There have been three responses to President Nelson’s recent discussions of the proper name of the Church and how other names serve or please Satan and offend God.
- He is engaging in hyperbole as part of a call to members of the Church to focus more on Christ. It is not as if many critics of the Church haven’t commented that the Church needs to focus more on Christ and less on cults of personality and other things.
- Church leaders from Joseph Smith, Parley P. Pratt, Brigham Young, through Thomas S. Monson were all were servants of Satan. Not only that, but so was the institutionalized Church (cf the D&C 135:7 and the “I”m a Mormon” and “Meet the Mormons” initiatives).
- That the current statements are an expression of a disconnected hobby horse of Elder Nelson’s that he is engaging in without much of a plan or a focus, now that he is President Nelson.
That results in several different approaches.
E.g.
“Help. My ex-Mormon husband has been quoting President Nelson and insists that what he is saying about the name of the Church is an admission that all of the prior prophets and the institutional Church were all serving Satan. He calls the Church of the last 150+ years a victory for Satan.
He keeps claiming that I can’t be rational to believe that they’ve quit giving victories for Satan now, and can’t trust anything that servants of Satan have said in the past. If they couldn’t get this much right, he claims I shouldn’t trust the Church for anything.
I asked my Stake President for help, and he was just a deer in the headlights. I’d write Salt Lake, but they just send letters back to the Stake President and he has already been unable to help me at all.”
Image from http://ananael.blogspot.com/2016/05/satanic-mormons.html
Or things like this (quoted with permission):
In principle, the idea of emphasizing a Church’s full/original/”true” name and de-emphasizing that Church’s nickname(s) seems reasonable enough. I can imagine any number of reasons why a Church might want to do that. But some arguments for such a change raise more questions than they answer.
Which of the following three statements comes closest to capturing what you understand President Nelson to be saying when he argues that Latter-day Saints should stop using the term “Mormon” because its use “offends” God and pleases Satan:
1. God was totally fine with His past prophets using the term “Mormon” — from Joseph Smith’s embrace of the term to Gordon B. Hinkley’s “I’m a Mormon” campaign — but for some reason that hasn’t been explained, He started being offended by the term (and Satan started being pleased by the term) in the 2nd decade of the 21st Century, just in time to inform His prophet about this, the very same prophet who, coincidentally, was on record not liking use of the term 30 years earlier.
2. God has been offended by Latter-day Saint use of the term “Mormon” to describe the Church (and its adherents) since the early days of the Church — this isn’t new. He just chose not to reveal His feelings on the matter until 2018, for some reason that hasn’t been explained, allowing His prophets to promote use of the word — and presumably please Satan in the process — for well over a century.
3. God has been offended by Latter-day Saint use of the term “Mormon” to describe the Church (and its adherents) since the early days of the church — this isn’t new. He tried to communicate His offense to His past prophets, but was unsuccessful, with the result that Satan was pleased with the “I’m a Mormon” campaign (for example) while God was mortified by it. But once President Nelson took the reins, God was finally able to get His message through.
Which of these comes closest to what you think President Nelson is saying? This is a serious question.
What do you think:
- Is it just hyperbole to focus people on Christ — something a prophet should be doing?
- Is it a serious admission that the Church and its prophets were serving and pleasing Satan rather than God until the most recent prophet?
- Is it something else?
- Is it too early to know what is intended? Do we really need to wait until President Nelson speaks more on the subject rather than trying to second guess him on what he is trying to accomplish and what he means by what he has to say about pleasing Satan and offending God.
Wheat & Tares 
It’s a stupid hobby horse topic of President Nelson and he is using hyperbole. God is offended by more important things than this: racism, wealth inequality, killing a journalist and cutting him up into pieces, pipe bombs in the mail, morally offensive president to name a few. Hell, I’m offended by these disgusting behaviors exhibited by men.
We’re all “ex-Mormons” now.
Read carefully the quote from President Nelson “To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan”. There has been no official action to REMOVE anything. If he had said “To REFER to the Lord’s Church without the Lord’s name” etc. would present the problem some are making this into.
Still, there is the quandary of changing the name from “Church of Christ” (1830) to “Church of the Latter Day Saints” (1835). Because it was stated that “The Church of Jesus Christ” is acceptable when there are separate groups already with that name leads me to think of this as just a personal preference of our prophet who wishes for everyone to follow. He may also wish for everyone to give up Rock ‘n Roll, and I’m not about to do that .
BTW, the Community of Christ did not alleviate confusion with their name change. There is a “Community of Jesus” on record.
This is his personal pet peeve and, now that he is in charge, he plans to push the issue. To claim this as revelation is just plain wrong.
This has long been a hobby horse of President Nelson’s. I don’t think it’s a personal preference, I think is sure that he is right (think about other surgeons you know) doctrinally and is basing that certitude on the scriptures he’s cited in the D&C. I think he’s used the strongest language possible in interpreting these scriptures and also does not hesitate to exercise his authority as President of the Church. The problem is that we have a yes-man culture in the Church where there is not a forum for people to push back and point out problems before things are rolled out. The quorum is supposed to hash these things out beforehand and talk through all of the issues that people immediately pointed out (Mormon Newsroom, D&C 107, etc.). It appears he just came out with it and let everyone scramble to make it work. His conference talk seemed to be largely his taking offense at the reaction and doubling down on the push for the name change. That has left a lot of people like me convinced that it does not smell like the stuff of revelation.
It’s a pet peeve and hobby horse. That said, I’m actually a little less cynical about this one than I am about past efforts to disown the term “Mormon,” which I think had a lot more to do with marketing and branding, whereas I think that RMN genuinely believes this is the right thing and what God wants; I just think it’s super wrong-headed.
