Make not gods of your prophets

[Luke]

If you want to believe that, then you have the privilege of doing so.

It clearly had been taken away.

Church of Christ -> Church of the Latter-day Saints.

That is most certainly the Lord’s name
being taken away.

Not sure how I implied such a thing.

I think you're reading more significance into the name changes (and there were many before 1838) than actually existed.

I don’t think so. I think they are entirely relevant and reflect where the Church was at.

[Luke]

D&C 109
78 O hear, O hear, O hear us, O Lord! And answer these petitions, and accept the dedication of this house unto thee, the work of our hands, which we have built unto thy name;
79 And also this church, to put upon it thy name. And help us by the power of thy Spirit, that we may mingle our voices with those bright, shining seraphs around thy throne, with acclamations of praise, singing Hosanna to God and the Lamb!

Either that’s a plea to put His name on the Church, spoken in plain English, or I’m greatly mistaken.

It's a request for the Lord's blessings to be upon the temple. Pretty simple, really.

Also, thank you for implying here that the Lord's name wasn't taken away, as you had previously stated.

If you want to believe that, then you have the privilege of doing so.

It clearly had been taken away.

Church of Christ -> Church of the Latter-day Saints.

That is most certainly the Lord’s name
being taken away.

Not sure how I implied such a thing.

You retracted your inaccurate quote. And no, the name was never taken away. The only citation you had to back up your claim was a quote that you perverted.

What on earth are you talking about?

In 1834, the name “Christ” was taken off the Church. That is a fact.

[Reluctant Watchman]

If you two want to explore your thoughts on the name of the church, might I suggest a new thread…

[innocentoldguy]

It's a request for the Lord's blessings to be upon the temple. Pretty simple, really.

Also, thank you for implying here that the Lord's name wasn't taken away, as you had previously stated.

If you want to believe that, then you have the privilege of doing so.

It clearly had been taken away.

Church of Christ -> Church of the Latter-day Saints.

That is most certainly the Lord’s name
being taken away.

Not sure how I implied such a thing.

You retracted your inaccurate quote. And no, the name was never taken away. The only citation you had to back up your claim was a quote that you perverted.

What on earth are you talking about?

In 1834, the name “Christ” was taken off the Church. That is a fact.

I've already answered this in another post, so I'm not sure why we're discussing it again. I'll try to be more clear.

You said, "Yet Joseph Smith asked the Lord to 'put thy name back [sic] on the Church' [sic]. See D&C 109. Why would he ask that unless the Lord took it away in the first place?"

He didn't say that. You misquoted him.

Also, it was Oliver Cowdery who started calling the church the "Church of Christ" based on his reasoning on the Book of Mormon. Later, it was the members who started calling themselves "Church of the Latter-day Saints" because there were already other churches called the "Church of Christ." So, in 1838, the Lord corrected them by giving them the name he wanted his church to be called. You're claiming that the Lord took his name away from the church when no such thing ever happened outside of anti-Mormon fiction.

In recent years, we colloquially called ourselves "Mormons" and "The Mormon Church." We were corrected a few years ago by President Nelson. I'm not sure how this is any different than what the saints in the early 1800s did.

[innocentoldguy]

Then why do you keep doing it?

Guilty as charged if you consider quoting and citing scripture. The church leaders do teach contrary doctrines to the scriptures.

I think a more accurate statement is that church leaders teach things contrary to your understanding of the scriptures.

Haha. Sure. So when Christ says “you’ll be cursed if you trust in the arm of flesh” (2 Nephi 28:31-paraphrasing btw) and again “ let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another”, and then Nelson says there are 15 men you can place your “complete trust” in…. I obviously got that wrong. Christ was actually saying that to only bad guys, not these good guys, who “can never lead us astray.” You know, these lesser gods.

I rest my case. The Lord or his prophets have also said:

Man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord (D&C 98:11, Deuteronomy 8:3, and Matthew 4:4).

"Where there is no vision (speaking of prophecy), the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18).

The Lord will do nothing without revealing his secret to the prophets (Amos 3:7).

Whatever God's servants speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be the voice of the Lord (D&C 68:4).

And my favorite, "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same."

