.  That was my main point.

 

And the corollary to this...

Generally, people who think God inspired someone with a particular thought, when God actually did not, just don't know that God didn't and usually it's because they haven't received inspiration from God.

But I think both of these statements are supposition.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

And the corollary to this...

Generally, people who think God inspired someone with a particular thought, when God actually did not, just don't know that God didn't and usually it's because they haven't received inspiration from God.

If that were to happen, I suppose that could be one of the reasons, but people who think God inspired someone with a particular thought should not think God inspired that thought unless they get personal inspiration from God to assure them that God did.

Otherwise, what, we're just supposed to take people's word for whatever they say?  I don't think so.  Not a good policy

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

But I think both of these statements are supposition.

I suppose so.

[JAHS]

So I guess maybe we don't have worry about changing the name of this website? There's a lot of church related websites out there (including mine) that have been using the term Mormon or LDS and changing that would be very hard to do.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Scott, you might not recognize it, but you seem to be doing that to others about this (whether this policy is a revelation or not).  I wouldn’t use the word “bully”, but you really seem upset if others won’t admit or agree with you that it is indeed a revelation and you just keep pressuring or questioning them.

I think we each can read his words and come to different conclusions on that and it’s fine to disagree.  We can also disagree with our leaders at times too.

If a prophet says, “The Lord has impressed upon my mind that ...”, how is that <not> a revelation? Go ahead and take as many words as you like to respond. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

You should cool the rhetoric Scott... being asked a question is not being bullied.

You might not be aware of what went on before, but I think ALarson is. CaliforniaBoy was badgering me with questions I had already responded to (a violation of board guidelines, by the way), insisting on a yes or no answer to a question I had already responded to. ALarson and, iirc, Julie chimed in. I got fed up and said I wasn’t going to be bullied and badgered. Now, it appears JulieM, in true Kamala Harris fashion, is coming at me for another round. 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If a prophet says, “The Lord has impressed upon my mind that ...”, how is that <not> a revelation? Go ahead and take as many words as you like to respond. 

I believe that regardless of how someone (including the prophet) prefaces a statement that doesn't suddenly grant infallibility on the person or what they are about to teach or declare.

 

Although, it would be cool if one of our current prophets gave us a "Thus saith the Lord..." 

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If a prophet says, “The Lord has impressed upon my mind that ...”, how is that <not> a revelation? 

I think there can definitely be inspiration or inspired ideas that come to all of us from God.  Would those also be revelations in your opinion?

I'm not sure why you're so hung up on this?  No one here believes that President Nelson does not receive inspiration.  We just also believe that Prophets (and all humans) are not infallible and that at times we are going to disagree even if a person feels they have received inspiration. 

Edited August 28, 2019 by ALarson