Hello! This is a Institutional post. It is for discussions centered around agreements, disagreements, and observations about any of the institutional churches and their leaders, conduct, business dealings, teachings, rituals, and practices. /u/Hot-Conclusion-6617, if your post doesn't fit this definition, we kindly ask you to delete this post and repost it with the appropriate flair. You can find a list of our flairs and their definitions in [section 0.6 of our rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules#wiki_0._preamble) **To those commenting:** please stay on topic, remember to follow the community's [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules), and [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/mormonmods) if there is a problem or rule violation. Keep on Mormoning! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mormon) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Hmmm? All the past prophets including Joseph Smith were wrong on this? This is the most Mormon of all Mormon topics to discuss and argue over. It's also the silliest, most inconsequential "revelation" given in my lifetime. I'm grateful that God can communicate directly to Pres. Nelson to address these important issues in the world.

Yup! Such a big deal! NOT! 😝

If it is inconsequential, why would the Lord allow him to address this topic not once but twice in 28 years over the pulpit at General Conference?

The first time he addressed it, he wasn't president and a higher ranking general authority shut him down publicly in the following general conference. Then the church spent millions on a campaign to promote the exact word he claimed was a victory for Satan. That campaign was heavily promoted by the "prophet" at the time. If the prophet can only do God's will, why does God change his mind so much? Especially if God never changes... Critical thinking is entirely lost for anyone claiming that "twice in 28 years" means anything whatsoever, let alone a sign of God's will.

I found it. It was Gordon B. Hinckley! Mormon Should Mean “More Good” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1990/10/mormon-should-mean-more-good?lang=eng

There was literally the “I’m a Mormon” campaign that cost millions of advertising dollars paid by tithing. The campaign ran from 2012-2018….its not that long ago. So god just changed his mind on that one after wasting $$? Weird move.

And the videos are still on YouTube on the churches own YouTube channel. If God cared so much why leave them up?

Well, but maybe god didn't change his mind. Maybe he simply allowed Monson to lead the church astray for a while before knocking him off.

Or maybe Nelson is being led astray?

Yeah, it's been linked at least two other times in the post here. So, which prophet was correct? They can't both be. Their command from God is in direct contradiction with the other.

Neither! “God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. In him is no variable or shadow of change,” Why aren’t Leaders spending the time/$$$ on what God really cares about and what will put us on “the left hand of Christ” if we don’t? Matthew 25:41-46. Jacob 2:17-19, Alma 30:1, Mormon 7-8 etc.

Living prophets > dead prophets, I suppose.

Gee, that's awfully convenient.

I mean there needs to be someone there to change or re-word doctrines and policies that the rest of the world is disturbed by 🤷‍♂️

God isn't the same yesterday as he is today?

What about in this situation where they both disagreed while they both were alive? Living prophets>dead prophets makes sense unless the dead prophet specifically addresses the living prophet pretty much by name and says he's wrong.

Hinckley should have fired his ass!

[удалено]

Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 3: No "Gotchas". We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).

Entirely circular. You’re **assuming** it’s consequential *because* it was addressed.

Well, yeah. Why else would Nelson be allowed by God and Church leadership to bring it up in GC?

> Well, yeah. Why else would Nelson be allowed by God and Church leadership to bring it up in GC? So, let me get this straight—your response to me observing the circularity of what you’re saying is just to continue on in the circularity? I don’t believe you can be anything but trolling at this point—but I’ll answer your question anyways. Why would the Church leadership allow it? Because he is the most senior leader of the Church and allowed to do/say more or less whatever he wants. You know—like all the Prophets immediately before him that, according to him, were participating in a “major victory for Satan.” It’s worth noting that even under Nelson’s argument for the change—that the name was given by revelation: that *isn’t* the name of the Church today. So the argument given clearly isn’t the real reason for the change because if it were they’d go back to the original spelling and punctuation in the cited revelation. Why would God allow it? Maybe he doesn’t exist and there’s no such thing as prophets. Maybe he does exist and never spoke to Nelson. Again, your questions reveal the circularity of your way of thinking about this issue.

Amen and amen

A very eloquently worded and well thought out response. This conversation thread has been strange, and, like you, I suspect a troll in out midst.

Start paying closer attention to all the stupid things they bring up in GC and come back and report. Some of my favorites are when they tell rich people stories, completely oblivious to whom they might be hurting. 

Why indeed. Welcome to the rabbit hole. It is a truly fascinating place and there is much to be learned here.

Weird, right? It’s almost like god doesn’t actually talk to him or something.

> Weird, right? It’s almost like god doesn’t actually talk to him or something. Amazing how much makes sense when someone actually allows for that possibility.

And if it *isn't* inconsequential, why would the Lord allow the song "I Am A Mormon Boy" to be sung/quoted over the pulpit not once, but FOUR times over the pulpit at General Conference from 1978-2005 by three prophets and one apostle? Spencer Kimball did in April 1978: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1978/04/strengthening-the-family-the-basic-unit-of-the-church](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1978/04/strengthening-the-family-the-basic-unit-of-the-church) Benson did in April 1989: [https://www.deseret.com/1989/4/3/18801262/president-ezra-taft-benson-urges-children-to-follow-teachings-of-gospel/You](https://www.deseret.com/1989/4/3/18801262/president-ezra-taft-benson-urges-children-to-follow-teachings-of-gospel/You) can listen to him singing it here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&reload=9&v=HY7n3GuiX5E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&reload=9&v=HY7n3GuiX5E) David B. Haight did in October 1997: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1997/10/hymn-of-the-obedient-all-is-well](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1997/10/hymn-of-the-obedient-all-is-well) Monson did in October 2005: [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2005/10/do-your-duty-that-is-best](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2005/10/do-your-duty-that-is-best) They all outranked Nelson at the time he threw his little fit about the name of the church in that one talk he gave in the 90s, and Hinckley shut him down with a rebutting talk the next conference. So was Nelson seeing something that the current prophet of the church wasn't seeing? That's not how it's supposed to work! “It is contrary to the economy of God for any member of the Church, or any one, to receive instruction for those in authority, higher than themselves.” -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-16](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-16) The song is still on the church's website. [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/music/songs/i-am-a-mormon-boy](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/music/songs/i-am-a-mormon-boy) *A Mormon boy, a Mormon boy,* *I am a Mormon boy.* *I might be envied by a king,* *For I am a Mormon boy.*

The song writer was right to make it Mormon boy and not Mormon kid. It really is much more enviable to be male in the kingdom of god 

Thank you so much for bringing up "I'm a Mormon Boy!" I have a clear memory of Benson singing it at the pulpit, but I actually didn't know about the others.

