3 Nephi 21 disproves claims to Christ's church

[Luke]

General comment here. The idea of wether or not the LDS church is “Christ’s church” really is simply. Does the church teach Christ’s doctrine correctly? Same principle applies to “keys and authority.” Keys and authority are only valid upon righteousness. If corruption or wickedness enters the church (specifically the leadership), then the validity of any claim is negated. I don’t care how people want to interpret the BoM, D&C, or any other pronouncement from a supposed “anointed” leader. It doesn’t matter. Wether there is corrupt doctrine or wickedness is really all we need to analyze.

The fact that you are required to "sustain" leaders in order to be baptized proves that they have altered Christ's original doctrine... which He taught about, saying that anything "more or less than this" was not of Him.

If you disagree that this contradicts Christ, then find me a single instance in the BoM where someone was required to acknowledge or "sustain" a man in order to be baptized.

Your "question" has been answered several times in the past. It's about acknowledging that the authority to administer the ordinances is valid. But you just reject every answer you don't like, so why are you trying to beat this dead horse again?

I don’t think it is. I think the Priesthood is still in the Church, but the leaders are apostate.

[LDS Watchman]

General comment here. The idea of wether or not the LDS church is “Christ’s church” really is simply. Does the church teach Christ’s doctrine correctly? Same principle applies to “keys and authority.” Keys and authority are only valid upon righteousness. If corruption or wickedness enters the church (specifically the leadership), then the validity of any claim is negated. I don’t care how people want to interpret the BoM, D&C, or any other pronouncement from a supposed “anointed” leader. It doesn’t matter. Wether there is corrupt doctrine or wickedness is really all we need to analyze.

The fact that you are required to "sustain" leaders in order to be baptized proves that they have altered Christ's original doctrine... which He taught about, saying that anything "more or less than this" was not of Him.

If you disagree that this contradicts Christ, then find me a single instance in the BoM where someone was required to acknowledge or "sustain" a man in order to be baptized.

Your "question" has been answered several times in the past. It's about acknowledging that the authority to administer the ordinances is valid. But you just reject every answer you don't like, so why are you trying to beat this dead horse again?

I don’t think it is. I think the Priesthood is still in the Church, but the leaders are apostate.

You can think what you like about the leaders of the church, but the issue is one of authority. If the president of the church does not have the keys to preside over the priesthood authority in the church, then there's no point in being baptized by the authority of any elder in the church, as the baptism would not be valid.

[Gadianton Slayer]

The fact that you are required to "sustain" leaders in order to be baptized proves that they have altered Christ's original doctrine... which He taught about, saying that anything "more or less than this" was not of Him.

If you disagree that this contradicts Christ, then find me a single instance in the BoM where someone was required to acknowledge or "sustain" a man in order to be baptized.

It's about acknowledging that the authority to administer the ordinances is valid.

I don’t think it is.

It can't be. Obviously, authority is required to baptize; but when did you ever see a true prophet of God walking around shouting "I have the authority, come and be baptized! Here only!" like an AD on Highway 20?

Nope. Authority is with those who God chooses and is never the priority; instead, doctrine and truth are. Authority can be given to (and taken from) anyone as God pleases.

[Luke]

The fact that you are required to "sustain" leaders in order to be baptized proves that they have altered Christ's original doctrine... which He taught about, saying that anything "more or less than this" was not of Him.

If you disagree that this contradicts Christ, then find me a single instance in the BoM where someone was required to acknowledge or "sustain" a man in order to be baptized.

Your "question" has been answered several times in the past. It's about acknowledging that the authority to administer the ordinances is valid. But you just reject every answer you don't like, so why are you trying to beat this dead horse again?

I don’t think it is. I think the Priesthood is still in the Church, but the leaders are apostate.

You can think what you like about the leaders of the church, but the issue is one of authority. If the president of the church does not have the keys to preside over the priesthood authority in the church, then there's no point in being baptized by the authority of any elder in the church, as the baptism would not be valid.

Absolutely nonsensical. The Priesthood of one has nothing to do with another.