So, it isn't President Nelson saying you can place your "complete trust" in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. It is the Lord, and he has said it in all of the standard works.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Guilty as charged if you consider quoting and citing scripture. The church leaders do teach contrary doctrines to the scriptures.

I think a more accurate statement is that church leaders teach things contrary to your understanding of the scriptures.

Haha. Sure. So when Christ says “you’ll be cursed if you trust in the arm of flesh” (2 Nephi 28:31-paraphrasing btw) and again “ let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another”, and then Nelson says there are 15 men you can place your “complete trust” in…. I obviously got that wrong. Christ was actually saying that to only bad guys, not these good guys, who “can never lead us astray.” You know, these lesser gods.

I rest my case. The Lord or his prophets have also said:

Man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord (D&C 98:11, Deuteronomy 8:3, and Matthew 4:4).

"Where there is no vision (speaking of prophecy), the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18).

The Lord will do nothing without revealing his secret to the prophets (Amos 3:7).

Whatever God's servants speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be the voice of the Lord (D&C 68:4).

And my favorite, "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same."

So, it isn't President Nelson saying you can place your "complete trust" in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. It is the Lord, and he has said it in all of the standard works.

You've also conveniently left out a whole host of other scriptures that state we don't follow them in all things. There are stipulations to how and when we follow them. Hence the whole point of this thread and the original OP.

[JLHPROF]

I think a more accurate statement is that church leaders teach things contrary to your understanding of the scriptures.

Haha. Sure. So when Christ says “you’ll be cursed if you trust in the arm of flesh” (2 Nephi 28:31-paraphrasing btw) and again “ let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another”, and then Nelson says there are 15 men you can place your “complete trust” in…. I obviously got that wrong. Christ was actually saying that to only bad guys, not these good guys, who “can never lead us astray.” You know, these lesser gods.

I rest my case. The Lord or his prophets have also said:

Man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord (D&C 98:11, Deuteronomy 8:3, and Matthew 4:4).

"Where there is no vision (speaking of prophecy), the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18).

The Lord will do nothing without revealing his secret to the prophets (Amos 3:7).

Whatever God's servants speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be the voice of the Lord (D&C 68:4).

And my favorite, "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same."

So, it isn't President Nelson saying you can place your "complete trust" in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. It is the Lord, and he has said it in all of the standard works.

You've also conveniently left out a whole host of other scriptures that state we don't follow them in all things. There are stipulations to how and when we follow them. Hence the whole point of this thread and the original OP.

We don't have to follow them in all things. But the anti authority streak on this board is strong.
IF Pres Nelson actually is God's mouthpiece and presides over priesthood ordinances on the earth then while we don't follow him into sin we also follow his righteous instructions.
The false idea is that because they give a wrong direction or make a mistake that they're completely fallen. The next false idea is that we don't need a mortal man as priesthood head. The next false idea is that the priesthood keys can be taken from the earth and restored again. The next false idea is that Christ doesn't require an intermediary in matters of priesthood. Yet another false idea is that we, any of us, have any right to declare them fallen - only God can do that. And so on.
This board is simply filled with people who HATE being told what they should do. They rebel. And the rebellious are not God's chosen.

So can the prophet make mistakes or teach something wrong? Sure. Do we have to do wrong? Of course not. But the ordinances and priesthood are still required and so is submission to those who preside.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Haha. Sure. So when Christ says “you’ll be cursed if you trust in the arm of flesh” (2 Nephi 28:31-paraphrasing btw) and again “ let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another”, and then Nelson says there are 15 men you can place your “complete trust” in…. I obviously got that wrong. Christ was actually saying that to only bad guys, not these good guys, who “can never lead us astray.” You know, these lesser gods.

I rest my case. The Lord or his prophets have also said:

Man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord (D&C 98:11, Deuteronomy 8:3, and Matthew 4:4).

"Where there is no vision (speaking of prophecy), the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18).

The Lord will do nothing without revealing his secret to the prophets (Amos 3:7).

Whatever God's servants speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be the voice of the Lord (D&C 68:4).

And my favorite, "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same."