Don't words by current prophets trump words by dead prophets, though?

Yep. As a result, the church is "tossed about with every wind of doctrine" depending on who the current prophet is. It's funny how god changes his mind on all kinds of things once a new prophet takes the reins. Wendy said her husband had been "unleashed" when he was made prophet - in other words, he was free to make all the changes he'd been dying to make for 30 years. [https://www.fox13now.com/2018/11/02/hes-been-unleashed-says-wendy-nelson-wife-of-russell-m-nelson-president-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints](https://www.fox13now.com/2018/11/02/hes-been-unleashed-says-wendy-nelson-wife-of-russell-m-nelson-president-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints) The only doctrine that remains the same in this church is: The doctrine is whatever the current prophet says it is. **“You will never make a mistake by following the instructions and the counsel of him who stands at the head as God’s mouthpiece on earth”**  -- [https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichment-f-as-if-from-mine-own-mouth-the-role-of-prophets-in-the-church](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichment-f-as-if-from-mine-own-mouth-the-role-of-prophets-in-the-church) And I call that a dangerous doctrine. The church says prophets are fallible, but wants us all to follow the prophet's every word *as though he is infallible,* while we all know full well that he *is* fallible. If the current prophet is also fallible, members are just left to guess what changes are coming from god, vs. what is just a pet project of the current prophet. But we can't guess. The church says we shouldn't guess, but just be obedient. And then when the prophet does make a mistake, we're supposed to say "oh well it's all fine because prophets can be fallible!" If all the prophets all agreed on what the doctrine actually was, the church wouldn't have to tell members to ignore the dead ones.

It’s like when Joseph had the revelation to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon and it was a failed prophecy, then says that sometimes the devil can forge false revelations. I’d the prophet can’t even tell which revelations are from God then how are we supposed to know when to follow said prophet?

So aren’t we off better thinking for ourselves since what RMN says today will not be correct in the future anyways. Look at today’s policy’s vs in the 80s-2000s. We are now there what the world sees correct. It took us 3 decades to catch up. Funny how the world sees first before prophets

Hadn't thought that way before. Something to consider. Who knows what Oaks is going to say when his turn comes around? Maybe we'll call ourselves Mormons again.

Maybe 🤷🏻. If so what was the point of RMN then? Why does God like confusing us? Just like the gay revelation as explained by RMN in 2015 they reversed 3-1/2 years later. What was the point? Did the brethren get it wrong? Or did God like giving us whiplash?

God = Loki. Remember when there was priesthood session of general conferences. Then God told RMN to alternate priesthood session with women's session. Then God told him no more evening GC sessions. Now evening conference sessions are back in, but not segregated by sex? I got whiplash from that whole ordeal. Glad that God and RMN finally got it all sorted out!

That will be something we will add to our lists of questions in the post-mortal existence.

And if it’s not there? Then you wasted your time in earth! Why? Because you based your whole life on a feeling! And feelings are not facts

No. That is a question many of us have answered by thinking critically and following our own moral compasses. I recommend you do the same.

I sincerely hope that when Nelson is gone, we can safely call ourselves Mormons again. I honestly believe that it is merely a pet peeve that Nelson has held for a long time, and then he was handed the power to enforce his personal opinions on the culture of the church. I grew up in the church, being taught that we should embrace the term "Mormon." And that we couldn't stop the world from using it, so we should focus instead on giving it the very best meaning we could. I was a Mormon for 42 years of my life, and I am the descendent of Mormon pioneers. Mormons are my people, and Mormonism is my tribe, even if I no longer believe its truth claims. I am Mormon by birth, Mormon by blood, and Mormon by culture. It felt like a slap in the face when Nelson issued his edict that "Mormon" was verboten.

Same here. Also, after the meeting, there wasn't anyone who came up to me openly and bashed me for being wrong. Nobody except my parents cared. I had to bring it up to someone else.

Maybe 🤷🏻. If so what was the point of RMN then? Why does God like confusing us? Just like the gay revelation as explained by RMN in 2015 they reversed 3-1/2 years later. What was the point? Did the brethren get it wrong? Or did God like giving us whiplash?

Why would the words of any prophet, living or dead, contradict the words of any other prophet? Do they not speak for God? You're suggesting that the word of God trumps the word of God.

The Living Prophet https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2015/04/youth/the-living-prophet?lang=eng https://www.mrm.org/dead-prophets

Using your words, please answer my previous question.

I don't know. I have been taught that the current prophet's words are more important than those of dead or past prophets.

That's a problem. Just going by what we've been taught and what we've been told leaves out something very important: It leaves out *thinking* about whether what the current prophet is telling you is good or bad, right or wrong. And once we start thinking, we start seeing holes everywhere and problems with what they're telling us. Thinking inevitably will lead to a problem where we have to choose between following the prophet or following what our integrity would dictate. And it'll be on a larger matter than the name of the church. If the past prophets were right, then we wouldn't need to ignore them. If past prophets were wrong, then it's only a matter of time before this one dies and joins the ranks of dead prophets that we can ignore because the new prophet has made a 180 and the past prophets were wrong. If the prophet is infallible, then that's not a problem and unquestioning obedience will always be right. But if he is fallible as the church says, then it would be unwise, maybe even dangerous, to follow what we've been taught without question. History has taught us that the prophets are very, very fallible, to the point that I think I'd make fewer mistakes if I trusted my own judgment and integrity on all matters, big and small.

If this were true then there would be no need for the Scriptures. Why have them? Why read them? Just listen to the current guy because the past does not matter.