You either have the Priesthood or you don’t.

[LDS Watchman]

The fact that you are required to "sustain" leaders in order to be baptized proves that they have altered Christ's original doctrine... which He taught about, saying that anything "more or less than this" was not of Him.

If you disagree that this contradicts Christ, then find me a single instance in the BoM where someone was required to acknowledge or "sustain" a man in order to be baptized.

It's about acknowledging that the authority to administer the ordinances is valid.

I don’t think it is.

It can't be. Obviously, authority is required to baptize; but when did you ever see a true prophet of God walking around shouting "I have the authority, come and be baptized! Here only!" like an AD on Highway 20?

Nope. Authority is with those who God chooses and is never the priority; instead, doctrine and truth are. Authority can be given to (and taken from) anyone as God pleases.

This isn't what the president of the church does and you know it. It does sound a little like John the Baptist, though. He dare he tell people to come out to the Jordan River to be baptized and that he had the authority to do it. What a phony.

As for the rest, the Lord was pretty clear in the D&C, when he said:

11 Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church.

[Gadianton Slayer]

This isn't what the president of the church does and you know it. It does sound a little like John the Baptist, though. He dare he tell people to come out to the Jordan River to be baptized and that he had the authority to do it. What a phony.

John didn't waltz around declaring a sole monopoly on authority, He taught the doctrine. Also, if it's just about authority... why don't people "sustain" the person who baptizes them? Do they not have the authority?

Or maybe... just maybe... this requirement to sustain "the prophet" is a ruse to gain obedient followers and has nothing to do with the authority that supposedly everyone has but only he has.

[LDS Watchman]

Your "question" has been answered several times in the past. It's about acknowledging that the authority to administer the ordinances is valid. But you just reject every answer you don't like, so why are you trying to beat this dead horse again?

I don’t think it is. I think the Priesthood is still in the Church, but the leaders are apostate.

You can think what you like about the leaders of the church, but the issue is one of authority. If the president of the church does not have the keys to preside over the priesthood authority in the church, then there's no point in being baptized by the authority of any elder in the church, as the baptism would not be valid.

Absolutely nonsensical. The Priesthood of one has nothing to do with another.

You either have the Priesthood or you don’t.

Please read what the Savior had to say about the matter:

11 Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church.

[Seeker144k]

I can also provide many examples of the brethren having had visions, including seeing Christ, since the death of Joseph Smith.

Please do. Can you start a new thread for this. Post the link in reply to me here.
Thanks.

~Seeker

[LDS Watchman]

This isn't what the president of the church does and you know it. It does sound a little like John the Baptist, though. He dare he tell people to come out to the Jordan River to be baptized and that he had the authority to do it. What a phony.

John didn't waltz around declaring a sole monopoly on authority, He taught the doctrine. Also, if it's just about authority... why don't people "sustain" the person who baptizes them? Do they not have the authority?

Or maybe... just maybe... this requirement to sustain "the prophet" is a ruse to gain obedient followers and has nothing to do with the authority that supposedly everyone has but only he has.

In regards to John, we don't know precisely what he said, but I'm sure he didn't tell the people that they needed to be baptized but it didn't matter whether he was the one who performed the baptism or some other random person out there who the people "felt" had the authority to do it.

No, he most certainly told them that it was HIS calling to prepare the way for the Savior and to baptize the people and no one else.

And the people do sustain the person who baptizes them as having the proper authority to do so. They are taught what authority the baptizer has and accept it as valid.

But it's not about this is it? This is about your beef with President Nelson, so let's call it what it is.

[LDS Watchman]

I can also provide many examples of the brethren having had visions, including seeing Christ, since the death of Joseph Smith.

Please do. Can you start a new thread for this. Post the link in reply to me here.
Thanks.

~Seeker

I'll get working on it. May take me a few days. I have a lot of family stuff going on. Plus I'm sure whatever I share will just be waved away by those whose minds are made up.

In the meantime please find the transcript for that Hinckley proof text "quote." Maybe HereWeGo can help you out.