So, it isn't President Nelson saying you can place your "complete trust" in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. It is the Lord, and he has said it in all of the standard works.

You've also conveniently left out a whole host of other scriptures that state we don't follow them in all things. There are stipulations to how and when we follow them. Hence the whole point of this thread and the original OP.

We don't have to follow them in all things. But the anti authority streak on this board is strong.
IF Pres Nelson actually is God's mouthpiece and presides over priesthood ordinances on the earth then while we don't follow him into sin we also follow his righteous instructions.
The false idea is that because they give a wrong direction or make a mistake that they're completely fallen. The next false idea is that we don't need a mortal man as priesthood head. The next false idea is that the priesthood keys can be taken from the earth and restored again. The next false idea is that Christ doesn't require an intermediary in matters of priesthood. Yet another false idea is that we, any of us, have any right to declare them fallen - only God can do that. And so on.
This board is simply filled with people who HATE being told what they should do. They rebel. And the rebellious are not God's chosen.

So can the prophet make mistakes or teach something wrong? Sure. Do we have to do wrong? Of course not. But the ordinances and priesthood are still required and so is submission to those who preside.

Good luck with your theology.

[JLHPROF]

I rest my case. The Lord or his prophets have also said:

Man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord (D&C 98:11, Deuteronomy 8:3, and Matthew 4:4).

"Where there is no vision (speaking of prophecy), the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18).

The Lord will do nothing without revealing his secret to the prophets (Amos 3:7).

Whatever God's servants speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be the voice of the Lord (D&C 68:4).

And my favorite, "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same."

So, it isn't President Nelson saying you can place your "complete trust" in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. It is the Lord, and he has said it in all of the standard works.

You've also conveniently left out a whole host of other scriptures that state we don't follow them in all things. There are stipulations to how and when we follow them. Hence the whole point of this thread and the original OP.

We don't have to follow them in all things. But the anti authority streak on this board is strong.
IF Pres Nelson actually is God's mouthpiece and presides over priesthood ordinances on the earth then while we don't follow him into sin we also follow his righteous instructions.
The false idea is that because they give a wrong direction or make a mistake that they're completely fallen. The next false idea is that we don't need a mortal man as priesthood head. The next false idea is that the priesthood keys can be taken from the earth and restored again. The next false idea is that Christ doesn't require an intermediary in matters of priesthood. Yet another false idea is that we, any of us, have any right to declare them fallen - only God can do that. And so on.
This board is simply filled with people who HATE being told what they should do. They rebel. And the rebellious are not God's chosen.

So can the prophet make mistakes or teach something wrong? Sure. Do we have to do wrong? Of course not. But the ordinances and priesthood are still required and so is submission to those who preside.

Good luck with your theology.

I'm quite comfortable with my theology.

[NowWhat]

I love the Thank You for Your Post option, but I sure do wish there was a laugh emoticon....

[Shawn Henry]

Later, it was the members who started calling themselves "Church of the Latter-day Saints" because there were already other churches called the "Church of Christ."

Here's a copy of minutes for you, since you will never look it up yourself. It's the May 1834 General Conference.


Minutes of a Conference of the Elders of the Church of Christ, which Church was organized in the township of Fayette, Seneca county, New York, on the 6th of April, A.D. 1830.
President Joseph Smith, Jun., was chosen moderator, and Frederick G. Williams and Oliver Cowdery were appointed clerks.
After prayer, the conference proceeded to discuss the subject of names and appellations, when a motion was made by Sidney Rigdon, and seconded by Newel K. Whitney, that this Church be known hereafter by the name of "The Church of the Latter-day Saints." Remarks were made by the members, after which the motion passed by unanimous vote.
"Resolved, that this conference recommend to the conferences and churches abroad, that in making out and transmitting minutes of their proceedings, such minutes and proceedings be made out under the above title.
"Resolved, that these minutes be signed by the moderator and clerks, and published in the Evening and Morning Star.
Joseph Smith, Jun., Moderator.
Frederick G. Williams,
Oliver Cowdery, Clerks.

It would be really appreciated if you could stop saying stupid stuff like "there were already other churches called" by that name. They had been in Kirtland for 4 years, obviously the name worked just fine. I have never seen anyone grasp at straws like you do, to think that God's prophets would remove Christ's name willingly.

