JohnsonJones

It's a cultural aspect of some religions. An example you may be able to understand would be Catholics. Most Catholics believe that they are part of the correct church and that all other churches are not the correct church. They believe exclusively that they have the correct theology. Those that are more fervent members will not accept other religions or being members of religions. Being Catholic is not just being a member of their church, but a way of life. The same could apply to other religions. They are not just a church you go to or are a member of, they are a way of life. A Member of some churches have it that it is the core of their belief system and thus their very culture, way of being, and way of doing things stem from their religion. It is very hard to change someone's way of life. If she has the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints deeply rooted in her beliefs it may be a way of life for her. She would not settle for another church for a great length of time. If she does not, then she may be willing to go to another church. From what you've described, a more conservative Baptist Church or Non-denominational one seems like it may be a better fit then some of the more organized formal religions which have more ceremony and traditional formats within their lines of worship. Marriage is a cooperative thing and both partners need to be willing to work together. Just because you are Baptist does not mean that this is the wrong choice for both of you to look at. However, the church you end up going to should be one that both of you are comfortable with. It seems that she is not so much into the traditional forms of worship found in some of the other protestant religions but at the same time she is also not comfortable with the more enthusiastic forms found in some churches. I think she is looking for something similar to what is seen in the church she is a member of which is a quieter type of experience similar to what you may have found at the Methodist church, but without the formalities that some of them express. This is why I say, barring the idea that you guys end up going to our church (and I'd still say that's a good choice), that you may look along those lines of a more traditionalist and quiet Baptist church or Non-denominational. It seems more along the lines of what you are describing you may be looking for.

It sound to me as if you are too needy. You are too desperate. Unfortunately this is a turn off for many people. Of course, if you could find someone who is just as needy as you are, it might work out. In this you probably would need to look at those who may not be the most attractive girl out there, or she may not be the girl that is the cutest one you know. Instead, you'd probably have to start looking at if the girl has a great attitude, or is a nice person before you consider their looks or attractiveness. You start to look at the girl for who she is first, rather then the exterior appearance. My thought is that you should stop worrying about it as strongly as you are. Instead, focus on being a complete and whole person first. To me, it sounds as if you suffer from depression or depressive moods. Because you suffer from this it could be that you feel that finding someone will solve this (and this may be unconscious or in your subconscious even rather than a conscious thought). You are in love with the idea of being in love. You feel that if you just could have this issue you can have so much resolved in your life and things would become so much greater. In truth, it solves nothing. If you are NOT already happy with yourself, you will NOT be happy with someone else. You will have a brief period of Euphoria and then you will be just as unhappy as before, except now you will be making someone else unhappy as well. Instead, focus on being happy with your life and what you have currently. This does not mean you should stop going to Young Single Adult dances or activities. You should continue to do so and continue to ask girls out on dates. You should not obsess about it. Resolve to do something great with your life or pick up an awesome hobby. Find something that can make you content with your life. I am probably an introvert to a degree. I LOVE books. I LOVE history. I focused on that. I was blessed to find the most beautiful girl and get married to her. Not all are that blessed. Even when I am not around her I still have things that I enjoy. I still love history and I love working in history. When I travel for research, I LOVE doing that. That does not mean I love her any less, or that I do not miss her, but that I am happy with what I am doing and my life. If she were gone tomorrow (I expect I will die first, so only hypothetical) I do not think I would have difficulties as I would still have my library of books to read and a LOT of history to still explore. You need to be a complete person and be satisfied with yourself. You still need to strive for marriage, but don't make it such an obsession that it makes you depressed or unhappy. Do the things necessary to try to find a spouse, but also focus on the good things in life. Be happy with yourself so that you can make someone else happy, rather than expecting someone else to be the one to make you happy. I'm sorry that you are feeling so down, unfortunately, the only one that can bring you up at this point is probably you.