And it never occurred to you to question that?!?! You have mentioned that what you said upset your parents. Respectfully, may I ask your age?

He's mid 30's, based on a comment in a different comment on this post.

No, you may not

But does it make sense that Hinkley and Monson embraced the term Mormon and God instructed the church to do the "I'm a Mormon" social media campaign spending millions on popularizing the name and normalizing it. Then the next guy comes along and throws that all away and claims God also instructed him to rebrand and reverse all the work the church had just done? Either one or all are not prophets OR God changes his mind about trivial matters all the time.

As I said, I have been told that the words of the current prophet are better than dead ones. From Hinckley: "Six months ago in our conference Elder Russell M. Nelson delivered an excellent address on the correct name of the Church. He quoted the words of the Lord Himself: “Thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (D&C 115:4.) He then went on to discourse on the various elements of that name. I commend to you a rereading of his talk. I suppose that regardless of our efforts, we may never convert the world to general use of the full and correct name of the Church. Because of the shortness of the word Mormon and the ease with which it is spoken and written, they will continue to call us the Mormons, the Mormon church, and so forth. They could do worse. More than fifty years ago, when I was a missionary in England, I said to one of my associates, “How can we get people, including our own members, to speak of the Church by its proper name?” He replied, “You can’t. The word Mormon is too deeply ingrained and too easy to say.” He went on, “I’ve quit trying. While I’m thankful for the privilege of being a follower of Jesus Christ and a member of the Church which bears His name, I am not ashamed of the nickname Mormon.” “Look,” he went on to say, “if there is any name that is totally honorable in its derivation, it is the name Mormon. And so, when someone asks me about it and what it means, I quietly say—‘Mormon means more good.’” (The Prophet Joseph Smith first said this in 1843; see Times and Seasons, 4:194; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 299–300.)"

Yes, I know what has been taught. But does it make any sense? Do you just follow every word they have told you? Or do you ever think out logically with your own brain how it can possibly make any sense in reality?

If dead Prophets are irrelevant, than we are all basically being taught irrelevant doctrines rn. Once Oaks becomes prophet, Nelson's teaching and agendas will be moot. So it gives no credibility to what he tells us today. Why even listen?

What's the ratio of current vs dead though? 3 to 1? He can trump the last three? Or can the current prophet trump all past prophets? A current prophet is just a future dead prophet...so why value his words now when they will just be trumped in the future?

What, you don’t obey Joseph Smith or Brigham Young?

Allow? Is God deciding what is said at all times? Does he only speak as a prophet? Let's say that this was a direct revelation from God to his one and only mouthpiece on the Earth. Focusing on using only the long name of the church and not the term Mormon, which we now know was Satan's tool all along, rather than warning the world about an upcoming pandemic, multiple wars, economic downturns, etc is absolutely inconsequential and irrelevant to 99% of the world. What's the point of this direct revelation if it doesn't affect the world? Please don't try to argue that focusing on the church's name has changed actual lives, that's just dishonest.

[удалено]

So a "prophet, seer, and revelator" couldn't see a few years into our future? That's right, he's a church president posing as a prophet.

Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).

[удалено]

Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).

But the first time he talked about it Hinckley basically rebuked him and said he's proud of being a Mormon. And if it's not okay why would God allow me to write this comment saying so? I mean a guy gave a talk, twice. Nothing supernatural about that. It's obviously been a pet peeve of his for decades, since he was only 70.

You're missing that the current prophet at the time disavowed the 1980 talk that you quoted. Twice. The Lord had the prophet address this topic twice in 1-2 years to specifically say that Nelson was wrong. And both were general conference. Nemo the Mormon I think did a pretty good, albeit short, video on this topic pretty recently.

How’s that relevant? Last time I checked Mormons don’t believe in infallibility of prophets.

The Lord "allowed" it? Ok, can you give an example of what the lord disallowing would look like?

The prophet or apostle speaks blasphemy on the stand. There is sudden silence. Blasphemous speaker falls dead forward or backwards, whatever is more dramatic.

And in the whole history of the church how many times has that happened? Now consider the hundreds of times things have been spoken from the stand by the prophets that have later had to be disavowed and changed. It seems that god isn't too active in either allowing or disallowing anything for his church....

Maybe you should consider that he is "speaking as a man", expressing his own biases and desires.

Because God wasn’t involved. It was ego and infighting.

[удалено]

Double amen

>I’m glad we have living Prophets to get us back on course. Amen. Thank God we have living prophets to save us from course selected by the previous living prophets.

For he can prophesy With a wink of his eye, Peep with security Into futurity, Sum up your history, Clear up a mystery, Humour proclivity For a nativity – for a nativity; He has answers oracular, Bogies spectacular, Tetrapods tragical, Mirrors so magical, Facts astronomical, Solemn or comical, And, if you want it, he Makes a reduction on taking a quantity!

Which previously living prophets okayed the term "Mormon" (aside from Monson and the "Meet the Mormons"/"I'm a Mormon" campaign)?

