Nelson said, "When we disregard the Savior's name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us."
He also said this was a "command of the Lord."
So this implies that by using the incorrect names, you would be disobeying a command of the Lord. In what sense is knowingly disobeying a command of the Lord not a sin?
"We think the exact same thing!!!!! We do tell people that our official name is Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and not Mormon."
Again, my point is that it would be disingenuous to imply that the Church had been aware that 'Mormon' was an unacceptable name all along.
...wild theories or abominable opinions; these people should swiftly be removed from leadership. The Bible is very clear on this.
"Joseph knew the practice of plural marriage would stir up public ire. After receiving the commandment, he taught a few associates about it, but he did not spread this teaching widely in the 1830s...Joseph told associates that an angel appeared to him three times between 1834 and 1842 and commanded him to proceed with plural marriage when he hesitated to move forward. During the third and final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully."-LDS.org
Paul says, “But even if we [the apostles] or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.” – Galatians 1:8
Angelic testimony which contradicts God’s word is to be rejected. As are the words of an alleged prophet or apostle.
..."the God of the Bible…. Is the same God in the Book of Mormon. We do not worship a different God.”
This is, unfortunately, totally untrue. Obviously, these conversations could go on for hours. But put concisely, the biblical God is a triune being composed of the Father-Son-Spirit, uncreated, Most High, not governed by any laws or other beings. Whereas the God of Latter Day Saints is one god in an eternal lineage of deities, pro-created, subject to laws which govern him, and (most likely) subject to his own heavenly father. The two are totally incompatible.
kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith.” (JoD Vol. 7, pg. 289)"
-https://askgramps.org/will-we-be-judged-by-joseph-smith-in-the-final-judgement/
All of the extra-biblical citations here mean very little to me since I believe they come from false prophets and are not inspired. The only biblical reference was to Revelation, which is just saying that we will be judged according to our works.
In a setting where we collectively gather to worship God, there is no room for singing songs “praising” a man, in any context. If you want to suggest that we offer generic praise for the accomplishments of men, sure. But when we gather to worship, GOD is the audience of our worship. There’s something very cringe-worthy about saying, “Hold on God, let’s pause our worship towards you and take a second to praise a man for the things he has done.”
“Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.”
On the argument that Smith’s quote is not in the book: This is just untrue. I’ve seen it myself. It’s right here on BYU’s website:
-https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/volume-6-chapter-19
On it being a scribal error: That’s quite an egregious error which could not possibly happen on accident. Not to mention that it would have instantly been pulled when caught in the early history of the church. This is a wild claim.
On it being permissible because it’s “not official”: This is my pet peeve when talking to my LDS neighbors. There is this idea ingrained in Church members that officials can say practically anything and it be disregarded simply because it’s “not official canon.” This really begs the question of “WHAT would constitute an addition to the ‘official canon’ of the Church?” Nobody seems to offer a clear definition. Is it words spoken by a prophet at General Conference? Not sure how you can get more official than that. But even here, Brigham Young made abominable statements at G.C. while simultaneously stating that he was speaking inspired words, and yet the Church has rejected all those teachings.
LDS apostles and leaders are held to an incredibly LOW standard. We don’t even know when they can be held accountable for the things they say. Contrast this with the biblical teaching that Christians can be judged by their fruit… By the mere words they say. And that’s just the lay member… leaders are held to an even higher standard. But suffice it to say that if I stood up in church on Sunday and stated word-for-word what Smith said, I would RIGHTLY be sharply rebuked and called to repentance or else be excommunicated. And intuitively, I know you recognize that people should be held accountable for such things. Someone in a position of leadership should not be speaking wild theori
My point is that the handbook first stated that other countries would be permitted to use "Mormon" (though not advisable), but now the handbook has been altered even within the last few months to walk back that statement. Nelson basically said it's a sin to use the term, so it should be prohibited in any sense, I would think.
But the issue is really beyond that. You make it sound as though the name was "assigned" by outsiders and Church leaders have no responsibility for it. But this would be rather disingenuous. It's not as though Latter Day Saints have always been aware that you're not supposed to refer to yourselves as Mormons or "LDS." Nelson's announcement came as a shock. Even if the term developed colloquially, the point is that the Church leadership used/employed this term for over a century in the full belief that it was okay. The obvious question arises as to HOW a church with modern prophets could allow this to happen for so long. And the onus can't be dumped on non-members, or even lay members. The leadership carried it on.
So even if we chalk it up to the infallibility of modern prophets, we still must admit: This was a shock, and the Church is trying to correct a culture that has been in error for over a century. Church members should correct non-members by pointing out that they "no longer identify as Mormon" rather than simply acting as though this were never an acceptable term in the eyes of the Church.
I recognize that Latter Day Saints *usually* do not think of themselves as worshipping Joseph Smith when they sing this, but that doesn’t mean that the lyrics don’t explicitly offer worship to him.
“Praise to the man”
“Kings shall extol him”
“Great is his glory”
“He will enter HIS kingdom”
Not to mention the way Mormonism treats him. Brigham Young taught that “no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith.” (JoD Vol. 7, pg. 289)
Even Joseph himself claimed to do more to hold the church together than Jesus ever did: “I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet…” (History of the Church, Vol 6, pg. 408-409)
The LDS Church offers praise to this man, who married and almost certainly had relations with mother-daughter pairs and pairs of sisters, over 30 wives in all. Marrying mother-daughter pairs and sister pairs was an act condemnable by death in Leviticus 18.
The Church is trying to swing more towards mainstream Christianity, but it will never be able to do so while holding onto this abhorrent man and the teachings propagated by him, Brigham Young, and others. I love my Mormon neighbors, and desperately want them to know the God of the Bible. But Joseph Smith was a false prophet, and you can never know God is you pursue him through the framework that the LDS Church has created.