I don’t know exactly what is going, but I will offer these possible precedents:
1) hyperbole (your #1) — It seems that prophets have used hyperbole in the past. The most obvious example is my opinion is the “parents would prefer children come home in a pine box rather than break the law of chastity” teachings from the mid-20th century. The only way I can make sense of these statements is that they are a form of hyperbole to emphasize the importance of chastity (something I can agree with), but the actual statement is not true (this parent would much prefer that his daughters come home unchaste or pregnant but very much alive). Since past prophets and apostles have used hyperbole to make their point, I could see the same thing being true of Pres. Nelson’s push (true — we need to focus more on our covenant to take upon us the name of Christ. false — the nickname “Mormon” offends God and pleases Satan).
I find myself a little uncomfortable with prophetic use of hyperbole. As the present discussion shows, we parse the language prophets use much more closely than others. It seems careless to me that a prophet would use hyperbole without explicitly stating “I am now using hyperbole to emphasize a point, but the actual statement is not necessarily true.”
2) God waiting to reveal something, perhaps because the Church/world is not ready (Aaron’s #2) — Most explanations that I see for why prophets/apostles in the Bible were tolerant of slavery are some form of “slavery was too common place, too accepted in the world — even among Israel — to be outright condemned. It wasn’t until the 17th/18th/19th centuries that society (and the Christian church within society) ‘grew up’ enough to be ready to accept full abolition”.
Perhaps another example is the loss of the 116 pages. Sometimes, I see this situation talked about as “God told Joseph and Martin ‘no’ several times, but finally conceded to their stubbornness. Does God sometimes let us do wrong things with His “blessing” because of our own stubbornness?
These possibilities may bump up against “the Gospel never changes” stuff, because it suggests that God changes his teachings/commands to accommodate our ability to obey.
3) hobby horse (your #3) — Perhaps the best example of a past hobby horse that comes immediately to mind is Joseph Fielding Smith’s young earth creationism. Even though he only pushed these ideas as an apostle, and did not push them when he became President of the Church, many of his ideas are still influencing the discussion of the Church’s cosmology. The difference here would be that Elder Nelson’s hobby horse became Pres. Nelson’s hobby horse. Perhaps there are better examples. Hobby horses muddy the water between what is revealed from God and what is the prophet’s personal opinion (and whether the prophet himself can reliably distinguish the difference).
Thank you for the thoughts and clarifications.
I think it is too easy to under or over read strong statements.
I admit that personally I am looking forward to hearing him clarify the statements and that I think that the call to follow Christ is an important foundation.
I could also be completely wrong.
This is something President Nelson has felt strongly about for years as evidenced by his April 1990 general conference address. I also believe he felt leaders erred in accepting the nickname. In the most recent conference he said, “And if we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, He is offended.” The Church as an institution has sponsored the Mormon nickname (Meet the Mormons, Mormon Helping Hands, I’m a Mormon, etc.). In his conference address, he specifically addressed arguments President Hinckley made in October 1990 and said they were inadequate.
I don’t think it’s much more complicated than that. He’s always felt strongly about this and is now in a position to do something about it. He’s had almost 30 years to have his mind changed on the subject but hasn’t budged.
I do feel he is definitely indulging in hyperbole.
As a young child, we were Mormon, though it wasn’t a word I felt especially comfortable about, here in the UK. But I was a missionary minded child and so I did use the term.
I believe it was in my teens that efforts were then introduced to use the full name of the church, I was very happy to drop Mormon, but the full name was such a mouthful, and so unclear requiring eventual unwilling reference to Mormon to be understood, that really I didn’t used it much, in spite of my participation in Christian Union and Chaplaincy events at VI form college and university.
Evenso, I never really got on board with the whole reclaiming of the term Mormon, not only on the grounds that I thought it unworkable that Pres Hinckley would be able to lay sole legal rights to the term as the church tried so hard to do from that point, but also because I just didn’t feel comfortable using it. I never put up an ‘I’m a Mormon’ profile, despite strong leadership encouragement for us all to do so, when that became a thing. Ironically, I had only just, somewhat grudgingly begun to accept that perhaps I really would have to use the term in conversation with others, when Pres Nelson pushes the restart on only using the official name, so now I guess I’ll go back to saying not very much at all, because it is still such a mouthful, and would still need to be explained.
Stephen, What suggests to you that any clarification could be forthcoming? Please pardon the length of my responsive comment:
RMN does not have a history of “clarifying” his more controversial statements. E.g., his “Divine Love” article in the February 2003 Ensign effectively declared that other and prior General Authorities were wrong to refer to God’s “unconditional love.” It did so on the ostensible basis [1] of scripture citations which almost always confused “if-then” logic with “only if-then” logic [2]. In the end, the article confused what some meant by “unconditional love” with “unconditional blessings”[3] and engendered a great deal of controversy. No clarification has appeared. Then in January 2016 RMN claimed the November 2015 Policy came by revelation (to each of the Q15 individually). He did not say whether he referred to the Policy as it originally appeared in the Handbook or the Policy as substantially modified by the FP’s “clarification” letter. No member of the Q15 other than the FP subscribed to the “clarification” letter. No member of the Q15 other than RMN can be found to have publicly supported his claim that the rightness of the Policy had been revealed to them. No clarification of the January 2016 statement has been forthcoming from anyone, certainly not from RMN.
Markablog is right that RMN’s actual words about “victory for Satan” do not, by themselves, mean anything because no one has “removed” Jesus from the name of the name of the church. However, from the context succinctly articulated by Mary Ann, it seems clear that RMN was referring explicitly to the usage of “Mormon” and “Mormonism” common to at least JS, GBH[4], and TSM and a myriad of others.
I am unable to see the language about offending Jesus or the language about victory for Satan as anything other than hyperbole, but I fear RMN thinks it is literally accurate. If he meant such “doctrinal” statements literally, then I have to prayerfully put them in the class of such statements J. Reuben Clark once referred to as an occasion on which the “President of the Church … was not ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’ “ [5]
Indeed, it seems to me no matter of coincidence that October conference also included the following statement without excluding GAs at any level from the people spoken of:
“You will find that this Church is filled with some of the finest people this world has to offer. They are welcoming, loving, kind, and sincere. They are hardworking, willing to sacrifice, and even heroic at times.