If Joseph was petitioning the Lord to put his name back on the church, obviously it was the Lord who removed it.

If it wasn't the Lord, Joseph wouldn't need to ask permission, he would simply do it.

[innocentoldguy]

Later, it was the members who started calling themselves "Church of the Latter-day Saints" because there were already other churches called the "Church of Christ."

Here's a copy of minutes for you, since you will never look it up yourself. It's the May 1834 General Conference.


Minutes of a Conference of the Elders of the Church of Christ, which Church was organized in the township of Fayette, Seneca county, New York, on the 6th of April, A.D. 1830.
President Joseph Smith, Jun., was chosen moderator, and Frederick G. Williams and Oliver Cowdery were appointed clerks.
After prayer, the conference proceeded to discuss the subject of names and appellations, when a motion was made by Sidney Rigdon, and seconded by Newel K. Whitney, that this Church be known hereafter by the name of "The Church of the Latter-day Saints." Remarks were made by the members, after which the motion passed by unanimous vote.
"Resolved, that this conference recommend to the conferences and churches abroad, that in making out and transmitting minutes of their proceedings, such minutes and proceedings be made out under the above title.
"Resolved, that these minutes be signed by the moderator and clerks, and published in the Evening and Morning Star.
Joseph Smith, Jun., Moderator.
Frederick G. Williams,
Oliver Cowdery, Clerks.

It would be really appreciated if you could stop saying stupid stuff like "there were already other churches called" by that name. They had been in Kirtland for 4 years, obviously the name worked just fine. I have never seen anyone grasp at straws like you do, to think that God's prophets would remove Christ's name willingly.

If Joseph was petitioning the Lord to put his name back on the church, obviously it was the Lord who removed it.

If it wasn't the Lord, Joseph wouldn't need to ask permission, he would simply do it.

There were indeed other churches called by "Church of Christ" and that was the reason saints were looking for a name to distinguish themselves by. Feel free to look it up. There's plenty about it both online and in church history.

Also, how is anything you quoted different than what I said? Were Newel K. Whiney, Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery, Frederick G. Williams, or any of the members you referenced the prophet? No. Was this name selected by divine revelation? No. So it was, indeed, exactly as I said. I just used less words to say it. The only difference between what I said and what you said is that you've walked away, again, with a conclusion that is completely devoid of logic and facts.

I've never seen anybody engage is such intellectual dishonesty to tear down the church as you portray in these forums. I also think there is nothing more pathetic and childish that a grown man running around church-related sites nitpicking the imperfections of other imperfect beings to give the Lord, his church, and its members a black eye.

[innocentoldguy]

I think a more accurate statement is that church leaders teach things contrary to your understanding of the scriptures.

Haha. Sure. So when Christ says “you’ll be cursed if you trust in the arm of flesh” (2 Nephi 28:31-paraphrasing btw) and again “ let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another”, and then Nelson says there are 15 men you can place your “complete trust” in…. I obviously got that wrong. Christ was actually saying that to only bad guys, not these good guys, who “can never lead us astray.” You know, these lesser gods.

I rest my case. The Lord or his prophets have also said:

Man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord (D&C 98:11, Deuteronomy 8:3, and Matthew 4:4).

"Where there is no vision (speaking of prophecy), the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18).

The Lord will do nothing without revealing his secret to the prophets (Amos 3:7).

Whatever God's servants speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be the voice of the Lord (D&C 68:4).

And my favorite, "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same."

So, it isn't President Nelson saying you can place your "complete trust" in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. It is the Lord, and he has said it in all of the standard works.

You've also conveniently left out a whole host of other scriptures that state we don't follow them in all things. There are stipulations to how and when we follow them. Hence the whole point of this thread and the original OP.

Yes, and they repeat those stipulations ALL THE TIME. For example, regarding the COVID vaccine, the prophet told people to pray about it, be lead by the Holy Ghost, and consult with a medical professional. He did NOT say, "We're infallible and the Lord won't let us lead you astray, so shut up and get vaccinated."

You should give your confirmation bias a rest for a week. Maybe you'll learn something.