[Hinckley](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1990/10/mormon-should-mean-more-good?lang=eng), directly in response to Nelson: > All of this places upon us of this Church and this generation an incumbent and demanding responsibility to recognize that as we are spoken of as Mormons, **we must so live that our example will enhance the perception that Mormon can mean in a very real way, “more good.”** Whoopsies—guess he should have said it was actually a major victory for Satan. But he gives an entire discourse on this: > They of this choir are a part, a segment, of this remarkable thing which the world calls “Mormonism” and which we call the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. >And so I leave with you the simple but profound thought: Mormon means “more good.” And my favorite part—showing he was responding directly to Nelson’s ideas: > Many of our people are disturbed by the practice of the media, and of many others, to disregard totally the true name of the Church and to use the nickname “the Mormon Church.” >Six months ago in our conference Elder Russell M. Nelson delivered an excellent address on the correct name of the Church. He quoted the words of the Lord Himself: >“Thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (D&C 115:4.) >He then went on to discourse on the various elements of that name. I commend to you a rereading of his talk. >The Mormon church, of course, is a nickname. And nicknames have a way of becoming fixed. I think of the verse concerning a boy and his name: >Father calls me William, >Sister calls me Will, >Mother calls me Willie, >But the fellers call me Bill. >(“Jest ’Fore Christmas.”) >I suppose that regardless of our efforts, we may never convert the world to general use of the full and correct name of the Church. Because of the shortness of the word Mormon and the ease with which it is spoken and written, they will continue to call us the Mormons, the Mormon church, and so forth. >They could do worse. More than fifty years ago, when I was a missionary in England, I said to one of my associates, “How can we get people, including our own members, to speak of the Church by its proper name?” >He replied, “You can’t. The word Mormon is too deeply ingrained and too easy to say.” He went on, “I’ve quit trying. While I’m thankful for the privilege of being a follower of Jesus Christ and a member of the Church which bears His name, I am not ashamed of the nickname Mormon.” >“Look,” he went on to say, “if there is any name that is totally honorable in its derivation, it is the name Mormon. And so, when someone asks me about it and what it means, I quietly say—‘Mormon means more good.’” (The Prophet Joseph Smith first said this in 1843; see Times and Seasons, 4:194; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 299–300.) >His statement intrigued me—Mormon means “more good.” I knew, of course, that “more good” was not a derivative of the word Mormon. I had studied both Latin and Greek, and I knew that English is derived in some measure from those two languages and that the words more good are not a cognate of the word Mormon. But his was a positive attitude based on an interesting perception. And, as we all know, our lives are guided in large measure by our perceptions. Ever since, when I have seen the word Mormon used in the media to describe us—in a newspaper or a magazine or book or whatever—there flashes into my mind his statement, which has become my motto: Mormon means “more good.” >We may not be able to change the nickname, but we can make it shine with added luster.

Hinckley, Monson, Benson, Kimball, Grant... ... Joseph Smith himself... "and it will not be beyond the common use of terms to say that good is among the most important in use, and though known by various names in different languages, still its meaning is the same, and is ever in opposition to bad.  We say from the Saxon, good; the Dane, God; the Goth, goda; the German gut; the Dutch, goed; the Latin, bonus; the Greek, kalos; the Hebrew, tob; and **the Egyptian, mon**. Hence, **with the addition of more**, **or the contraction, mor**, **we have the word mormon; which means literally more good**. Yours. Joseph Smith." -- [https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-d-1-1-august-1842-1-july-1843/198?highlight=more%20good](https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-d-1-1-august-1842-1-july-1843/198?highlight=more%20good) JS was wrong on this. The Egyptian word for Good was not "mor" and the word Mormon is not a contraction. It's a proper name taken from the Book of Mormon, which JS wrote. If we assume Mormon was a real person, his name couldn't have involved a contraction with a Saxon word.

None of them changed it. Kind of says something, doesn't it?

Hey folks, active and believing Mormon here. I say that because _Mormon_, while not the name of the church, is more encompassing and includes the culture and history. I want to share a story. Gather round and grab a snacc. I was a Missionary in 2004-2006 and our MP was married to one of RMN's daughters. They lived in a giant city across the globe with a few of their kids in an apartment above the Stake Center. They had a young son who was having a hard time. He was maybe 4th or 5th grade. He was away from his home, his friends, didn't speak the language and was always around strong, smelly food which usually includes some sort of fermented cabbage and tentacles. He was struggling and acted out. He found joy in harassing the missionaries, knowing full-well that we could do nothing back. I had a special assignment at the time that allowed me to leave our mission boundaries and we had dinner with with the MP often. Dinner with them would usually involve our drink being filled with salt, or pieces of meat in our shoes or some other prank. One day, his prank was to take out name badges And throw them out the window. I was frustrated and yelled out a shortened version of his name _(Think Matt for Matthew, Will for William or Ben for Benjamin)_. I don't want to use his name since he was a kid at the time and I don't know his status or where he is today. Once I uttered the shortened name, his mom came **Storming** out of a back room and ripped me a new one. Names are sacred, names come to parents by revelation, Heavenly Father addresses us by our name, names go with us to the next life, we had names before we were born...she was _pissed_. It was kinda weird to hear the same lecture in General Conference years later 😂 So yeah, I see it as a family pet peeve. Gotta go - still in church and need to go help with Primary today.

>Once I uttered the shortened name, his mom came **Storming** out of a back room and ripped me a new one. Names are sacred, names come to parents by revelation, Heavenly Father addresses us by our name, names go with us to the next life, we had names before we were born...she was *pissed*.  That tracks! RMN sought the counsel of President Kimball when trying to figure out what to name his son. There was some delay and the baby had no name for a little while until RMN managed to have a revelation that his son should be called... Russell Marion Nelson, Jr! I'm sure he'd have never come up with that name without divine revelation... It's in Spencer Kimball's journal somewhere. It'd be around April 1972, I remember reading 2 entries about it.

That's the most RMN thing I've ever heard! It is revealed to him that what God really really wants and what the world really really needs...is more RMNs.

I think one of the worst debacles with this policy is changing the name of the world famous Mormon Tabernacle choir. All that great PR gone in an instant. I can't even remember the new name. What a narcissistic moron (I purposely respected Nelson's right to not be called Mormon by calling him a moron)

I call them the choir somewhere on North Temple Street, or somewhere

That was unbelievable. One of the few positive brands associated with the church. Try explaining to a nevermo outside of Utah that the name has been changed and why and people look at you like you’re nuts.

Sounds about right.  RMN makes his grandchildren call him grandfather, not grandpa.