And they are also painfully imperfect.
They make mistakes.
From time to time they say things they shouldn’t. They do things they wish they hadn’t.
But they do have this in common—they want to improve and draw closer to the Lord, our Savior, even Jesus Christ.
They are trying to get it right.
They believe. They love. They do.
They want to become less selfish, more compassionate, more refined, more like Jesus.”
In fact, lately I’ve been wondering whether RMN has been inhaling. [5] But that doesn’t prevent respecting his ecclesiastical authority, his good intentions, or sustaining him in his calling by prayer.
[1] Given others’ research into the long-standing McConkie campaign to persuade the Brethren to cease using and forbid the continued use of the term “unconditional love,” it is at least questionable whether the 2003 article’s conclusion resulted from a study of the scriptures or whether they were merely being used as a post-hoc justification of a policy adopted for other reasons. Similarly, nothing in the D&C section on the name of the church compels the reading given to it by RMN (whether or not an inspired reading).
[2] While “if-then” logic in common discourse sometimes does mean “only if-then”, nothing in the English language compels RMN’s reading those scriptures in that way. I had in 2003 found only one of his scripture citations using “only if-then” language and it was directly contradicted by the same D&C section within a few verses after using that language.
[3] There had apparently been considerable concern (at least by McConkie and son) about possible confusion of our GA’s use of the term “unconditional love” with the usage by some (certainly not all) protestants who seemed to think that God’s “unconditional love” meant that it didn’t matter what they did in breaking God’s commandments. Such protestants do seem to have been confusing “unconditional love” with the idea that God’s blessings flow to all without dependence upon any conditions.
[4] Even after what amounted to GBH’s October 1990 gentle rebuttal of RMN’s April 1990 talk on the subject, RMN stated in October 1997, “I have selected as a model for my message President Gordon B. Hinckley.…. His teachings are always inspiring and relevant. They should be studied carefully and applied individually. They represent the word of the Lord for His people.” If RMN were consistent over time (not particularly likely of any human including myself) then perhaps this year he only meant he felt it was time, as part of an effort to refocus on the Savior for the church to change direction in the wayit and its members refers to themselves.
[5] J. Reuben Clark “When Are the Writings or Sermons of Church Leaders Entitled to the Claim of Scripture,” Address given to seminary and institute teachers, at BYU, on July 7, 1954, published in Church News (July 31, 1954): 9–10; reprinted in Dialogue 12 (Summer 1979), 68–80.
[6] “Every mortal has at least a casual if not intimate relationship with the sin of pride. No one has avoided it; few overcome it. When I told my wife that this would be the topic of my talk, she smiled and said, ‘It is so good that you talk about things you know so much about.’ President Faust took the time to teach me some important principles about my assignment. He explained also how gracious the members of the Church are, especially to General Authorities. He said, ‘They will treat you very kindly. They will say nice things about you.’ He laughed a little and then said, ‘Dieter, be thankful for this. But don’t you ever inhale it.’” DFO, October conference 2010
I think it is no coincidence that a Prophetic leader who feels strongly about this topic is put in charge of the Lord’s church at this time. There were a variety of reasons that use and possession of the term “Mormon” made a lot of sense during the “Mormon moment” of Mitt Romney’s presidential run. But with the glare of the spotlight off the church it makes a lot more sense to emphasize the full name of the church and to try to emphasize that we are disciples of Christ.
My guess is that behind closed doors he lobbied the first presidency and twelve for the church to stop using Mormon and when that was unsuccessful he took to the pulpit (1990) to try to do it himself. After being very gently corrected by Pres Hinckley he decided to bite his tongue for the next 28 years and probably vowed to himself that “if I’m ever sitting in the big seat, this is one of the first things I’ll do.”
The use of Satan is hyperbole. Remember that he also said when courting Wendy that she can be assured that marriage is the right thing to do because “I’m really experienced at receiving revelation.” Somewhere along the way in his life he has learned to use God/Satan/Revelation to convince people that his way is the right way.
It’s worth pointing out that #2 (past leaders served Satan) is usually more a rhetorical position than an actual belief. It’s part of a reduction to absurdity used to show that it’s not possible for prophets to always be right. At best, this is a blunt way to get believers to think critically about something they don’t want to think about, but IMO should.
I think it’s most likely that President Nelson is engaging in some hyperbole to support a hobby horse. I don’t know how much he’s exaggerating what he really thinks, though.
I complain too much about the church. I probably talk too much about it too. My goal with this name change is to talk about the church less. Maybe President Nelson would like that.
Stephen,
Maybe this isn’t a strict hyperbole. Think about the times you tried to explain what religion you practice to someone who comes from a non-European Christian back ground. Think about the various ward members in your current congregation and how many see themselves as Mormons vs disciples of Jesus Christ and members of his gospel. From my experience it would have been nice to have this change take place back when President Grant was still around. It would save hours of conversations so people I talked with might be in a position to have a more meaningful conversation about racism, wealth or a whole host of topics which lead to Jesus Christ.
I see this like the “Aaronic priesthood should wear white shirts” thing. If a top Mormon priesthood leader wants to express his feelings that he’d like things a certain way, that’s fine as long as nobody gets hurts by it. Once it becomes a tool for virtue signalling and division–“You can’t pass the Sacrament without a white shirt!” “Kent can’t lead us in prayer without a white shirt!” “It sends the wrong message if the bishopric isn’t all in white shirts!”–then I question what the intent is.
I’m trying to be hopeful that this won’t turn out the same.
Mark and others—thank you for your perspectives and input. You’ve given me a lot to think about.