I cannot provide any evidence that many Democrats do not feel this way. I do not know any Democrats (in my personal life that I know personally) that DO...but that is anecdotal rather than actually any real evidence of the fact.

The entire reason the Church (and many Christian religions) are against those practicing Homosexuality is due to what is taught in the Bible. It teaches in the New Testament that Homosexuality is a sin and should not be practiced. This is primarily pushed by Paul and Christian religions that try to do away with the laws against Homosexuality tend to ignore all of Paul's epistles (tossing much of the New Testament away) and instead focus on the words specifically stated by the Lord (which is normally only found in the portions of the Four Gospels, or Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). As he does not really address the idea of homosexuality directly, they try to make the argument that he never talked against Homosexuality itself. They also tend to twist some other things he stated (for example, one should not look upon a woman to lust after her...in theory it should be anyone looking on anyone else in lust...which would do away with a LOT of the Homosexual ideas they present, ironically...however sometimes they will interpret it specifically in one certain way as those of the opposite genders and NOT those of the same genders). For the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in my opinion, it is simply because the Bible says that people should not be participating in Homosexual acts. This is where the entire idea stems from. Others may have personal feelings or thoughts beyond that which influence them, but for the most part the slant of the church is due to the commandments as taught in the Bible itself (and updated from the Old Testament to the New Testament, as the condemnation is found in both). Personally I supported the SS Marriage for various reasons. I find it ironic that Mormons (collectively as a group as it is identified by classification, not just those who are Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) who suffered greatly due to their own marriage practices in the past (and some which suffer today...though not the main church itself) took such a hardline against it. BECAUSE of the background of the Mormons I felt that letting people practice how they felt was a better path than dictating how they must do in regards to a religious ceremony. In otherwords, let people practice as they desire as long as it does not impede on others practice of religion. As a free nation I do not think we should dictate those matters of personal or religious actions...which to me also includes Marriage. I do not feel it is right for a Member of the Church to participate in SS marriage, as it is expressly forbidden by the Church (and the actions are forbidden by the Bible if they were to consummate it).

I do not know the situation and cannot comment on it as I am ignorant of the actual details. I don't know regarding the situation itself. It could be that the bosses were led of the Lord, or it could be that they were not. I will note that we tend to defend those who we see as Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints without fail. I think this is a good thing. It is good to defend our own. I WILL NOTE though, that just because people are members of the Church does NOT mean they are actually GOOD people. Some of the WORST people (and I've known individuals from all over the world from many different cultures and nations) I have EVER met have been those who are Members. On the otherhand some of the best people I've ever met have also been members. There are Members of the church out there that I've seen more evil done than I've seen done by those who are not members to the point that I would classify them as being straight up evil. I could very well buy into the idea that there are those that do not feel the spirit or are inspired by it when they should, even if they feel it sometimes. Of course, to counter that, I've also known some of the BEST people who are also Members. They really did exemplify the idea that we should be Saints, as they really were Saints. Just because one is a Member and has been given the Gift of the Holy Ghost does not necessarily mean that they always listen to it or that it always guides them. Even those who normally listen to the Spirit and are good and are Saints sometimes may also stumble. They normally probably realize it and repent, but even the best of people sometimes probably also stumble. I probably stumble more often than I should, but I strive to try to be one of the Saints. I hope many would consider me good but it possible that there are those who also consider me evil. I, personally, try to do good, and when I stumble, try to repent as best I can and continue forward. Simply put, people tend to be people.