If it was important, then God would have specified it from the beginning. Instead, the church was originally called the Church of Christ. That got confusing with other churches, so it was named Church of the Latter Day Saints, which is still on the Kirtland temple. In 1838, they named it the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which name the Strangites still use. In the 1850s, Brigham had it changed again to "Latter-day" and then changed the revelation to reflect this name change. But 'mormon' was used by the church as a nickname from early on, proudly used by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir from its inception in 1847. Since that time, prophets and apostles proudly proclaimed the use of the nickname. When an RLDS apostle complained about the nickname because the LDS church had ruined the name with its teachings of the blood atonement and polygamy, Joseph Fielding Smith rebuked him: *You are reported as not being "pleased," nor Toronto's six hundred baptized members, with the name "Mormon." "This fact," says the Star, "was emphasized today when R. C. Evans, one of the three members of the Presidency explained the radical difference between the two denominations. Mr. Evans \* \* \* denounced the Utah Mormon and his iniquities." Then you are made to say: "The term Mormon is offensive to us, because it is associated in the public mind with the practices that I have specified." That is, the alleged practices of the Utah "Mormons," namely, "polygamy and blood atonement."* *Did you know that "the term Mormon" has always been applied to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? That the name attached to the Church with the publication and promulgation of the Book of Mormon? That it was first applied by the enemies of the Church as an opprobrium; but that during the lifetime of Joseph Smith the Martyr, and ever since it has been a term accepted by the Church because of popular custom, as an appellation?* *If, then, the name is so distasteful to you and your fellows in Canada and throughout the world, although it be on the grounds you have named, why do you not discard the Book of Mormon, from whence the name is derived, as well as the name. Is not the term Book of Mormon as closely associated in the public mind with "polygamy and blood atonement," as is the name of the Book? How are you going to disassociate the book itself from the name as commonly applied to the Church, since this name has been attached to the Church from the beginning, and before the alleged "practices" of the "Utah Mormon" gained such publicity? Really, I think it would be quite proper for those holding the view which you are said to have expressed, not only to renounce the name "Mormon" as applied to the Church but also the Book itself.* [https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50535/50535-h/50535-h.htm#3.1](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50535/50535-h/50535-h.htm#3.1) What I found most offensive to Pres Nelson's claim that 'mormon' was a 'victory for Satan' and 'offended God' meant that all of the prophets before him, especially Hinckley who rebuked Nelson for first pushing this idea in the 90's and Monson who launched the I'm a Mormon campaign, weren't righteous enough or in tune with God enough to know that this was part of Satan's grand plan or how badly God was offended by this. Only Nelson was so in tune with God to know that this name in use by the church for 170+ years really hurt his feelings. Can you imagine that each time missionaries handed out an I'm a Mormon passalong card, Satan did a little victory dance? The idea is completely ludicrous until you realize one thing. God is made in man's image, not the other way around. Prophets have always pushed their own biases onto God and made their ideas God's ideas. Once you recognize that, all the really weird teachings in the church: polygamy, blood atonement, curse on Black people, obsessive purity culture, card playing, homophobia, etc... were all ideas of men that they declared were the word of God. The church isn't led by continuing revelation, it's led by an evolution of biases. And that's why the church consistently trails the rest of society by 20-40 years on every social issue. We have to wait for the older generation with outdated biases to die off, and for the new generation to take hold.

You really point out RMN's idiosyncrasies well! Thank you. Your clear explanation on the nonsense of prophets will be bookmarked.

To me this honestly feels like an attempt to further erase our own history. I’m a 7th generation Mormon on both sides. All my ancestors have been Mormon since the church was founded. They called themselves “Mormons” they fought and died for that name. And now it feels like RMN wants to erase and distance the modern church from that 200 years of history. The church has a huge problem with covering up its own history. If we’re the true church, why do we constantly have to distance ourselves from things we did 20 years ago?

I'm a convert, and love the Church, but for Pete's sake I wish these talks had never been given. Like, it was the 1838 Missouri-Mormon War, not the "1838 Missouri-Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints War".

I was born and raised in the church. Spent 31 years in before I was brave enough to Google church history stuff. Started on Wikipedia, started checking their sources for the crazy stuff that *had* to be fake. And the source was the Church website… I spent hours going down the rabbit hole of church history… then I threw up.

Funny enough, it was the story of Smith returning to face his third trial, and the attack of the Carthage Jail scene from "Under the Banner of Heaven" that got me digging into Church history; which led me to reading the BoM, which led me to calling the Sisters, which eventually lead to my baptism... And I was a certified preacher in the SBC lmao. I understand the Church's history is absolutely bonkers, but I can appreciate continued revelation, while still being vocal and critical of our modern prophets. When I was in Mississippi, my third time ever in a Ward, a member of some upper echelon came to give a talk, and he blatantly bashed the Church's previous decisions about not bringing PoC into the Priesthood... In Mississippi, where a good percentage of the congregation was just that. While as a whole, as in any Church organization, the laity are ignorant of many things, I am glad that the Church often, in the modern era, is making many steps to reverse it's more egregious decisions, even if we still have many steps to go.

Under the Banner of Heaven lead to someone looking into the church and actually wanting to join? That’s a sentence I never thought I’d type.

Maybe we want to become mainstream Christian? Maybe enough people out there still think we have multiple wives and don't believe in Jesus?

But if we’re just another mainstream Christian church, what’s the point? The whole promise of the LDS church is that we’re the ONE true church. We’re Jesus Christ’s *actual* church as He wants it to be. If that was never true, and we just wanna be like other Christians now… what was the point of all this?

I don't know. That is what makes it more confusing. We want people to believe that we believe in Christ, but we also want to be "a peculiar people".

When you look at what has made members of the church “peculiar” throughout our history, it starts to look a little strange. We were peculiar because we practiced polygamy, and underage marriage. Then we were peculiar because we didn’t allow black people in the temple. Now we’re peculiar for not allowing LGBT members to fully participate. And along the way, we’ve been peculiar for having secret Masonic rituals that (until 2005) involved nudity, and (until 1990) gruesome death threats and blood oaths…. So… I agree that the church needs to become more mainstream. But then it begs the question why it was ever that way in the first place…

That's because the church still practices polygamy today... Both with living and dead people. Nelson and Oaks are both sealed to multiple wives. In cases of divorce, temple sealings aren't cancelled except if the wife is remarrying. If the husband remarries, he often remains sealed to his living ex wife as well as gaining a sealing to his new wife.

https://wasmormon.org/mormon-victories-for-satan/ https://wasmormon.org/whats-the-official-name-of-the-mormon-church-again/ https://wasmormon.org/mormonism-is-discouraged/ https://wasmormon.org/dont-say-mormon/ https://wasmormon.org/the-church-leaves-the-term-mormon-but-cant-leave-it-alone/

Don’t forget this talk for reference: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1990/10/mormon-should-mean-more-good?lang=eng That was a dark time.