Regardless of whether it is hyperbole or an honestly held opinion (wrong or right), the circumstance of his announcement demonstrate that the highest quorums of the church do not act only on unanimity as we have been lead to believe.
Here’s a fourth option: God actually DOES care, and this declaration from Pres. Nelson IS inspired. (The fact that this option isn’t even considered in the OP makes me wonder whether this viewpoint is welcome.) It may not be the most probable or popular explanation, but the odds are greater than zero.
Option 4: God actually DOES care, and this declaration from Pres. Nelson IS inspired entails option 2. I would imagine it wasn’t included as a separate choice not in an effort to ignore its nonzero probability, but to highlight its logical conclusion which contradicts most member’s reasons for listening to RMN in the first place. RMN current position is incoherent. He wants to assert both that previous presidents of the church were wrong, offended God, and served Satan; and that he is the inheritor of a true prophetic mantle through those same presidents.
Hyperbole.
I assume that President Nelson has held a temple recommend for the last 3 decades while at the same time having a pretty severe disagreement with the men in charge. I like the language because he thought the men he SUSTAINED as prophets were violently off course. I am going to keep this one in my back pocket in case I ever run up against an over zealous bishop or stake president who might have a different definition of sustain than I do.
As long as I am talking about definitions, I like the way President Nelson is shifting the definition on revelation. In both conferences he has talked about choosing apostles, counselors, name change, ministering etc… and has gone out of his way to explain the process. These thoughts are coming to his mind and he interprets them as the will of the Lord. That might not seem earth shattering, but I like him describing the process.
Nice post, Stephen.
While this is annoying, it also points to one of the main reasons Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christian. “The Church” refers to Christianity at large, so when the Brighamite Mormons try to use it to refer to their specific religion, it reinforces that they view themselves as the *only* true church over against a degenerate, apostate Christianity. Boo.
Fred, do you have a source for the courtship bit? Not because I don’t believe you, but I want to look it up myself.
I just want to remind people that a significant push to get media to use the full name of the church (and to avoid using “Mormon Church”) occurred in 2001, under the supervision of President Hinckley. This is something that has come up over and over again, and the doctrinal background has been taught many times. The only thing new is that with President Nelson’s recent push, the term “Mormon” has gone from something we begrudgingly accept for missionary purposes to something that even clarity in communicating with non-members doesn’t justify. That’s a significant change, but it’s not like prior administrations were advocating for increased use of the term Mormon (even Mormon.org always quickly made the name of the church clear).
And President Nelson’s actual words matter. It’s the complacency in allowing ourselves to be known by some other name that’s a problem, not occasional use of that name.
What baffles me is that this is such a buggaboo for the bloggernacle and commenters. It seems to me that if you think it’s silly, you can simply ignore it. The media have been doing that for decades.
Cody, your comment relies on your own interpretation of scripture and your own usage. In the context of the Catholoc Church, “the Church” almost universally refers to the Catholic Church.
“Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christians.” This sentence includes a presumption that Mormons are not Christians. Boo.
Dylan, It was in the Sunday morning session of the April 2018 General Conference. Here is the exact quote “To strengthen my proposal to Wendy, I said to her, “I know about revelation and how to receive it.”
Here is a link https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/04/revelation-for-the-church-revelation-for-our-lives?lang=apw
This little hobby-horse of RMN shouldn’t bother me as much as it does. But it does bother me. A lot.
It’s like when your favorite TV show jumps the shark and you learn that JR isn’t dead or that Mulder isn’t returning to X-Files or Prison Break actually broke out of prison. Sorry, but I’m not sure I can stick with another season of Mormonism.
MTodd, when excessively bothered, it can be helpful to sing. 🙂 Consider:
I had a little hobby horse,
His name was Tommy Gray,
His head was made of pease straw,
His body made of hay;
I saddled him and bridled him,
And rode him up to town,
There came a little puff of wind
And blew him up and down.
(This version of the old English nursery rhyme can be found in Children’s Literature, A Textbook of Sources for Teachers and Teacher-Training Classes (1920) by Charles Madison Curry and Erle Elsworth Clippinger.)
This can be sung to any Common Meter (CM/ 8686) hymn tune, by giving “pease” two notes rather than one (a defect in the poem’s meter).. I suggest using St. Anne (“O God, Our Help in Ages Past”). In addition to the number of syllables, it fits the musical structure of that tune fairly well.
With only a little effort you might also find some relevant metaphorical meaning in the conclusion of the nursery rhyme.
But, on another, more serious, note (pun intended), I have also found it helpful to figure out why I am excessively bothered. “Sometimes, not often enough*….” that analysis has helped reduce excessive to reasonable and chart a course of action less driven by mere emotion.
*sung by Karen Carpenter, 1971
DSC, you are missing the main frustration. It’s about the way it was presented. “Victory for Satan” etc. Please don’t misrepresent the prophet’s words!
@Dsc: I’m not sure if you’re aware, but the word “catholic” means “universal”, so the early church (~300 AD) was called the “catholic church”, which meant “universal church”. It was one church for the world and most Christian denominations view all of Christianity as one church. The *Roman* Catholic Church is the part of the universal church which views the bishop of Rome as authoritative. That is why the Nicene Creed refers to “one holy, catholic church” and “one baptism”. When Anglicans or Eastern Orthodox recite the creed, they are not considering themselves part of the Roman Catholic Church.
For many reasons Mormons are not viewed as Christian: such as a wholly different belief in God, rejecting all baptisms but their own (no longer “one baptism”), rejection of the creeds, rejection of all other priesthood, lack of ecumenism, addition of multiple other requirements for salvation (don’t start with the exaltation vs salvation talk – the distinction is a creation of Mormonism), and many other things.
