Sign in to follow this  
CommanderSouth

Name of the Church

Recommended Posts

Something that has been nagging at me since the name emphasis for the church has been changing has been why we haven't been focusing on this sooner.  If we have been grieving the spirit since we have been embracing Mormon and such, why was this not stressed during the mormon.org push and the I'm a Mormon campaign?  I very much want to approach this in the right way, but I really do struggle with this question off and on. 

What do you all think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

Something that has been nagging at me since the name emphasis for the church has been changing has been why we haven't been focusing on this sooner.  If we have been grieving the spirit since we have been embracing Mormon and such, why was this not stressed during the mormon.org push and the I'm a Mormon campaign?  I very much want to approach this in the right way, but I really do struggle with this question off and on. 

What do you all think?

I wouldn't be too concerned about it. God does not always send revelations about things that we need to change immediately, he does things in his own time. For example, he allowed the Israelites to write bills of divorce for a thousand years before revealing the higher law about divorce through Christ (that's just one of many examples that come to mind). You could ask why did God allow the Israelites to sin for so long without giving them a chance to live a higher law? Sometimes (as in my example"s case) it's due to the hardness of our hearts, but God's ways are not our ways, and we do not always understand his timing or his reasons, we are just required to trust him.

However, as always Christ's Atonement covers anyone, including all of us, who sin ignorantly as it says in Mosiah 3:11. Since that is the case, the problem is not how long God chose to go before revealing this issue to his prophet, but what we choose to do with the commandment now that we know.

Edited by Midwest LDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

Something that has been nagging at me since the name emphasis for the church has been changing has been why we haven't been focusing on this sooner.  If we have been grieving the spirit since we have been embracing Mormon and such, why was this not stressed during the mormon.org push and the I'm a Mormon campaign?  I very much want to approach this in the right way, but I really do struggle with this question off and on. 

What do you all think?

As far as grieving the Spirit, if one genuinely repents or forgives as prompted, timing doesn't really matter. The current global message may be a matter of priority, expedience, "line upon line" or doing things in wisdom and in order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my biggest thing was when President Nelson said (my best paraphrase) that by embracing nicknames we had unwittingly acquiesced to Satan. I simply don't understand why the Lord would have let President Hinckley/Monson run such PR when we were actually letting the devil win (so to speak). To be probably more blunt than I should, I thought that was the point of having a prophet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 When I have questions that I can't easily find answers to, I take them to the Lord.  Once I was going through a difficult time and couldn't find the answers on lds.org. My Bishop didn't have the answers, so I searched the scriptures and I prayed. It took time, but I found the answers I was searching for.  This has become a wonderful pattern for receiving revelation in my life.

I don't mean there is anything wrong with asking here. Asking is good, its part of doing your homework so to speak. But if no one here has an answer that puts your mind at ease, then ask the Lord. (I have found that I receive more revelation when I'm studying the Book of Mormon regularly.)   Pres. Nelson said the Lord has impressed upon him how ready He is to reveal His will to us.  

Edited by LiterateParakeet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

I guess my biggest thing was when President Nelson said (my best paraphrase) that by embracing nicknames we had unwittingly acquiesced to Satan. I simply don't understand why the Lord would have let President Hinckley/Monson run such PR when we were actually letting the devil win (so to speak). To be probably more blunt than I should, I thought that was the point of having a prophet. 

There is this fallacy that many saints have (often times it is just subconscious) that puts the church on a higher standard than it really is. This fallacy is what cause most confusion and frustration... and in extreme cases apostasy. 

In the January Young Adult conference, Elder and Sister Reblund gave the following analogy:

__________

Elder Dale G. Renlund: Imagine having capsized in a boat while sailing in the ocean. You’re wearing a life preserver and have been swimming for hours toward what you believe is the nearest shore, but you can’t be sure. You’ve become extremely dehydrated, so that every time you start swimming, you become light-headed and fatigued. By your best estimates the shore is 30 kilometers, or 18 miles, away. You fear for your life because you can’t swim that far. In the distance you hear a small engine. The sound seems to be coming toward you; your hope of rescue soars. As you look, you see a small fishing boat approaching.
Sister Ruth L. Renlund: “Oh, thank heavens,” you think, “the captain sees me!” The boat stops and a kindly, weather-beaten fisherman helps you on board. Gratefully you crawl to a seat in the boat, breathing a sigh of relief. The fisherman gives you a canteen of water and some soda crackers. You consume them greedily. The water and soda crackers provide enough nourishment for you to recover. You are so relieved and so happy. You are on your way home.
As you begin to revive and start feeling better, you start paying attention to some things you hadn’t really noticed before. The water from the canteen is a bit stale and not what you would have preferred, like Evian or Perrier. The crackers tasted good, but what you really wanted was some delicatessen meat followed by a chocolate croissant. You also notice that the kindly fisherman wears worn boots and blue jeans. The sweatband on his hat is stained, and he seems to be hard of hearing.
Elder Dale G. Renlund: You note that the boat is well-used and that there are dents in the right side of the bow. Some of the paint is chipped and peeling. You see that when the fisherman relaxes his grip on the rudder, the boat pulls to the right. You begin to worry that this boat and this captain cannot provide the rescue you need. You ask the fisherman about the dents and the rudder. He says he hasn’t worried much about those things because he has steered the boat to and from the fishing grounds, over the same route, day in and day out, for decades. The boat has always gotten him safely and reliably where he wanted to go.
You are stunned! How could he not worry about the dents and the steering? And why could the nourishment have not been more to your liking? The more you focus on the boat and the fisherman, the more concerned you become. You question your decision to get on board in the first place. Your anxiety begins to grow. Finally, you demand that the fisherman stop the boat and let you back into the water. Even though you are still more than 20 kilometers, or 12 miles, away from shore, you can’t stand the idea of being in the boat. With sadness, the fisherman stops the boat and helps you back into the ocean. You are on your own again

__________

Symbolism

Capsized boat: Fall of Adam

Person: Us

Dinky beatup Fishing boat: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

 

note the description of the boat, I find it interesting but highly informative. The church is not a glorious perfect running cruise ship, but rather an old shipping vessel. Yet it is still our only way to live.

Additionally, Bruce R McConkie had been staunch on his belief that blacks would never get the priesthood. Yet while he was an Apostle the priesthood ban lifted. 

In a talk at BYU following this change, he said:

“Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

Truth is being restored every day. Just like how work for the dead didn’t come till years after the start of the Restoration, these changes don’t come till God decides to make them.

Edited by Fether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

Something that has been nagging at me since the name emphasis for the church has been changing has been why we haven't been focusing on this sooner.  If we have been grieving the spirit since we have been embracing Mormon and such, why was this not stressed during the mormon.org push and the I'm a Mormon campaign?  I very much want to approach this in the right way, but I really do struggle with this question off and on

The correct name of the Church has been stressed by leadership since the earliest days of the Restoration. Just in my lifetime (born in '63), I remember many times when our leadership in Salt Lake City has cautioned us not to become too casual in referring to the Church, and specifically that we do not belong to "the Mormon Church".

If President Nelson has done anything differently than many previous apostles and prophets, it is that:

1. He emphasized not only the correct name of the Church, but also that we, as Saints, are not "Mormons". We are "Latter-day Saints".

2. He openly stressed what other leaders have only hinted at or said in less plain language: That the Lord is grieved at our hard-heartedness when we claim to take upon ourselves His name, yet call both his Church and his Saints by a name other than that of Jesus Christ. The fact that Mormon was a great prophet is of no moment; we don't call ourselves "Mosesites" or "Josephites" or even "Brighamites" (though I like the ring of that last one).

The Lord uses callings, service, and ultimately life and death itself to call a specific man to lead the Church. It is no mere accident that President Nelson leads us today. He perhaps feels more keenly than did some of his predecessors the grievance of misusing the name of the Church and the Saints. That doesn't mean that they were not inspired, only that they didn't feel that issue as deeply as President Nelson.

Look, there are literally thousands of issues, small and some great, that keep us from being the people we should be. If you think the prophet leading the Church today should make an emphasis on all such things RIGHT NOW, we would be completely overwhelmed, buried in our imperfections and condemned before God. But God does not require us to live a celestial law right this moment; he allows us to grow line upon line, and reveals himself precept upon precept. He has taught us since the earliest days of the Restoration that we are his people and should call ourselves in his name, and that his Church must be called by his name. This is not new or surprising, except perhaps to the youngest children or most recent converts. But now the Lord, through the agency of President Nelson, is bringing this issue to the forefront. We have failed in years (and generations) past to live up to expectations in this, so the Lord is calling us to repentance. Thank God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Fether said:

Additionally, Bruce R McConkie had been staunch on his belief that blacks would never get the priesthood.

This is not actually so. To be more precise:

On several occasions, Elder McConkie voiced his opinion that members of the black race would not receive the full blessings of the Priesthood until the Millennial era. But he openly acknowledged, as all Church leaders always did, that black people are people, sons and daughters of God, that they are subjects of salvation and exaltation just as any others, and that the day would come when they would be granted all the blessings anyone else received, including the blessings of the Priesthood, the temple, and exaltation itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

I guess my biggest thing was when President Nelson said (my best paraphrase) that by embracing nicknames we had unwittingly acquiesced to Satan. I simply don't understand why the Lord would have let President Hinckley/Monson run such PR when we were actually letting the devil win (so to speak). To be probably more blunt than I should, I thought that was the point of having a prophet. 