[ransomme]

Guilty as charged if you consider quoting and citing scripture. The church leaders do teach contrary doctrines to the scriptures.

I think a more accurate statement is that church leaders teach things contrary to your understanding of the scriptures.

Haha. Sure. So when Christ says “you’ll be cursed if you trust in the arm of flesh” (2 Nephi 28:31-paraphrasing btw) and again “ let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another”, and then Nelson says there are 15 men you can place your “complete trust” in…. I obviously got that wrong. Christ was actually saying that to only bad guys, not these good guys, who “can never lead us astray.” You know, these lesser gods.

I rest my case. The Lord or his prophets have also said:

Man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord (D&C 98:11, Deuteronomy 8:3, and Matthew 4:4).

"Where there is no vision (speaking of prophecy), the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18).

The Lord will do nothing without revealing his secret to the prophets (Amos 3:7).

Whatever God's servants speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be the voice of the Lord (D&C 68:4).

And my favorite, "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same."

So, it isn't President Nelson saying you can place your "complete trust" in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. It is the Lord, and he has said it in all of the standard works.

What you present is a perversion. All are supposed to receive the Holy Ghost and be able to speak with the tongue of angels as true messengers of God. The pattern is continually repeated and taught in the scriptures.

Joseph Smith
"...the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men...that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls...if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall — that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves...” (TPJS p. 238).

George Q. Cannon -
"Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an Apostle or a President; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone and trust in Him alone, their faith will not be shaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. ... Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or woman."
Millennial Star 53:658-659, 673-675.

There should be no intermediaries between us and the Lord. “…whosoever will may lay hold upon the word of God, which is quick and powerful, which shall divide asunder all the cunning and the snares and the wiles of the devil, and lead the man of Christ in a strait and narrow course across that everlasting gulf of misery which is prepared to engulf the wicked—And land their souls, yea, their immortal souls, at the right hand of God in the kingdom of heaven, to sit down with Abraham and Isaac, and with Jacob, and with all our holy fathers, to go no more out” (Hel. 3:29-30).

The "follow the prophet" mantra is a form of idolatry.

[ransomme]

You've also conveniently left out a whole host of other scriptures that state we don't follow them in all things. There are stipulations to how and when we follow them. Hence the whole point of this thread and the original OP.

We don't have to follow them in all things. But the anti authority streak on this board is strong.
IF Pres Nelson actually is God's mouthpiece and presides over priesthood ordinances on the earth then while we don't follow him into sin we also follow his righteous instructions.
The false idea is that because they give a wrong direction or make a mistake that they're completely fallen. The next false idea is that we don't need a mortal man as priesthood head. The next false idea is that the priesthood keys can be taken from the earth and restored again. The next false idea is that Christ doesn't require an intermediary in matters of priesthood. Yet another false idea is that we, any of us, have any right to declare them fallen - only God can do that. And so on.
This board is simply filled with people who HATE being told what they should do. They rebel. And the rebellious are not God's chosen.

So can the prophet make mistakes or teach something wrong? Sure. Do we have to do wrong? Of course not. But the ordinances and priesthood are still required and so is submission to those who preside.

Good luck with your theology.

I'm quite comfortable with my theology.

"But the ordinances and priesthood are still required and so is submission to those who preside."

Wow, really? You must submit... No questions asked?

The only reason why Nelson is seemingly questioned so much is because he and the other Brethren spread misinformation under the guise of authority, and veneer that it was from God using careful language to suggest as much, without saying it. The vax is neither safe nor effective, and they have yet to repent, as evidenced by a lack of an apology.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Haha. Sure. So when Christ says “you’ll be cursed if you trust in the arm of flesh” (2 Nephi 28:31-paraphrasing btw) and again “ let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another”, and then Nelson says there are 15 men you can place your “complete trust” in…. I obviously got that wrong. Christ was actually saying that to only bad guys, not these good guys, who “can never lead us astray.” You know, these lesser gods.

I rest my case. The Lord or his prophets have also said:

Man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord (D&C 98:11, Deuteronomy 8:3, and Matthew 4:4).

"Where there is no vision (speaking of prophecy), the people perish" (Proverbs 29:18).