I'm an equal opportunity castigator. I don't know many Republicans who would actually do such a thing but the idea that this thing passed in Colorado (3 house seats Republican, 3 Democrat, made the opposite statement earlier...edited for correction) has me wondering. Of course, Colorado currently is controlled by the Democrats as they are the majority, but Republicans still have enough of a stronghold there that I am wondering what happened. I am also wondering what will happen to the compact if it takes effect and the Republicans regain the House and Senate as well as the Governorship and repeal this electoral national compact they've joined. The compact has the idea that once a state has joined they cannot leave it, which could lead to court cases. Personally, while I am against Marxist Communism, I'm not necessarily against all forms of it (look up the idea of Religious Communism), however, the USA has ALWAYS stood against Communism up until the 21st century in ALL it's forms and in ANY of it's forms that it presented itself (in my opinion, of course, as if it has to be said). Communism itself may have a vote but that vote is a ONE PARTY rule type idea. Votes are normally for or against the party, not one with multiple candidates like the US. In this, I would think Democrats are the bigger supporters thus far (and with the exception of Colorado which is considered a swing state, all the other states have been Democrat states to accept this idea). I think they would very much prefer that if the Electoral compact is triggered that there is ONLY one party that is represented...and that would be Democrats. I think for many US citizens, the idea that people are trying to do away with the Electoral College is one of the greatest threats to the US Constitution today. Perhaps some could see that it is a direct challenge to destroy the Constitution and if successful that the rest of the Constitution would not be far behind in it's destruction unless something is done to save it. PS: I do NOT think ALL Democrats feel this way, nor that even a majority feel this way. I am thus wondering why this idea has so much momentum among some democratic areas. I, myself, am not a Republican. I probably lean Conservative Independent when compared to the rest of the nation, though compared to many Mormons (as a group, not just those who are part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and their political persuasions I probably appear extremely liberal.

This should interest you... A talking point of the communist party (yes, it is literally from the Communist Party in regards to their hatred of the Electoral College... A few snippets from this article from the Communist party about the 2000 election That so many are taking a talking point from the Communist Party probably should alarm or horrify any individual who is Republican or a Democrat. I find it ironic that so many today are going so far to the left as to basically become Communists in sheep's clothing. Even Roosevelt (F.D.R) and other classic Democrats from the past that the Democrat party holds in such high regard would be absolutely floored and dismayed at what the far left in the Democrat party are stating today in regards to the Electoral College idea. It is interesting that we have moved from the Democracy and ideas of less than 50 years ago where the US and the West was involved in a great Cold War against Communism to today, where it appears that even if they lost the Cold War, the Communists are slowly winning the war of ideas in taking over the US by the backdoor instead.

I don't know enough about the story to really even comment on the situation on whether they had their hearts softened or not. It could have been multiple situations. I can say that we do not know the hearts of people in many instances. We may think we know them when in reality we do not. In Matthew 25 it talks about talents and those with them. This message in many ways is directly towards those who profess to be followers of the master, those who are Christian and those who say they follow the Lord's path. We find, however, that though many may claim this, they may not always act as such. It states... And again we also see in Matthew 7 Thus we see, just because one professes that they are a follower of the Lord or even those that have the power to prophesy, cast out devils and do great works and authority may not necessarily be those that are the ones that will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. It states earlier, right before those verses that by their fruits you shall know them. It is by what one can see of our actions and our fruits that one can know if we are followers of the Lord or not. In some ways the BEST we can hope is that we find ourselves on the Lord's right hand. That we strive to do what is right ourselves and be found as faithful servants. I truly hope that I can do such myself and do not find myself on the wrong side of him at the day of judgment and pray that I can somehow miraculously be a servant of the Lord in faithfulness and righteousness.