Evidently, he received a “course correction” which Hinckley/Monson did not. The Lord impressed upon them other matters of great importance for which we need prophets.

The quote is, “To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement.” No preceding prophet ever removed the Lord’s name from His Church, at least formally. Nelson’s prophetic direction is assurance that we move away from doing it even colloquially, a course correction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

President Monson displayed how to live a Christ centered life and how to constantly listen to the promoptings of the Holy Ghost.

 

President Nelson is a Cardiothoracic Surgeon who was a trailblaizer in heart surgery and also trained other surgeons.  Nelson knows how to use tools and fix things.  He has his fingers on the pulse of the Church and is doing what he can to optimize its health.  Surgeons are good at using a knife and removing tissue that is unnecessay or destructive.

 

Adam was a military general

Moses was raised as Egyptian Royality

Peter was a fisherman

 

The Lord choses his annointed leaders.

I’m interested in seeing what a attorney will do.

And Holland is a philosopher.  

Great days are ahead of us...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vort said:

This is not actually so. To be more precise:

On several occasions, Elder McConkie voiced his opinion that members of the black race would not receive the full blessings of the Priesthood until the Millennial era. But he openly acknowledged, as all Church leaders always did, that black people are people, sons and daughters of God, that they are subjects of salvation and exaltation just as any others, and that the day would come when they would be granted all the blessings anyone else received, including the blessings of the Priesthood, the temple, and exaltation itself.

Thanks for the correction. I admittedly was  regurgitating what I had heard in the past. 

Do you have any sources where he makes comments on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2019 at 3:29 PM, Fether said:

Thanks for the correction. I admittedly was  regurgitating what I had heard in the past. 

Do you have any sources where he makes comments on it?

For example, Elder McConkie's original (1958) edition of Mormon Doctrine, under the encyclopedic heading of "Negroes", explained the then-commonly held idea (propounded by McConkie) that blacks of African ancestry, or "negroes", could not receive the Priesthood or temple blessings in this life due to a premortal lack of valor. It then includes these sentences (emphasis is mine):

Quote

Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Abra. 1:20-27.) The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them (Moses 7:8, 12, 22), although sometimes negroes search out the truth, join the Church, and become by righteous living heirs of the celestial kingdom of heaven. President Brigham Young and others have taught that in the future eternity worthy and qualified negroes will receive the priesthood and every gospel blessing available to any man...Certainly the negroes as children of God are entitled to equality before the law and to be treated with all the dignity and respect of any member of the human race. Many of them certainly live according to higher standards of decency and right in this life than do some of their brothers of other races, a situation that will cause judgment to be laid "to the line, and righteousness to the plummet" (Isa. 28:17) in the day of judgment.

Remember, this was 1958, well before the whole civil rights movement had heated up. McConkie was not writing anything secret or shocking, nor was he pandering to popular political sensibilities. In my judgment, the above quotation accurately represented the mainstream "conservative" or "establishment" attitudes and beliefs among the leadership of the Church in the 1950s about African blacks—they were children of God and subjects of both salvation and exaltation, they should be treated with the same courtesy as anyone else, and their civil rights should be protected as much as anyone else's. This entry was somewhat modified in later versions of Mormon Doctrine (and obviously the whole "lack of valor" thing has today been publicly disavowed by the Church), but I believe the above wording was retained in later editions. I can check it when I get home.

The point is, the Church's leadership did not hold blacks as second-class children of God or lesser beings or unworthy of exaltation or any of the other nonsense that disaffected Latter-day Saints and anti-Mormons often hint at or even state. Neither Elder McConkie nor any other General Authority that I'm aware of ever publicly taught that "blacks would never get the priesthood". The opposite is true, in fact.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The internet.

The church began emphasizing the church name over "Mormon" a decade ago, and their search hits fell dramatically.  People simply couldn't find official sources when they searched for Mormon stuff.  So, they did SEO techniques to get people to official information using the search term "Mormon"  I think they still do, but are now directing to Latter-day Saint sites, and hopefully they can correct misconceptions.  And I think the Sister Wives and the Warren Jeffs news really confused people on who were Mormons.  So the church is smart to just abandon the fringe Mormon news from official use by just not using Mormon any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

Something that has been nagging at me since the name emphasis for the church has been changing has been why we haven't been focusing on this sooner.  If we have been grieving the spirit since we have been embracing Mormon and such, why was this not stressed during the mormon.org push and the I'm a Mormon campaign?  I very much want to approach this in the right way, but I really do struggle with this question off and on. 