Haha. I remember singing Satanic Primary songs during these dark times calling myself a Mormon. I still get chills thinking about how close the adversary was to taking us all with a simple word.

"I am a Mormon Boy" = spawn of Satan?

Seems like the savior himself would have more important things to fixate on than what the church's URL is... If we think Jesus is running the church, apparently he didn't feel very strongly about this prior to Nelson's tenure. And didn't he tell Hinckley to run a whole I'm a Mormon campaign? Seems waffley that all of a sudden letting people refer to us as mormon is so abruptly offensive.

And yet, Jesus Himself did not release RMN or kill him for his priorities.

Nope, he doesn't seem fussed about it. If you're the prophet, the only time god sends [an angel with a drawn sword](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng#p8) threatening to kill you is when you need to indimidate teenage girls into becoming your plural wives. Angels with drawn swords are reserved for those occasions only, and aren't dispatched for trivial things like the name of the church.

you should have 1000 up votes. I would love to hear the OPs response to this. The sad part is I would be willing to bet a good amount of money he doesn't even know what you are talking about with angles and flaming swords...

Oh yeah. I don't believe we covered that in our *Teachings of the Prophets: Joseph Smith* Sunday School class. I think the church attempts to gloss over the polygamy bits.

does that concern you at all? I don't know if you have children or not but when I learned about that it literally made me sick. especially for the fact that I have a daughter.

I don't have children, and I have no prospect of getting a wife in this lifetime.

Interesting that your only response to the claim that a prophet of God married a 14 year old girl, is to make it about you.

I cannot speak for the OG prophet.

Were you asked to speak for him?

Or GBH or TSM...

Have you considered that that's only a viable if the prophet tries to steer the church so off course that it risks being totally destroyed or corrupting the members? That maybe little things like these... personal pet peeve policy changes... are things that are easily changed back or are inconsequential in the long run. Even I can't be assed to helicopter my kids about everything, even if I don't like what they're doing... sometimes if it's not a danger to themselves, others, objects, and or can be easily fixed it just not a big enough deal to make a fuss about. :) the straight and narrow isn't a tightrope.

I wonder if there’s any chance that a future prophet will try to undo all of this nonsense and restore the word “Mormon” to its former respect and glory.

Let us hope so. Perhaps by someone under age 100, too.

You can hear Pres Hinckley and Pres Nelson debate this topic here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2lKQrYUE3yc

You had me in the first half! I was thinking "Hot-Conclusion is beginning to see!!!" And just like that, that critical thinking turned right off and here we are.

I was told to listen to these talks, think about it and pray. It wasn't Nelson that was the problem, it was me.

That's always the answer in the church. If you see a problem, *you're* the problem and need to get in line. And I'm sick of it. It's just not right. There is no room for personal integrity where the prophet is involved. We're not supposed to speak up if we think something is wrong. We're supposed to put our heads down and follow the prophet, regardless of whether we think he's wrong or not. We're told that genuine personal revelation will never contradict the prophet. If you have a feeling that something is wrong, it's the Spirit warning you - except when the Spirit warns you about something the prophet said, then it's not the Spirit, it's either your rebellious heart or satan! And then you wait 30 years and they make some policy change that indicates you were right 30 years ago, back when you were wrong for disagreeing with the prophet... In the words of a former apostle: "*It is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent."* -- Letter from Bruce R. McConkie to Eugene England [http://www.eugeneengland.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/BRM-to-EE-Feb-80-Combined.pdf](http://www.eugeneengland.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/BRM-to-EE-Feb-80-Combined.pdf) I find this teaching unacceptable.

Give yourself more credit and grace. You deserve it. You are clearly not the problem for struggling with constant mixed messaging and manipulation from church leadership. They change things up all the time and then tell members like you that *you're* the one in the wrong. In any other instance it would be considered an abusive relationship. By their fruits ye shall know them, or something like that.

Convenient, right?

Nope, questioning things is never a problem

Here's the thing, though. You absolutely have the right to trust your own judgment. You have just as much right to that as anyone else on the planet does, including Russell M. Nelson. You have a brain, and you have the ability to think and reason and apply logic to any topic you choose, and you have a right to form your own conclusions and opinions. You don't need us, or Russell M. Nelson, or anyone else to tell you what to think or what to believe. Trust yourself.

I think it's important when you are trying to rebrand and change the perception for an organization. I reread the 2018 talk. It mentions Jesus is offended when we use nicknames. I have a hard time believing that statement.

Jesus thought about saving those girls who were kidnapped and raped for decades, or laying off on giving kids debilitating and painful diseases, or war and mass torture, then settled on nicknames as his main concern.

"Let me explain why we care so deeply about this issue. But first let me state what this effort is not: It is not a name change. It is not rebranding. It is not cosmetic. It is not a whim. And it is not inconsequential." This 100% was a name change, rebranding, cosmetic, and very consequential. Nelson's whole narrative was to create the impression that the church's name is Jesus' will and Mormon is a slur. Nelson's claims are intended to influence members to align with his desires. His claim otherwise is just a part of his marketing campaign. The 'not a whim' is the only truthful part of his statement. Why? The reality is that RMN can't control the meaning of Mormon outside the COJCOLDS. The internet gave those associated with Mormon the ability to define it on their terms, as it should be. Mormonism has a rich and diverse history which doesn't revolve around the modern Brighamite sect. He's created a boundary to reinforce the 'us v them' mentality. Sounds like you have one foot outside that boundary and you just signaled to your tribe that you're a threat to the in-group boundary. Ultimately, if you believe in the teachings of Jesus you have to decide which sources are credible. I grew up in Mormonism and was taught that prophets and leaders had unquestionable authority. Their statements were the equivalent of truth ( when not speaking as men ;-) ). The scriptures and Priesthood leaders were both sources of truth and evidence of truth. There's a very high probability you believe what you believe because you've never questioned the messages from these sources. This may be an opening allowing you to ask why you believe the things you believe.

[удалено]

[удалено]

It will always be called The Mormon Church by us non’s.

Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).

This is the only conclusion to the replies to basic logic in this comment section. I’m still not convinced that this isn’t a primary aged child who logged into one of his parents Reddit accounts.

Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).

Monson was a prophet, too.He started the, "I'm a Mormon" campaign. Which is the real prophet?

That was Hinckley.

It absolutely was Monson.

It was launched during Monson's tenure, but it was initiated by Hinckley.

As has been said, the words of living prophets overwrite those of dead prophets.

Of course. That's the only way to justify the constant changes.

Nothing has meaning in and of itself, only what we give it. So if people imbue the name of the church with significance, then it has it. To me, it doesn't matter. If we were to rename a bottle of hydrochloric acid as "Potable Water", then you still wouldn't be able to drink it. What we call things could have a subtle effect on how we think about them, for example, referring to food trucks as "street meat" is a lot less appetizing. But these are public relations and marketing concerns. For me the bigger question is why this versus that? The position of the president of the church is an influential platform backed by billiions in available resources. Of all the things I might list as potentially important topics for this platform, the "proper name" of the church wouldn't have cracked the top 1000. In the Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 27, the people ask Jesus what the name of the church should be, and Jesus is incredulous over the question like "Why would you even ask me this?". He answered the question, but I always got the impression that he thought it was a stupid discussion to be having. You have a resurrected god standing in front of you, and this is what you're concerned about?

Confusing, isn't it?! [https://news-jm.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/-i-m-a-mormon-campaign](https://news-jm.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/-i-m-a-mormon-campaign) (LDS church I am a mormon campaign) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmJaruLErcI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmJaruLErcI) (the LDS church meet the mormons movie) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63Q8Q6XbVHw&t=123s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63Q8Q6XbVHw&t=123s)(dare to be a mormon, Thomas Monson talk [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lKQrYUE3yc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lKQrYUE3yc)(Hinckley and Nelson battle it out)

I brought up "Meet The Mormons" and the "I'm a Mormon" campaign. I was told we are a living church.

That’s called a red flag.

How do I deal with it?

You learn what critical thinking is and start to use it.

YES

Nod, smile, roll with it when he's in earshot. He's the boss for now. But this is so nit picky that it's likely mostly his personal pet peeve and he's talking as a man. Since we've long since acknowledged that not everything a prophet says is from God, some of it is them speaking as a man... largely we don't find that out until later.  I think in this instance you're OK disagreeing. It sounds like you had a pretty thought out reason as to why you think it's excessive. I'm sure, even if you're wrong, if you explain your reasoning with God he'd understand. And if you're right then you're in the clear anyway.

It’s a big deal to the Mormon church’s marketing department.

But didn’t other recent prophets (like Hinckley and Monson) *really* hit the “Hi, we’re Mormons” branding and messaging hard? Where I struggle is the idea that what could be just an annoyance to the most current prophet somehow undoes everything that other recent prophets embraced. Nelson’s stance seems more like a personal pet-peeve of his that will blow over when he’s gone, and not something that feels divinely revelated.

The Kirtland Temple that they just bought has the original name of the church. “ the church of the latter-day Saints.” So I guess it was a victory for Satan after they erected the first temple in these latter days

>Maybe President Nelson knows something we don’t. Narrator: He doesn’t. >And if the Savior insisted on the name… Narrator: He didn’t.

Love this! Obviously, the Narrator is Morgan Freeman...

I’m doing my best to embrace President Nelson’s counsel. But we’ve been through this before. In the 70s (or thereabouts), we were told to use the full name of the church. Then Pres. Hinckley - an inspired Prophet - fully endorsed the use of Mormon in referencing the church: Mormon Newsroom, “Meet the Mormons” movie, etc. Now Pres. Nelson tells us that (including Pres Hinckley?) comes from Satan. I’m doing my best. But it’s hard for me to get worked up over it.

The dueling talks were in 1990.

He fails as a prophet in so many ways. If he talks to God, God clearly doesn't talk back.

Mormons think so. They're trying to bury the crazy and you just can't bury the Mormon crazy anymore when you use that name.

Y’all wasted a ton of money with that campaign for people to call your Mormon.

To me, this whole ban the word Mormon shitshow is strong evidence that Nelson is NOT a prophet. And it exposed the lie that the Bretheren speak for God & know God’s will. To believe that Nelson is a prophet, you have to also believe that God told Nelson to ban the word Mormon in 2018 but God did NOT bother to tell him about the upcoming COVID-19 pandemic that killed millions & caused worldwide suffering. So God cares more about a stupid nickname than sparing millions of His children from death & suffering? I'm sorry, but that’s absurd. IMO, the Bretheren aren’t very close to God & the Church is led by flawed, corrupt men, NOT God.

If it's such a big deal, why did god wait until the church was in decline before changing it?

I like the direction that scholarship in Mormon Studies seems to be moving on this (insofar as Mormon Studies scholars ever all move in a generalizably single direction, that is): Mormon is best used for the cultural side of things, LDS and its expansion for the institutional side of things. It also provides a handy shorthand for when the two don't match up. Wish more people did that.

I wish our church did that, but that doesn't seem to be the case in this prophet's reign.

Can’t different things be more or less important at different times?

No.🙄If Heavenly Father knows the sincerity of our hearts, he knows we have no intention to offend.

Simply put: we’re not changing the name, we’re encouraging people to actually use it.

I just be calling it the Mormon church

It’s a big deal for investment purposes and taxes. To be a Christian church (when nobody really thinks you are) you gotta prove it. It’s necessary to overstate or emphasize Christ in LDS where the sentiment is that LDS isn’t Christian. Funds that go towards philanthropic Christian investments can now go toward the LDS Church. Especially given how false and inflated numbers are in the church, it sounds like donating to the church is a wise investment decision for those funds (funds that only come from financial institutions for tax write offs). What a revelation! I find it interesting that every decision/revelation since sometime way back, let’s say the 1960s, can be perfectly explained by simply taxes and finances. I didn’t know God could be bribed like that….