We know why Nelson wants to refer to the LDS Church as “the Church” – because he thinks it is the only church of Jesus Christ, the sole one with authority to perform ordinances. See, in making that claim all the rest of Christianity is rejected as *not being Christ’s church*, so to then try to claim that the LDS Church is, actually, Christian is ridiculous. That’s like trying to claim to be Buddhist but rejecting all other types of Buddhism as frauds, embracing completely different practices, and claiming that Buddha was actually a female ghost. At some point you’re no longer Buddhist by the commonly accepted definition of the term, despite your claims.
Brian,
“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.”
I’m not bothered by any of these words, and I’m still surprised that so many people are.
Pres. Nelson has been honing his “revelatory” skills not just in his religious worship but in his profession as well.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseretnews.com/article/900008831/president-nelson-was-true-pioneer-of-heart-surgery-colleagues-say.amp
Surgeons are the “jocks” of medicine and RMN was outstanding in his particular speciality. Confidence. boldness and surety are constant companions of surgeons.
No doubt, this is what RMN brings to his calling as Prophet, Seer and Revelator as well.
Cody,
I’m not sure why you felt the need to Episcosplain the term “catholic” to me (I’m well aware of the literal meaning of catholic), but in doing so you’ve demonstrated something important. You “corrected” my use of “catholic” in order to drive home a theological point, although “Catholic Church” is commonly used to denote the Roman Catholic Church (Wikipedia redirects “Roman Catholic Church” to “Catholic Church”). So maybe calling a church by its proper name matters after all?
Your arguments regarding whether Latter-day Saints are Christians basically boils down to “It’s OK if I imply that Mormons aren’t Christians because I’m right.” The argument is as childish as it is wrong. You refer to the Nicene Creed as the measure of a Christian, although the term “Christian” predates the Nicene Creed by two and a half centuries. I’m also not sure how your reliance on the Nicene Creed (whose purpose was to decide which doctrines were heterodox and which were orthodox). Your arguments against Latter-day Saints counting as Christian depend on the assumption that your views are right, despite the fact that a first Century Christian would view many of your beliefs as heterodox.
“See, in making the claim all the rest of Christianity is rejected as *not being Christ’s church*, so to then try to claim that the LDS Church is, actually, Christian is ridiculous.” To the extent that this thought is coherent, it is a total non-sequitur.
Most of all, though, if you are offended that President Nelson would reiterate the now-centuries-old teaching that the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only church with authority from God, I get it. But while I hold that belief, I don’t hang around Episcopalian blogs in order to point out how wrong I think they are and how if they had beliefs more like mine, maybe they wouldn’t be losing members so quickly.
My question is are we going to start calling the priesthood by its correct name or are we going to continue to advanceSatans agenda by using a nickname which leaves out the name of the Savior ? Yes I know what the Lord has said about this previously but has he changed his mind again?
Do you know the difference between a cardiac surgeon and God? God does not think he is a cardiac surgeon!
Thanks for your contributions, Dsc.
Those who are still LDS Christians appreciate it.
We are curious about your reconcilation of the Church name and D&C 135:7 and 107:2-4.
This last part of the discussion has reminded me that whenever I have been asked to identify my religion on forms, such as census records every decade, or the sheets required on forms for tracking diversity I have to ask myself do I tick the Christian or Christian-other (if Christian has subcategories) box, or should I tick the Other-specify box, which would enable to highlight the church specifically. I’ve always gone for the former, because the latter felt like denying the Christianity I otherwise claim.
Dsc, Talking about the “silly” concerns people have with the presentation, you write, “It seems to me that if you think it’s silly, you can simply ignore it.” The OP and the people you direct your comment toward, however, clearly don’t think those concerns are silly. Your dismissive “you are silly” statements, however, are beyond ridiculous. Perhaps take your own advice and ignore the “buggaboo,” you find these concerns to be.
@Dsc: I apologize if my comment sounded condescending. I did not know if you were familiar with the meaning of the term “catholic”.
As for stressing the full name of the LDS Church, I don’t have any problem with it. I think it is silly to equate shorthand terms such as Mormon or LDS as somehow giving victory to Satan, and I think it is rather presumptuous to demand that others, for whom “the church” has specific meaning (and we’re not just talking about Episcopalians here, but Orthodox, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, etc.), use that term as shorthand for the LDS Church. It also doesn’t offend me. I think it is an odd hill on which to die, given the numerous other problems the world faces, but Pres. Nelson gets to do what he wishes.
Look, I am sympathetic to the view that Mormons are Christian since they are disciples of Christ and baptize in the name of the Trinity (in form, but not in spirit, of course). I’m not opposed to considering Mormons to be Christian. But that term has had specific meaning for millennia and over 1 billion people are familiar with the fact that Christianity accepts the Trinity, the primary creeds, and one baptism (e.g., they don’t re-baptize other denominations). To then reject all those people as *not the church of Jesus Christ*, reject their baptism, reject their authority, reject their sacraments, and reject their god (i.e., reject the Trinity), while simultaneously asking that you be considered one of them, is laughable. So it is also hubris for Nelson to demand that they accept his shorthand which seeks to redefine their long-held shorthand.
I think this article from the Vatican regarding the validity of Mormon baptism is germane to this discussion, especially since at one point the Roman Catholic Church accepted Mormon baptism:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni-ladaria_en.html
I remember an Ensign article which a sister related telling her neighbor our church is led by a prophet. The neighbor was interested and asked what the prophet said. At that point the sister was embarrassed because despite listening to conference, she didn’t remember what the prophet said. Good times.
When I read the sister’s story, I also felt shamed because I didn’t remember what the prophet had said either. So to make things right, I got out the previous conference issue and reviewed the prophet’s talks and tried committing key points to memory. Despite remembering doing that, I still don’t remember any of the substance of those talks or even who the prophet was. On reflection, it’s probably because the talks were unremarkable to me. Maybe they were remarkable for someone else. That’s fine. I’ve learned it’s not a sin to come to such a realization. I’ve certainly broken with the tradition that if a talk is unremarkable or doesn’t seem right, I must be automatically wrong and in need of repentance. I appreciate Zach’s observation that President Nelson has demonstrated a similar mindset over the course of the past few decades. I’ll take that validation.