What do you all think?

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.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Fether said:

There is this fallacy that many saints have (often times it is just subconscious) that puts the church on a higher standard than it really is. This fallacy is what cause most confusion and frustration... and in extreme cases apostasy. 

I think this goes for dispensations and the progress within dispensations as well. For example, the brother of Jared was not chastised for not knowing the temporal nature of the Son of God, and previous prophets were not condemned for not seeing the finger of the Lord. Such a revelation was not expected for his (or a predecessor's) particular dispensation, place and time. As his faith exceeded those parameters, he was blessed and the Lord was pleased, but the Lord would not have held it against him if he hadn't. But He did command and ensure that the event would not be known until generations and dispensations later, when in His design it should be broadly known (Ether 3:21-28).

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem, nor do I see any contradiction. I remember President Hinckley reminding church members to use the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I also understand that many people did not know that Mormons and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were the same church. The Mormon ad campaign allowed people to see who the Mormons actually were. I would actually disagree that this wasn't highlighted during the Mormon.org movement. The movement was highlighting who we actually are, ordinary (but peculiar) people. The campaign also emphasize how and why we were called Mormon but that the church is actually the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

President Nelson is now no longer providing members of the Church with any excuses to continue to use the term Mormon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought...consider how comfortable you are when you see Xmas during the Christmas season.

If you support the notion of not taking Christ out of Christmas, it’s only logical you’d support not taking Christ out of the name of His Church.

But even more important than the Church’s name is how its members think of themselves.  Do we really know whose we are?  That we were bought for a price?  If so, why would we ever react in any manner other than enthusiastically to an invitation to always have Christ on our lips, in our minds, and in our hearts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We must also remember that we are given line upon line, precept upon precept. It may be that we should have been called by the official name since the beginning, but if the members are not ready to fully accept it, The Lord sometimes decides that it's better to wait untill we are willing to fully accept it.

Remember that it "only" took around 1500 years before Our Father revealed through our Lord Jesus Christ that they indeed got permission to give divorce papers by Moses, but that it wasn't supposed to be like that in the beginning. They were only allowed to do it because of their ungodliness, and now the truth about marriage was going to be the standard.

In other words, God has for some reason always worked that way, so let's trust in Him. He knows best after all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think someone at the church hq forgot about this site. 

https://www.mormonchannel.org/watch/series/im-a-mormon

or this one. The back of the cards all use the mormon.org address.

https://store.lds.org/usa/en/discounted/book-of-mormon-pass-along-cards

It  would seem to me the church would be the first ones to purge everything from its own websites and warehouses.

Edited by ephedra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, ephedra said:

I think someone at the church hq forgot about this site. 

https://www.mormonchannel.org/watch/series/im-a-mormon

or this one. The back of the cards all use the mormon.org address.

https://store.lds.org/usa/en/discounted/book-of-mormon-pass-along-cards

It  would seem to me the church would be the first ones to purge everything from its own websites and warehouses.

That's what my non member friends have said. If the church wanted to change their name they shouldn't have done what @ephedra described.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, bytebear said:

The internet.

The church began emphasizing the church name over "Mormon" a decade ago, and their search hits fell dramatically.  People simply couldn't find official sources when they searched for Mormon stuff.  So, they did SEO techniques to get people to official information using the search term "Mormon"  I think they still do, but are now directing to Latter-day Saint sites, and hopefully they can correct misconceptions.  And I think the Sister Wives and the Warren Jeffs news really confused people on who were Mormons.  So the church is smart to just abandon the fringe Mormon news from official use by just not using Mormon any more.

80% of the questions I get from friends who know I converted start with "I saw the show/news....."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ephedra said:

I think someone at the church hq forgot about this site. 

https://www.mormonchannel.org/watch/series/im-a-mormon

or this one. The back of the cards all use the mormon.org address.

https://store.lds.org/usa/en/discounted/book-of-mormon-pass-along-cards

It  would seem to me the church would be the first ones to purge everything from its own websites and warehouses.

From President Nelson's October 2018 Conference talk:

"If we will be patient and if we will do our part well, the Lord will lead us through this important task..."

"We will want to be courteous and patient in our efforts to correct these errors..."

In the original announcement he said, "We have work before us to bring ourselves in harmony with His will. In recent weeks, various Church leaders and departments have initiated the necessary steps to do so. Additional information about this important matter will be made available in the coming months."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this