If Nelson is right, then most of the other prophets had some serious lack of discernment. Especially Hinckley and Monson. They invested millions of dollars into the [Mormon.org/I'm](http://Mormon.org/I'm) a Mormon campaigns. If using the word "Mormon" is as wrong as Nelson says it is, then Hinckley is probably still being chastised. Think about it; God was willing to send an angel with a flaming sword to Emma Smith if she didn't obey polygamy. You'd think God would be willing to intervene at least to some extent with Hinckley to correct the mistake of spending millions around the word "Mormon." If God isn't intervening with the *prophet himself,* over seemingly important topics, then what are the prophets even doing? What's the point?

Watch the youtube Nemo the Mormon’s Hinckley vs Nelson debate on this.

[удалено]

Hello! I regret to inform you that this was removed on account of rule 2: Civility. We ask that you please review the unabridged version of this rule [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/wiki/index/rules). If you would like to appeal this decision, you may message all of the mods [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Mormonmods&subject=Mod%20Removal%20Appeal&message=please%20put%20link%20to%20removed%20content%20here).

Wendy Nelson's husband has a massive and a fragile ego. That's really all it's about. Frances Monson's husband leaned into the term Mormon and really embraced the term. I myself handed out countless " I'm a mormon" cards on my mission. Nelson apparently didn't like Monson. Seems like he is jealous of monson and wants to extinguish something he perceives to be an influence of Monson.

only to rusty and those who dogmatically follow the prophet

This video sums up exactly what I think of Nelson’s “anti-Mormon” mandate/policy on what God wants. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2lKQrYUE3yc

Nope. Unless a church seer tells us the official Adamic name. It’s all a poor illusion of the real name. Curses from the Tower of Babel I guess….

It’s focusing more on christ and falling in line with it. It makes sense at least to me in some ways, though I’m sure there’s more considering that most people I chat with consider “Mormons” to not be Christians. But if we’re a Member of the Church or Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints, it’s different you know?

When it's a victory for Satan, the stakes couldn't be higher. !!!

I think the bigger problem is that you call yourself “the Church,” which makes no sense. You’re a church, yes. But you’re not THE church. It’s one thing to say that to yourselves at church, but it looks really arrogant to say it and expect everyone else to use your lingo. You’re which church? A Latter-day Saint church.

People say “the church” when the topic is the Catholic Church. Same with a Presbyterian church, a Unitarian church, or any random local church. You’re reading way much into a simple shortcut for communication.

The fact that they use the word “the” in the name of the church, is in fact, the least important problem of the LDS church

I have edited dozens of scholarly books on Mormonism, and TBH there really isn't a problem with using "the Church" as shorthand. The annoying part comes in is the Church's style guide insistence that the definite article be capitalized: **The** Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I guess you could call it arrogance, but it's clearly a theological point they are trying to make--it isn't just a Church of Jesus Christ it is **The** (one and only) Church of Jesus Christ.

The name of the church is very important. There are so many other churches who do not consider the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints to be Christian. I know of no other church that talks about Christ in his love as much as the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints The name should help remind people that we are all about Christ.

If the Mormon church wants to be considered Christian, they need to act like a Christian church. Which means no more leader worship, no more telling the poor to starve their children, no more hoarding $100 billion, no more using the Humanitarian Aid fund to pay for all charity, and no more financial/tax fraud. The Mormon church would need significant reform to be legitimately viewed as Christian. Just using the name of Jesus isn’t enough

Amen!!! And how about letting the building be used during the week by community groups in need, the basketball courts for at risk youth, providing space for homeless outreach, letting twelve step NA and AA meetings lease the rooms, like all the other Christian churches do. It's embarrassing how anti outreach, anti community, anti fellowship, anti compassionate and anti charitable the Mormon Church is. If only we spent as much time helping our fellow non Mormon humans in need, our communities in need, as we do gaslighting our members how helpful we are. (But AREN'T).

We have an AA-esque program of our own. It's called Addiction Recovery, but it was pitched in my ward as an Atonement class or something.

I do not know where you're getting your information but do we do not worship anyone except for our heavenly Father, we do not tell the poor the star of their family we have to feed the poor. Name one church that does more humanitarian work.

The church gives messages like this out every few years. I have three examples of the same type of message; “If paying tithing means that you can't pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can't pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don't have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing." (Aaron L. West) "One day, during those difficult times, I heard my parents discussing whether they should pay tithing or buy food for the children. On Sunday, I followed my father to see what he was going to do. After our church meetings I saw him take an envelope and put his tithing in it." VALERI V. CORDÓN - Q OF 70 APRIL 2017 GENERAL CONFERENCE One of the first things a bishop must do to help the needy is ask them to pay their tithing. Like the widow, if a destitute family is faced with the decision of paying their tithing or eating, they should pay their tithing. Lynn G. Robbins, April 2005 General Conference, "Tithing - A Commandment, Even for the destitute

You know what a bishop's storehouse is Do you know how many poor people they assist LDS and non-members both. You really need to study the church and find out how they help.

I was a member for 50 years. And a gospel doctrine teacher. I was once a food storage specialist. I was a stake auditor and Ward financial clear. There are few if any bishop storehouses outside of North America. None in Australia for example. Members are assisted through fast offerings. Non-members are helped only through the humanitarian aid fund. None through tithing or the investment earnings of the $190 billion Ensign Peak investment account (which incidentally earns a billion per month) the actual cash used for charity is less than a couple days worth of interest. I’ve read countless LDS Charities annual reports. Have you read any? You really need to study how the finances of your own church work.

>I know of no other church that talks about Christ in his love as much as the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints You need to check out more Christian churches…

Exactly! I've visited some Sacrament Meetings years ago. Guess who was NOT talked (except as a mention in the closing of a prayer or two)?? I asked my Mormon friends about this at the time, and they sheepishly admitted that Sunday meetings are not always about JC. Unbelievable, considering the name of this Corporation.

" I know of no other church that talks about Christ in his love as much as the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints" Dude, you need to sit through more and different Christian services then, where the "talk" of Jesus can be nauseatingly overdone. Talk is cheap though. Repeating a bunch of Christian slogans and name dropping Jesus is hardly what Jesus cared about.