The Lord will do nothing without revealing his secret to the prophets (Amos 3:7).

Whatever God's servants speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be the voice of the Lord (D&C 68:4).

And my favorite, "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same."

So, it isn't President Nelson saying you can place your "complete trust" in the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. It is the Lord, and he has said it in all of the standard works.

You've also conveniently left out a whole host of other scriptures that state we don't follow them in all things. There are stipulations to how and when we follow them. Hence the whole point of this thread and the original OP.

Yes, and they repeat those stipulations ALL THE TIME. For example, regarding the COVID vaccine, the prophet told people to pray about it, be lead by the Holy Ghost, and consult with a medical professional. He did NOT say, "We're infallible and the Lord won't let us lead you astray, so shut up and get vaccinated."

You should give your confirmation bias a rest for a week. Maybe you'll learn something.

“All the time”? Really? You think including one small footnote in a news release qualifies as “all the time”? Especially w/ Covid and the jab? How bout now? Now that we know it was worthless, not from God (yet they still say this) and is killing people.

And yes, they continue to this day to say “we cannot lead you astray” and you can place you “compete trust” in us. All of this after Covid, after the shots.

[LDS Watchman]

Yet Joseph Smith asked the Lord to “put thy name back on the Church”. See D&C 109.

Why would he ask that unless the Lord took it away in the first place?

D&C 109
78 O hear, O hear, O hear us, O Lord! And answer these petitions, and accept the dedication of this house unto thee, the work of our hands, which we have built unto thy name;
79 And also this church, to put upon it thy name. And help us by the power of thy Spirit, that we may mingle our voices with those bright, shining seraphs around thy throne, with acclamations of praise, singing Hosanna to God and the Lamb!

Either that’s a plea to put His name on the Church, spoken in plain English, or I’m greatly mistaken.

It's fairly plain English and should end the debate as to who removed Christ's name. He clearly did. You obviously don't petition the Lord to put his name back on the church if it wasn't the Lord who removed it in the first place.

Here's a copy of minutes for you, since you will never look it up yourself. It's the May 1834 General Conference.

Minutes of a Conference of the Elders of the Church of Christ, which Church was organized in the township of Fayette, Seneca county, New York, on the 6th of April, A.D. 1830.
President Joseph Smith, Jun., was chosen moderator, and Frederick G. Williams and Oliver Cowdery were appointed clerks.
After prayer, the conference proceeded to discuss the subject of names and appellations, when a motion was made by Sidney Rigdon, and seconded by Newel K. Whitney, that this Church be known hereafter by the name of "The Church of the Latter-day Saints." Remarks were made by the members, after which the motion passed by unanimous vote.
"Resolved, that this conference recommend to the conferences and churches abroad, that in making out and transmitting minutes of their proceedings, such minutes and proceedings be made out under the above title.
"Resolved, that these minutes be signed by the moderator and clerks, and published in the Evening and Morning Star.
Joseph Smith, Jun., Moderator.
Frederick G. Williams,
Oliver Cowdery, Clerks.

Here's what the Savior said in the Book of Mormon about his church:

5 Have they not read the scriptures, which say ye must take upon you the name of Christ, which is my name? For by this name shall ye be called at the last day;
6 And whoso taketh upon him my name, and endureth to the end, the same shall be saved at the last day.
7 Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake.
8 And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.
9 Verily I say unto you, that ye are built upon my gospel; therefore ye shall call whatsoever things ye do call, in my name; therefore if ye call upon the Father, for the church, if it be in my name the Father will hear you;
10 And if it so be that the church is built upon my gospel then will the Father show forth his own works in it. (3 Nephi 27)

There's a very easy way to tell if the May 1834 decision to refer to the Lord's church as the "Church of the Latter-day Saints" constituted the Lord's removing his name from the church or not.

Did the Lord continue to refer to the church as "his church" after this or not? If he did, then his name wasn't removed.

Let's see...

D&C 105 (June 22, 1834)

33 Verily I say unto you, it is expedient in me that the first elders of my church should receive their endowment from on high in my house, which I have commanded to be built unto my name in the land of Kirtland.