From what I am reading and understanding from the viewpoints... @anatess2 and @Vort I think both of you are correct in your perspective. I think you are talking about two different things (even as it is also the exact same thing as well, or the same issue). One is talking about the actual thoughts of what slaves were considered (property in the South) while the other is discussing in regards to how they wanted population numbers counted (counted as persons in the South vs. not counted as persons). I believe @anatess is saying that the South Considered the Slaves as property. This is reflected as the Southern Slave Owners did NOT allow the slaves to vote as people. Instead they wanted the Slaves to count as a population which, because they were owned (property) could not vote and hence any voting power would then be delegated to count their owners as MORE than just one person. In effect, it meant that a slave owner would have the effective power of 3/5 of all their slaves plus their own in regards to the population count. The Slaves thus were counted completely as property as they had no freedom or will of their own. Their entire ability to be counted was NOT reliant upon them being persons in and of themselves, but that of the Southern Slave Owners being the person who also could have their property counted as an increase. The South considered slaves property, and a Slave owner considered the Slaves as THEIR PROPERTY. The North on the otherhand felt that slaves should not be counted towards their master's representative power in elections or representation in Congress. Instead, only those that were free (or worse, each individual if they were actually going to count the slaves as population) should represent their own voting power. It should NOT be reliant on WHO owned (property) the slave to give them the representative power as such. Later, this sentiment increased tremendously in the North until it created difficulties when a Northern state might refuse to see a slave as property and instead set them free as they did not see it right that a person was a slave. In contrast, I think @Vort is talking population counts and what each side wanted... As far as population numbers go the South wanted each slave to count the same as every other individual. Thus, they wanted them to be counted as persons in regards to population (even if they were considered property to the Slave owners and thus ONLY the owners would be granted that power to vote. A Free individual that owned enough property could also vote...but considering that if one owned enough property to vote at that time they were normally a slave owner...it was one and the same). These restrictions on who could vote set by states would slowly change, but at the time it was normally property owners. Hence, as far as the population count went (though not the power that went with it which is what I think @anatess2 is getting at) they wanted slaves to count as persons. They wanted the slaves to count as persons in regards to the population count. The North on the otherhand felt this was not a fair representation of the population. As the Slaves were thought of as property by their Slave Masters, it really did not represent the free voting public as it did in the North. Hence, they felt property should not be considered as having a representation in regards to the population numbers. I think both of you are saying very similar things but the way you are looking at it makes it appear that you are talking about the opposite. Obviously I could be reading what you are writing entirely wrong, but I think you two are actually saying very similar things but with a different perspective on the same issue.

Double Post

Ironically, what you are asking is not exactly what I normally get in these questions, but something very pertinent is found in verse 41 in regards to specifically what you might be asking as well. The kicker then is whether the other wives were already SEALED to their husbands or not. In a majority of the instances, they were not sealed already, thus even if it was not just merely a sealing, but a full on normal polygamous marriage with marital relations, it would still fall under that she was in the right if the first marriage was not under the new and everlasting covenant but the other one was. What normally the questions would pertain to was being married under the authority of the Priesthood/God vs. being married without authority. In this, the only eternal and recognized marriage would be that done under the proper authority. A similar way to view it would be if you were to receive a speeding ticket. If you received a speeding ticket from a Police Officer authorized to do so by the Law of the Land and the Department of which he served as well as the jurisdiction, that would hold a LOT more validity than a 12 year old kid on a bike giving a slip of paper that he said was a speeding ticket. one would hold up a lot better in court than the other. In the same way, the sealings and eternal marriage in the Temple is seen as being recognized by Heaven for eternity more than one that is a temporal license and marriage performed in accordance with the laws of man and men. In that same light, in verse 42 it addresses that even with that, an individual who breaks that covenant still commits adultery. However, in the LDS tradition (and one could call it culture, tradition, etc) the marriage performed by authority of the Lord takes precedence over that which is done by the authority of men. Hence, the higher authority takes precedence in deciding these matters. Some more thoughts on this matter which have not been brought up but which may arise and is sort of pertinent... As talked about openly by Brigham Young In this manner also, the higher authority takes precedence over that which is a lower authority. Hence, a rarely mentioned item which occurred, but is not normally noted in today's church history. An individual of a Higher Authority (for example, an Apostle vs. and Elder) in the Priesthood could actually be married to the spouse of one who was lower in the Priesthood and the wife would then be married to him who was in the Higher Priesthood. Thus, the higher Priesthood office could take precedence over that of the lower office. The Caveat is that in order for this to occur the original husband HAD TO AGREE to this. Without their agreement there was no power on earth or heaven that could take the wife of a husband who did not agree to this who had been sealed together under the new and everlasting covenant. However, if they were in agreement, then this supposedly could be done. My thoughts... We see this in Brigham Young's time where he would marry someone who was already married to another, but they had a lower Priesthood authority than he did. We also see it today in various instances where a husband and wife have gotten divorced. It is taken that the husband would have remained married to the spouse if he had desired to remain married rather than divorce the individual. If he is no longer in the church or is of a lower office at times it may be possible that, even if he disagrees with a temple divorce, it will be granted as he has already shown his thoughts on the matter. This STILL requires church approval and without it, it will not happen. However, I feel that when this is the situation a temple divorce is granted much more quickly and rapidly and more easily than in instances where it is not the situation. That does not mean a temple divorce is something that is easy or that people should try to get, merely that there are rules and regulations in that regards as well as in regards to sealings and marriages which are spelled out either directly and blatantly, or more discreetly and less obvious in section 132 that the Church adheres today to that don't necessarily require any polygamy or polygamous marriages to still be in effect.