Cody,
Perhaps it’s my experience drafting contracts that colors my view of this, but I don’t think using “the Church” on a second reference is intended to or as has the effect of encroaching on other denominations’ use of “the church” to refer to Christianity across denominations any more than writing a contract that refers to “the Purchaser” on subsequent references affects views of purchasers generally everywhere. As I mentioned before, Catholics, in a Catholic context, regularly use the term “the Church” to refer to the Roman Catholic Church (the link you provided is just one example). So I think the following statement is completely misguided, both on the facts of the current situation and history: “So it is also hubris for Nelson to demand that they accept his shorthand which seeks to redefine their long-held shorthand.”
On counting Latter-day Saints as Christians: you are using a definition that is not widely used among non-Christians, which in my view, indicates much more hubris than a request that others use the proper name of an organization, and then to use commonly understood shorthand thereafter. Outside of Christian groups that are trying to make a theological point, the term “Christian” simply refers to people who profess faith in Jesus Christ. Belief in Jesus as Savior and acceptance of the New Testament as scripture are much more common benchmarks of Christianity to those outside of any Christian faith.
Further, you appear to have a simplistic and presentist view of history and the current state of Christian doctrines. The “one baptism” doctrine is not nearly as universal, both across denominations and across history, as you seem to imply. Catholics, although in theory accepted baptisms from heretical and schismatic groups since the third or fourth century, didn’t accept such baptisms in practice until Vatican II. Many denominations, including most Baptist groups, Churches of Christ, and most Pentecostals don’t accept baptisms that don’t have certain characteristics (e.g., must be for repentance/cannot be for repentance, must be by immersion, not valid for an infant). Are these groups not Christian? What degree of acceptance of the extra-biblical doctrine of the Trinity is required? Are Christadelphians, Unitarians, United Church of God, and Oneness Pentecostals all non-Christian? Disagreement with these groups is, of course, natural, but to exclude all of these from the term “Christian” is not in keeping with the common usage of that term. To try to exclude them from the Christian umbrella exhibits no less hubris or presumptuousness than President Nelson’s comparatively minor ask.
” I think it is an odd hill on which to die, given the numerous other problems the world faces…” I agree, which is why I think it so odd that it has garnered this much attention from bloggers and journalists.
@Dsc: “” I think it is an odd hill on which to die, given the numerous other problems the world faces…” I agree, which is why I think it so odd that it has garnered this much attention from bloggers and journalists.” – – which is WHY it is getting attention. Because it seems so insignificant and yet are told in strong terms that it is not.
DSC, It has seemed to me that a great deal, though far from all, of the attention garnered by President Nelson’s talk has less to do with using the full name of the church (followed by a shorthand, implicitly defined term for subsequent references) rather than the nickname “Mormon,” and more to do with the offending-Jesus and victory-for-Satan language. If that perception is right, there is nothing at all odd about the attention given to it. It seems to make God so small (not President Nelson’s intent, I’m sure) and decisions of many prior leaders of the church so misguided. In the context of the claims of the church being led by Jesus through continuous or continuing revelation and the popular understanding of the never-being-led-astray language, the attention paid to those aspects of President Nelson’s talk is not odd at all and should not have been unexpected.
@Dsc: Thanks for the back-and-forth. I appreciate you pushing back on my statements.
I’m not bothered by the use of “the Church” as shorthand following the introduction of the full name of the Church, for similar reasons as you mentioned in your first paragraph. Use of “the church of Jesus Christ” is questionable to me, however. But then we know what Pres. Nelson means when he speaks of Brighamite Mormonism as “the Church”. It isn’t so simple and carries with it the baggage of the Great Apostasy.
I think these types of discussions can quickly devolve into a “no true Scotsman” fallacy, and there have no doubt been eras when Christian denominations have utilized the arguments of that fallacy, but you’re equating disagreements over particular fine points of theology with the LDS rejection of practically all of Christianity’s historical tenets, as well as the idea that Mormonism represents true Christianity. There is not a single Christian denomination in communion with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The LDS Church (see, which shorthand should I use here – “the Church” – which one? – “the church of Jesus Christ” – which one?) considers *all other* denominations as invalid. Not just a few heretical groups – all of them. They’ve posited themselves over and against all other denominations. Pres. Nelson’s name emphasis reinforces this concept. That is why I think most Christians would find it silly (I do not care much).
Imagine a fictional meeting between Pope Francis and Pres. Nelson. Would Pres. Nelson really refer to the LDS Church as “the Church” in such a situation, even in shorthand? Would he use “the Church of Jesus Christ”? Would he request the Pope use those terms so as not to grant Satan a victory? Or do you suppose he’d use some other shorthand that would be less offensive to the Pope? I’ve honestly no idea but it is my sad attempt to illustrate some of why creating such a stark line, as Nelson did in his talk, is problematic, where the use of “Mormon” or “LDS” is verboten.
“but you’re equating disagreements over particular fine points of theology” I’m not sure that I am. I’m pointing out that the very things that you cite as placing Latter-day Saints outside of Christianity are also points where other Christian denominations differ.
“with the LDS rejection of practically all of Christianity’s historical tenets,” Again, this presumes the correctness of your own doctrine, which is my main point of contention with your comments. The doctrines that non-Christians typically use as benchmarks of what constitutes Christianity are very much alive and present in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, namely the divinity and saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ and belief in His teachings. The “historical tenets” you have cited as being definitive all post-date the term “Christian” by hundreds of years.
“There is not a single Christian denomination in communion with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” I don’t see how this is relevant to our discussion. Only a few non-Roman Catholic churches are in communion with Rome. (Unless you are equating acceptance of baptism with communion, which I think is a non-standard use of the term, to say the least.)