D&C 106 (November 25, 1834)

1 It is my will that my servant Warren A. Cowdery should be appointed and ordained a presiding high priest over my church...

D&C 112 (July 23, 1837)

27 Therefore, see to it that ye trouble not yourselves concerning the affairs of my church in this place, saith the Lord.

So now, let's go back to what Jesus said in the Book of Mormon.

He said "how be it my church save it be called in my name?" and "if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel."

By declaring the church "His church" even after the decision was made to refer to it as the "Church of the Latter-day Saints" proves that the Lord's name was not removed from the church. Case closed.

[Luke]

By declaring the church "His church" even after the decision was made to refer to it as the "Church of the Latter-day Saints" proves that the Lord's name was not removed from the church. Case closed.

The case isn't closed, for you at least.

The name was taken off the Church. If you can somehow find the name "Christ" in the term "The Church of the Latter-day Saints", then you must have English-reading skills far beyond my comprehension.

The Lord put His name again on the Church in 1838, and gave them a second chance in Nauvoo. Unlike Shawn, I believe that they rose to the occasion and succeeded in the opportunity afforded to them.

He said "my Church" because He was still working with them, despite their failings.

[JLHPROF]

We don't have to follow them in all things. But the anti authority streak on this board is strong.
IF Pres Nelson actually is God's mouthpiece and presides over priesthood ordinances on the earth then while we don't follow him into sin we also follow his righteous instructions.
The false idea is that because they give a wrong direction or make a mistake that they're completely fallen. The next false idea is that we don't need a mortal man as priesthood head. The next false idea is that the priesthood keys can be taken from the earth and restored again. The next false idea is that Christ doesn't require an intermediary in matters of priesthood. Yet another false idea is that we, any of us, have any right to declare them fallen - only God can do that. And so on.
This board is simply filled with people who HATE being told what they should do. They rebel. And the rebellious are not God's chosen.

So can the prophet make mistakes or teach something wrong? Sure. Do we have to do wrong? Of course not. But the ordinances and priesthood are still required and so is submission to those who preside.

Good luck with your theology.

I'm quite comfortable with my theology.

"But the ordinances and priesthood are still required and so is submission to those who preside."

Wow, really? You must submit... No questions asked?

The only reason why Nelson is seemingly questioned so much is because he and the other Brethren spread misinformation under the guise of authority, and veneer that it was from God using careful language to suggest as much, without saying it. The vax is neither safe nor effective, and they have yet to repent, as evidenced by a lack of an apology.

It's hilarious to me that it's the vaccine recommendation that has caused so many to call the prophet fallen.
Not something religious or doctrinal but something medical.
Modern day Godbeites.

[InfoWarrior82]

Good luck with your theology.

I'm quite comfortable with my theology.

"But the ordinances and priesthood are still required and so is submission to those who preside."

Wow, really? You must submit... No questions asked?

The only reason why Nelson is seemingly questioned so much is because he and the other Brethren spread misinformation under the guise of authority, and veneer that it was from God using careful language to suggest as much, without saying it. The vax is neither safe nor effective, and they have yet to repent, as evidenced by a lack of an apology.

It's hilarious to me that it's the vaccine recommendation that has caused so many to call the prophet fallen.
Not something religious or doctrinal but something medical.
Modern day Godbeites.

So when a man claims to be a prophet of God, says to do something that was sent by God, but then maims/kills them... How can this be seen as anything other than a corrupt fruit? Can a good tree produce corrupt fruit? What did Christ say about this?

For many, there have been a multitude of real, legitimate, instances of evidence of corrupt fruit prior to the covid fiasco that could be excused in their minds. But when this happened, it was the last straw and could deny it no longer.

[ransomme]

Good luck with your theology.

I'm quite comfortable with my theology.

"But the ordinances and priesthood are still required and so is submission to those who preside."

Wow, really? You must submit... No questions asked?

The only reason why Nelson is seemingly questioned so much is because he and the other Brethren spread misinformation under the guise of authority, and veneer that it was from God using careful language to suggest as much, without saying it. The vax is neither safe nor effective, and they have yet to repent, as evidenced by a lack of an apology.