WELL... Back in my day (which WAS many decades ago, I may be old enough to be someone's grandparent here (or even a great grandparent though they'd have to be pretty young) Yes...kissing a boy or girl that you were dating was considered not to be the best thing or the best idea. Those who were chaste would hold off on doing so until at least engaged if not married. Sure, they did such things in the movies, but the movies also promoted unchaste morality. Of course, much of what passed for movies 20 years later would have been considered straight up pornography when I was growing up...and now... Morals have changed drastically since I was young. Even after I joined the church I was told that you shouldn't kiss your girlfriend or boyfriend, rubs/massages were absolutely not allowed, and deep kissing was breaking the laws of chastity. The only one I ever kissed romantically was my wife. It is still that way. I would advise the same thing to young couples today but alas, I do not think it would be accepted by most of them. Culture, including Mormon culture, seemed to lose some of that greater morality during the late 60s and early 70s and it has gone downhill since. Things that would have been unthinkable to watch back then is commonplace today in that even young members of the church watch these things commonly. Things like that remind me that I feel like I've outlived my culture at times, even if I'm still alive and kicking today. It shows me just how merciful the Lord is to us that he puts up with this and doesn't strike us all down with destruction. That said, if it was just one kiss, with how we treat morality today, it is probably something that can be dealt with on one's own. If it still troubles someone, as everyone else has said, go talk to their Bishop.

I think perhaps an example more similar to members of the church and what they may experience would be easier to understand why this was not the right course of action for the teacher to necessarily take. A teenager has a temporary temple recommend. The teacher tells the student that they must burn the recommend and toss it in the trash. The student tries to tell the teacher that it is not something to disturb the class (in fact, it is in their pocket and not public display), that it is a religious thing, and that this is something given to them by their church authorities. The teacher ignores the student for some reason and tells them to burn it now. The student, rather than raise more of a ruckus does so. How would Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints respond to such a story. This may not be a perfect match, but I think it is a decent parallel to how offensive the teacher's suggestion and request was. This is not some frivolous item and is FAR better known than youth temple recommends. The student had a pretty serious religious ceremony they experienced. Even if ignorant, the teacher could have EASILY looked up or found out about WHY a student may have something like this on that specific day. It is NOT secret and very well known. Even if it is easily redone to a degree, it was still disrespectful to the religion, to Catholicism, and to the child. In the same way, a teacher doing the above to a youth that is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints could be seen as sparking outrage in Utah or the surrounding areas if done to a student. Perhaps we may reason that we, personally, would feel no problems if this occurred, but there would be those in the surrounding area that would be HIGHLY offended if a teacher did this to a student and forced them to burn a temporary temple recommend and toss the ashes. I find that it is great that no party took greater offense then they did (and in fact, perhaps others have taken greater offense than the child or their parents, and the teacher seems to also have a greater education on the subject so all turned out well in the end). However, I do not think it is right to give the teacher a completely free pass on the incident. All seems forgiven though, and if the offended party was willing to forgive and forget, we probably should be willing to do so as well.