In a fictional meeting between Pope Francis and President Nelson (which is a meeting I would love to see in real life), I imagine that President Nelson would use “our church” or “our faith” where clarification is necessary, and probably use “The Church of Jesus Christ” where appropriate. I don’t imagine Pope Francis would find such a usage offensive, any more than President Nelson would find the term “Catholic” (given its literal meaning) offensive.
@Dsc: “I’m pointing out that the very things that you cite as placing Latter-day Saints outside of Christianity are also points where other Christian denominations differ.”
To be clear, I am perfectly fine with considering Latter-day Saints as Christian. But it has been my experience (lived and from what I have read) that I am in the minority on that point. But then I tend to view most of the denominational differences as largely petty. My denomination, for example, utilizes the filioque in the Nicene Creed, which my Orthodox friends don’t like. I consider the difference not worth the breach in communion (on one side – the Orthodox side) so would be fine with jettisoning “the Son” to heal that breach. Which kind of leads to my overall point…
“The ‘historical tenets’ you have cited as being definitive all post-date the term ‘Christian’ by hundreds of years.” But we know why those historical tenets were formed in the first place: to formulate the beliefs of that church in response to heresies – to precisely define what was meant by “teachings of the apostles”. They created a framework of statements asserting the basics of their theology precisely so as to define deviations as heresy.
Mormonism rejects that framework altogether and claims everything before 1830 was wrong. It posits that it is the sole source of divine authority. It has a wholly different concept of God and salvation. It’s differences from traditional Christianity are far more stark than are the differences of the various denominations of traditional Christianity. We’re not arguing about something like filioque or original sin here, which were arguments that still stemmed from a shared history. Mormonism is a whole other animal altogether – a late entrant that rejects the historical Christian framework in fundamental ways. And Pres. Nelson’s terms reinforce those differences while eliminating the terms typically used to differentiate the LDS denomination from others. The words he specified are loaded, which is problematic.
Cody,
“To be clear, I am perfectly fine with considering Latter-day Saints as Christian.” Thank you for that clarification. Your prior comments appeared to at least imply that you were not. I’m not sure in what context you feel that you are in the minority, but in my experience among non-Christians, there is no hesitation to include Latter-day Saints under the broad umbrella of Christianity.
“They created a framework of statements asserting the basics of their theology precisely so as to define deviations as heresy.” I guess what I don’t understand is why the Nicene Creed and other councils are authoritative, or why that matters in reference to a term that far predates the Council of Nicea. Did the Arians cease to be Christians as a result of the Council? “Mormonism rejects that framework altogether and claims everything before 1830 was wrong.” Isn’t that essentially what the Council of Nicea did, to declare everything prior to it that differed with the doctrines set there as wrong?
“It’s differences from traditional Christianity are far more stark than are the differences of the various denominations of traditional Christianity.” I haven’t argued to the contrary, so I’m not sure what you’re driving at.
“And Pres. Nelson’s terms reinforce those differences while eliminating the terms typically used to differentiate the LDS denomination from others.” Is there really any ambiguity created by using the full name of the Church? Or using “Latter-day Saints” to refer to members?
“The words he specified are loaded, which is problematic.” If that’s the case, the whole history of the Church is “problematic”. But I don’t think it is. The terms “Jehovah’s Witnesses” and “Catholic Church” both carry theological baggage, but I don’t think that makes the “problematic” in any meaningful sense.
jpv,
JKC over at By Common Consent put it best: “I actually think D&C 107:2-4 is not describing a commandment that we should avoid the too frequent repetition of the name of God, but rather is telling a story about how the ancient church exercised their agency to guard against taking his name in vain.”
Similarly, D&C 135 isn’t presented as a revelation, and its use of the term “Mormonism” fits with the defiant tone against those who would seek to destroy the movement. That is, it is using the language of the enemies of the Church in a message directed at them.
Cody writes “Mormonism rejects that framework altogether and claims everything before 1830 was wrong.”
There’s a vast realm between the cup full and the cup empty. I see it that prior to 1830 it was impossible to know for sure what parts were correct, or to what extend a part was correct. Joseph Smith obviously considered the bible “correct” as it advised him to pray, and so he did, and here we are.
As an example, KJV Genesis 6 has God “repenting” of having made man (*): This lack of clarity over the centuries produced a great many variations on Christianity.
* Genesis 6 6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
“It posits that it is the sole source of divine authority.”
Hardly unique in that regard but yes.
“Mormonism is a whole other animal altogether”
Indeed it is, which is why I am a Mormon. My father is an atheist, most of my kin are Lutheran, some evangelical and my mother Episcopalian. As I am fond of science and science fiction, a religion that embraced or at least wasn’t rival with either had a much better chance of “sticking” with me. In particular, my sense that animals also have souls or spirits found a home in Mormonism but not seemingly elsewhere in Christianity.
But then, my sense of religion is big; Christianity is just an instantiation of Godianity or somethig like that. Everything that Is, or Was, or ever could be! The grand unifying Theory of Everything. It cannot be possessed of course since a container cannot possess itself. It can only be experienced and some parts of it described.
Now about revelations and the word “Mormon”.
God cannot want anything, not in the usual sense of wanting. If I want something it means I don’t already have it. An omnipotent God will have instantly anything he “wants”. Therefore he cannot continue to want something after a nanosecond of him thinking the wish, poof there it is.
That being the case, what is that thing he cannot have just by wishing it into existence? Why, that’s you and me, making free-will offering of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.
From time to time guidance is offered; sometimes that guidance is capricious, maybe even silly. When the Israelites were told to look at the stick on which Moses had wrapped two snakes, those that obeyed were healed, those that refused were sick and some died, if I remember the story. Shall we assume that this procedure is eternal? Good heavens, no! It was the procedure for a brief moment in time.
So it is that procedures come and go. It is sometimes known why a thing is the way it is, but not always or even very often.