It's hilarious to me that it's the vaccine recommendation that has caused so many to call the prophet fallen.
Not something religious or doctrinal but something medical.
Modern day Godbeites.

Why is that hilarious? People can believe many things, especially if it's just known truths being promoted, or things that are, more rather than less, unverifiable in this life (this is typically the lane in which the Brethren stay). But when faith confronts hard reality it often strengthens or weakens testimonies depending on its truthfulness. When a Prophet prophecies, people can test and witness its veracity. When a PSR makes statements that are incongruent with experienced reality (both spiritual and in the lab) then it sobers some people up quickly. It seems quite expected and understandable.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Good luck with your theology.

I'm quite comfortable with my theology.

"But the ordinances and priesthood are still required and so is submission to those who preside."

Wow, really? You must submit... No questions asked?

The only reason why Nelson is seemingly questioned so much is because he and the other Brethren spread misinformation under the guise of authority, and veneer that it was from God using careful language to suggest as much, without saying it. The vax is neither safe nor effective, and they have yet to repent, as evidenced by a lack of an apology.

It's hilarious to me that it's the vaccine recommendation that has caused so many to call the prophet fallen.
Not something religious or doctrinal but something medical.
Modern day Godbeites.

The jab created questions. The false doctrine is what pushed me away.

[LDS Watchman]

By declaring the church "His church" even after the decision was made to refer to it as the "Church of the Latter-day Saints" proves that the Lord's name was not removed from the church. Case closed.

The case isn't closed, for you at least.

The name was taken off the Church. If you can somehow find the name "Christ" in the term "The Church of the Latter-day Saints", then you must have English-reading skills far beyond my comprehension.

The Lord put His name again on the Church in 1838, and gave them a second chance in Nauvoo. Unlike Shawn, I believe that they rose to the occasion and succeeded in the opportunity afforded to them.

He said "my Church" because He was still working with them, despite their failings.

It's not about what the people in the church refer to the church as. It's about whether ot not they have taken the name of Christ upon themselves and are living his gospel, which is what a "Saint" is.

The words of Jesus Christ (not the voices on the internet) could not be more clear.

"And how be it my church save it be called in my name?"

He said it was his church after the meeting in May of 1834. So it was called in his name. End of story.

[LDS Watchman]

I'm quite comfortable with my theology.

"But the ordinances and priesthood are still required and so is submission to those who preside."

Wow, really? You must submit... No questions asked?

The only reason why Nelson is seemingly questioned so much is because he and the other Brethren spread misinformation under the guise of authority, and veneer that it was from God using careful language to suggest as much, without saying it. The vax is neither safe nor effective, and they have yet to repent, as evidenced by a lack of an apology.

It's hilarious to me that it's the vaccine recommendation that has caused so many to call the prophet fallen.
Not something religious or doctrinal but something medical.
Modern day Godbeites.

The jab created questions. The false doctrine is what pushed me away.

What false doctrine?

That God isn't going to allow the leaders of the church to lead it into complete apostasy again? Because that's about all you cry about day in and day out.

[LDS Watchman]

I'm quite comfortable with my theology.

"But the ordinances and priesthood are still required and so is submission to those who preside."

Wow, really? You must submit... No questions asked?

The only reason why Nelson is seemingly questioned so much is because he and the other Brethren spread misinformation under the guise of authority, and veneer that it was from God using careful language to suggest as much, without saying it. The vax is neither safe nor effective, and they have yet to repent, as evidenced by a lack of an apology.

It's hilarious to me that it's the vaccine recommendation that has caused so many to call the prophet fallen.
Not something religious or doctrinal but something medical.
Modern day Godbeites.

So when a man claims to be a prophet of God, says to do something that was sent by God, but then maims/kills them... How can this be seen as anything other than a corrupt fruit? Can a good tree produce corrupt fruit? What did Christ say about this?

For many, there have been a multitude of real, legitimate, instances of evidence of corrupt fruit prior to the covid fiasco that could be excused in their minds. But when this happened, it was the last straw and could deny it no longer.

Was it corrup fruit that people died following Joseph's call to go to Zion or Brigham's to go to Utah?

Does this make them both false prophets? Yes or no?