Sometimes the wording chosen may not be exactly the wording they meant to say. In this instance I think people may be stressing this specific thought he expressed to the extremes rather than understand that sometimes (and I also suffer from this, thus tend to be wordy to try to express myself and even fail then as well) what we mean to say may not be exactly how others interpret what we stated. I feel in this instance he was not meaning to condemn any and all who used the nicknames, but rather trying to stress the importance that he felt in that members should be trying to use the name of the church as expressed in the Doctrine and Covenants. I do not think (or I hope) he ever thought it would be interpreted to the extremes that many have interpreted it or taken it in their understanding of. He may be the Prophet but he is not infallible and is not yet perfect. This means that sometimes he may mean something (and I think many understand what he meant) but it comes out in such a way that others may interpret it to say something entirely unintentional. Thus, he never intended to try to castigate former prophets or the ideas presented previously in the church. I feel (and this is my understanding, so I may have it wrong) that he was merely trying to impress the importance of the Saints going forward to use the Name of the church as presented in the Doctrine and Covenants and to talk about their fellow members of the church without the nicknames that had previously been attached to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Obviously this is my thought about what he intended and I could be wrong, but it is my feeling that this is what was intended...nothing more than that. It was not meant as some have interpreted it to mean, where he was condemning many of the previous Prophets, Apostles, church membership and other things as having fallen into apostasy and fallen away or any other such crazy ideas I've seen that have come up from myriad interpretations of this phrase that he expressed. He was expressing the importance he felt in listening to what he said about our terminology as Members.