Much of what is published by the church isn’t actually by the “church” per se but by this rather large, nearly secular corporation called Intellectual Reserve, Inc. See the very bottom of http://www.lds.org “(c) 2018 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Reserve In 2002, the LDS Church applied for a trademark in the United States on “Mormon” as applied to religious services; however, the United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected the application, stating that the term “Mormon” was too generic and is popularly understood as referring to a particular kind of church, similar to “Presbyterian” or “Methodist”, rather than a service mark.[4] The application was abandoned as of August 22, 2007.[5]
So there you have it. “The church” cannot trademark “Mormon” and that means it is fair game, anyone can use it for any purpose and Intellectual Reserve, Inc. just isn’t in the business of using public domain words, pictures, music.
But it also means you or can can use the word “Mormon” all day long without worrying about legal consequences that flow from improper use of a trademark.
Two missionaries knock on your door when you’re on your 2nd beer.
They say many things but boil it down to the basic message you take away.
1. We represent (one of the numerous) church(es) of Jesus Christ of… (what was that again?)
2. Joseph Smith was this prophet of a restored gospel and had visions.
3. Read this Book of Mormon given to us by God through Joseph Smith and pray about it.
(Something about gold plates and ancient America….)
We testify it is true……..
Are you Mormons?
No.
I’m confused.
Guzzles more beer,
***
They can change the name of the tabernacle choir. (Make it sound Jewish) .And many other things. Virtue signal night and day.
But this Satan-laughing confusion never ends unless they change the name of the Book of Mormon. Or ignore it.
It’s great to see that Cody has fully assimilated into his ex Mormon role. It seems like just yesterday he was dressing up like a missionary before trying to lead the rest of us astray. Now he just dresses like a wolf. Glad to see you embracing your reality… Especially with that Trinity mumbo jumbo.
We only have to look to the progressive nature of the RLDS CofChrist to find answers to some of our speculations. In order to differentiate themselves from “Mormons” they:
1. Changed their Church name
2. Refer to Joseph Smith as “The Founder” instead of a Prophet
3. Adopted a “take it or Leave it” attitude for the Book of Mormon
4. Ditched the belief of the church being divinely restored
5. Abandoned the idea of ever having Temple ordinances for the dead.
I was present at the 1990 RLDS conference when a name change was proposed. Someone said that changing the name to the Mickey Mouse church wouldn’t change people’s minds.
I like that we are trying to shift the focus to Jesus Christ. As I listened to conference, I was a little upset as the speakers tried to weave in Jesus Christ and the gospel with the family proclamation.
We believe that we all lived in family units before we came down to earth. We were nurtured there by a mother and father in preparation to coming to earth. Adam and Eve were sealed together and taught the importance of the family unit by God Himself in the garden of Eden. The Hebrew people starting with Abraham down to the birth of Christ all knew the importance of families and were sealing fathers and mothers and children together in their holy temples thousands of years before Christ came. Jesus Christ’s main message was the importance of families and the different roles that mothers and fathers have in that family unit. It is evident in Christ’s teachings both in Jerusalem and in the Americas that this was a main concern of his. He showed us a perfect example of how to reach exaltation by sealing himself to his parents and receiving the ordinances necessary to return to God’s Kingdom. These ordinances culminated in him sealing himself to his wife by proper priesthood authority. We can clearly see all that he spoke of the subject in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon.
I can understand if we want to say that the purpose of the restored Gospel is to do this marvelous work of sealing families together to fulfill a commandment of God before the second coming of Christ. Joseph Smith was called to do this work and starting some time between 1838 and 1842, God let him know that this was the most important work for him to accomplish and he got busy doing just that.
I can’t understand our attempt to rewrite history and our effort to make every prophet in the Old Testament and Christ himself teach a message that they never taught. I think this is where we are going to have a problem with talking about Christ more and at the same time sticking to our message about exaltation, temples and eternal families. Unfortunately with the text we have from Christ (excluding D&C 132), the two really don’t have that much in common.
It was a bizarre statement… I think it was always an issue for him and he was probably shot down on his previous attempts. As the saying goes… “It’s good to be king.”
So I’m tempted to criticize him on the hyperbole and the inconsistency and its implication for all previous prophets… but…. he gave us 2 hour Church!
The absolutely soul crushing 3 hour block (with 1 hour round trip drive for me) is no longer. For this act alone, Pres Nelson will always have a special place in my heart.
The mercy killing of what was a horribly dysfunctional HT/VT program also warms my heart.
As long as he keeps chipping away at insane cultural traditions and burdens, he has a fan in me!
kkkkln, Way to build bridges with fellow followers of Christ. If you want to attack specific ideas or arguments, fine. But an ad hominem attack on Cody is absurd. He, at least, has been civil and honest.
After hearing today’s news that the church is now banning pageants, I’m starting to see a pretty clear pattern. RMN has been harboring a long list of petty grievances for 34 years. He is checking them all off of his list one at a time and using revelation and Satan has his chief weapons to quell any resistance.
Pres. Nelson is well intentioned and making some good changes. However if he wants the credibility that leaders need, he needs to spend future conference addresses on more substantive issues and stop making silly statements. If he really is good at revelation, he will understand that.
I want to thank everyone for their comments. I didn’t have answers, just questions, and I appreciate the thinking and sharing that has gone on.
I’m kind of pondering things over in my own mind, so to speak, and appreciate everyone’s help.
Zach writes “I can’t understand our attempt to rewrite history…”
History has been written and re-written many times. Can you imagine what employment opportunities would exist for modern historians if no one re-wrote history?
If the name of Jesus Christ is so important to God and He can now bless us with even more blessings for using it correctly, as President Nelson declares. Then why not more Jesus? Ask members to put his name on bumper stickers, the sides of 44 oz. fountain drinks. Better yet, let’s build minarets next to each chapel and blare out his name every few hours over our cities. Then my frinsds we will make ourselves fat on God’s bountiful blessing!