This will be long, as this can cover many things and I do not know how to address this in a short manner considering all the different angles that this has been commented upon by others outside the church and that may be taken into consideration by those in the church. On the matter itself, it can be a hard issue. It can be confusing. Many people try to deny the giant in the room on this issue. I find that if one tries to deny or ignore what has happened or what others think, it normally just reinforces bad thoughts on the matter. I think this pertains to the situation that you have mentioned. Russell M. Nelson decided to stress the official name of the Church and tried to forbid the usage of nicknames that are commonly used throughout the world. This has been especially and horribly mocked by many who are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The reason is that it was clear that this was a LONG HELD grudge of Russell M. Nelson. It was promptly pointed out that this has been something he has been trying to change for decades. Originally, though it was not termed as such, he was quite strongly slapped down and put into his place by Gordon B. Hinckley. Many outside the church would say, obviously, it did NOT sit well with him. Over two decades ago he was trying to push this narrative, but he did NOT have the authority, the position, nor power to change it in the church at that time. Part of this was because we had been referred to as The Mormons by the world collectively for over a century. Brigham Young and Joseph Smith referred to us as the Saints, but others knew that they were called Mormons. Many Prophets have referred to us as Mormons such as Joseph F. Smith and others. Gordon B. Hinckley brought up some long standing things that were discussed by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young in regards to how the Saints had been discussed and remarked over the years. In this, we can see that when you try to fight your enemies at times, rather than turn the other cheek or go the extra mile, you tend to simply turn them more strongly against you rather than soften their heart enough to hear or even listen to you. Gordon B. Hinckely was a very smart and saavy individual in relation to media relations and PR. Others were not quite as saavy and did not capitalize as much. People already look up the term Mormon. We are NOT going to be able to disassociate the world from using that name for us. Those who are curious about the "Mormons" will find it, whether it is from US...or from those who hate us. Gordon B. Hinckley understood this. Many other Prophets also understood this. Russell M. Nelson NEVER seemed to understand this, even when it was explained to him by Hinckley (and publically in conference on top of that), nor by Monson or others. It seems that he decided to remain quiet on this topic for a while as it was not going to be a battle he could win. In this, it appears that he bided his time. So, when he come out and seemingly condemns 75% of the past prophets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints it sounds a little bizarre. Coming out and stating this crusade that he started many years ago seems to indicate to many that this was not a revelation, but more of a personal grudge match that he finally wins simply by outliving those who were over him in authority and forbid him from doing so for decades. In his statement one could even interpret it to say that he flat out called many of the Prophets who had called the Saints Mormons in talks, discussions and other items in the past (once again, around 75% of them) liars, servants of the adversary, or worse. What does this mean? Does this mean that the church apostasized during the time of Wilford Woodruff and that because he used the nickname Mormons at times that we are now all apostates and all the prophets since than have been false prophets? To some, that sounds EXACTLY what Russell M. Nelson implied or stated whether he meant it or not. Does it mean that Russell M. Nelson is not a real prophet if the first thing is not true. If the others were true prophets, does that make him a false one? The answer to BOTH those questions is no. The prophets previously were true prophets and Russell M. Nelson is also a prophet. The bigger question is whether he was talking as a prophet or as a Man at the time. Unfortunately, many times the only way we can tell is depending on what happens 50 years in the future (at which time I expect I will be dead). Many Prophets have said things throughout history that have been misinterpreted or were simply when they were stating things of their own opinion rather than things received via revelation from the Lord. A famous one of these has been the idea of Men on the Moon. There have been prophets in the past that stated that they believed that Men lived on the Moon. When we went there, we found no men living on the Moon's surface. Another famous items was when one apostle who later became prophet prophesied that man would NEVER LAND on the Moon. Obviously, we went to the moon and landed on it. Luckily, that apostle was still alive and openly admitted it was merely there opinion. Prophets and apostles are men. They are allowed to have opinions. We do not believe our leaders are infallible, and thus, being fallible, can make mistakes and have opinions that may or may not be correct. Does this mean that this statement for the church was Russell M. Nelson speaking as a man? Not necessarily, but I DO think that his PHRASING may have been his writing as a man. I do not think he ever intended to state or even indicate that his predecessors were false prophets. I think that was a MISTAKE he made in his phrasing which has been taken FAR to the extremes in it's interpretations by many of those who are outside of the church. In addition, I think that the way he stated or portrayed it may be misunderstood. He is absolutely correct (from a scriptural standpoint) regarding the name of the Church. He is absolutely correct, no revelation is even needed on that point. He is also correct in how we should be addressed as correctly. Once again this is a scriptural point. Thus, he can also be speaking as a prophet, but specifically for OUR time, rather than for past times. What I mean by this is something that has happened in the past as well with other prophets. A prime example would be the Word of Wisdom. The Word of Wisdom has been around for a LOOONG time in the church. It was NOT always utilized as it is today. People could drink alcohol, drink coffee, and smoke. Joseph Smith himself drank alcoholic beverages, and other General Authorities did as well. Over time other apostles and prophets started to stress the Word of Wisdom more than it had been in the past. By the time of Heber J. Grant it was being told by Prophets that it was a commandment that needed to be adhered to and obeyed by the Saints of that time period. It did not matter if Saints previously did not have to do it, for that time period it was something that they needed to follow. Later, many items were stressed more strongly while other items were stressed less strongly. During Spencer W. Kimballs time a stronger focus was placed upon drug use. Any drugs or addictive substances were to be avoided. It was not commanded, but was advised that even caffeinated drinks be avoided (and this was worded VERY strongly). Today, some of those items that were stressed more strongly in the past may not be focused on as much today. In the future they may even stop utilizing the Word of Wisdom as an item that one must obey to get a temple recommend, or some items may be relaxed in their restrictions (such as coffee, or some types of hard drinks, or other things). That does NOT mean that the Word of Wisdom was NOT a commandment for our day, or that the prophets who commanded us to keep the Word of Wisdom were misled. It simply means that this was something for our day. Another example would be with the some ideas on the theology of Adam and heaven taught by Brigham Young. Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow recognized that there were many things in this that the Saints did not understand and conveyed the wrong meaning to the members. Thus, as it was being taught and understood in a way contrary to how the scriptures should be understood they discontinued many of these teachings. Many speculate that they held that members did not understand the ideas Brigham taught correctly in conjunction with the scriptures since the time that Brigham actually taught them. Unlike another apostle, they did not openly convey this at the time Brigham Young was alive. It only came out later. By the time of Joseph F. Smith most of these teachings were no longer in church manuals and those who attempted to teach these things incorrectly were told that they were teaching these incorrectly. This does NOT mean that Brigham Young taught something incorrect, only that what he was teaching was being misunderstood by many during the time that Wilford Woodruff and later prophets started to silence those stating these ideas. Thus, when the Prophets later came out and said that the church does not teach these doctrines, they were speaking as prophets. Even if this was an issue they had wondered about for a while, it was still something that was declared as a prophetic statement at the time they were prophets. This brings me full circle back to the issue at hand, that of Russell M. Nelson speaking on this. On this, he IS the PROPHET OF THE CHURCH. This something he has stated for OUR time. It is not necessarily something for those from the past. It does not apply to them. It applies to us today. He has the backing of scripture. Even if he has held this item for a long time, the Lord has allowed him to live long enough to make it policy. Much like the items that Wilford Woodruff and later prophets did in relation to things such as the form and shape of deity, the Word of Wisdom, and other issues, where they obviously had feelings about it that later came into fruition and they were able to make into policies when they became prophets, the same would apply to Russell M. Nelson's ideas today, even if they are based on ideas he has had for a LOOONG time previously. That does not negate that he probably got reconfirmation that now was the time for him to be able to bring it forth and to make it the policy of the church for our day. In this, it is just as much revelation as many other things that have come about from the past. Regardless of WHY it has come out now, as he is the prophet, it is for us to try to swallow our pride and to listen and humble ourselves enough to listen and obey the Lord. It can seem difficult to understand the change in direction, but this is not the FIRST time a change in direction has occurred. As I pointed out the change in direction regarding the Word of Wisdom, or the very focus of the dynamic between Adam and Deity that occurred within the church, it has happened before with policies that were much more stringently intertwined with the teachings of prophets of the Church. Someone brought up Blacks and the Priesthood. Comparatively to that change in direction within the church this is small change. That change had been considered by General Authorities at least since the time of George Albert Smith. George Albert Smith actually came out with a proclamation (like our Proclamation to the Family) that stated the church was against giving Blacks the Priesthood. That Proclamation was less than 40 years prior to the revelation of Spencer W. Kimball. David O'Mckay seemed to also be strongly on the side of allowing Blacks to hold the Priesthood and gathered allies (such as Spencer W. Kimball). He did NOT have a unanimous agreement during his period as a prophet. Many knew that this was an issue that had LONG been in the church and that some General Authorities had indicated leanings one way or another. One could say Spencer W. Kimball was firmly in the camp to allow Blacks to receive the priesthood. It was under Spencer W. Kimball that this revelation took place finally and the twelve were unanimous in their agreement. This does not make it any less of a revelation. It may have been something long debated and long considered, but under the unanimity of the twelve it finally was accepted by them, and then by the church as a revelation. Today, we follow this revelation. This was FAR more controversial at the time than what Russell M. Nelson did in regards to how we are referred to or how the Name of the church is supposed to be referred to. I find the hardest part is not slipping up. It is far too easy to slip into old habits and use old terminology when instead we should refer to ourselves as Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or to simply say the Church in simplified form in the proper settings. I tend to also use the term Saints (and I hope that is acceptable). I know I went long on this and tried to cover comprehensively the difficulties some may have with the change. Even though it is quite long I know I probably did not cover ALL the difficulties people bring up about the change, but I hope I addressed the largest one that I've heard the most often from people who have commented about their difficulties regarding HOW this came forth and how it was revealed and brought up and changed by our current Prophet.