[Gadianton Slayer]

This isn't what the president of the church does and you know it. It does sound a little like John the Baptist, though. He dare he tell people to come out to the Jordan River to be baptized and that he had the authority to do it. What a phony.

John didn't waltz around declaring a sole monopoly on authority, He taught the doctrine. Also, if it's just about authority... why don't people "sustain" the person who baptizes them? Do they not have the authority?

Or maybe... just maybe... this requirement to sustain "the prophet" is a ruse to gain obedient followers and has nothing to do with the authority that supposedly everyone has but only he has.

In regards to John, we don't know precisely what he said, but I'm sure he didn't tell the people that they needed to be baptized but it didn't matter whether he was the one who performed the baptism or some other random person out there who the people "felt" had the authority to do it.

No, he most certainly told them that it was HIS calling to prepare the way for the Savior and to baptize the people and no one else.

And the people do sustain the person who baptizes them as having the proper authority to do so. They are taught what authority the baptizer has and accept it as valid.

But it's not about this is it? This is about your beef with President Nelson, so let's call it what it is.

You can speculate all you want about what John said.

That’s not what I’m referring to and you know it. In order to be baptized a person must sustain Russell Nelson and co as prophets, if they don’t do this then they cannot be baptized. Why? Why is the authority of the person baptizing not good enough if it’s all about authority and not about recognizing those men?

[LDS Watchman]

In order to be baptized a person must sustain Russell Nelson and co as prophets, if they don’t do this then they cannot be baptized. Why? Why is the authority of the person baptizing not good enough if it’s all about authority and not about recognizing those men?

Let's refer to the actual baptismal question, so there's no confusion.

Do you believe that the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?

The question you take such extreme issue with is really the second part of a two part question. Although the words keys and authority are not mentioned, this is what it's all about.

Essentially the person is being asked if they believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's one true church, restored through Joseph Smith with the authority to perform the saving ordinances of the gospel, and that the current president of the church is Joseph's legitimate successor who hold the keys to preside over the church.

You'll also notice that there's a third part of this question, where the candidate is asked what parts one and two of the question mean to them, so the candidate and interviewer can have a discussion about it.

In my opinion, this is a completely reasonable question to ask. The candidate should be expected to believe in the truth and authority claims of the church he or she is joining.

Perhaps the question could be reworded to make it more clear, but considering that the candidate would have limited understanding of all of this, the vague question and then follow-up discussion make sense.

[Gadianton Slayer]

In order to be baptized a person must sustain Russell Nelson and co as prophets, if they don’t do this then they cannot be baptized. Why? Why is the authority of the person baptizing not good enough if it’s all about authority and not about recognizing those men?

Let's refer to the actual baptismal question, so there's no confusion.

Do you believe that the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?

The question you take such extreme issue with is really the second part of a two part question. Although the words keys and authority are not mentioned, this is what it's all about.

Essentially the person is being asked if they believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's one true church, restored through Joseph Smith with the authority to perform the saving ordinances of the gospel, and that the current president of the church is Joseph's legitimate successor who hold the keys to preside over the church.

You'll also notice that there's a third part of this question, where the candidate is asked what parts one and two of the question mean to them, so the candidate and interviewer can have a discussion about it.

In my opinion, this is a completely reasonable question to ask. The candidate should be expected to believe in the truth and authority claims of the church he or she is joining.

Perhaps the question could be reworded to make it more clear, but considering that the candidate would have limited understanding of all of this, the vague question and then follow-up discussion make sense.

Let’s say the LDS org has authority. Why mention Nelson by name? That’s what significant.

If a member who has been given authority to baptize, let’s say a bishop, performs that ordinance… because he has authority…. why does the member have to express faith in the current president?

Instead, the question should be something along the lines of “do you believe that God has given me authority to baptize you?”

The original makes no sense other than to fulfill some desire by the leaders for their name to be used.

You yourself have agreed that there are many prophets, as is implied in Numbers 11:29… so why focus on one man when God wishes “ALL” His children would be prophets?

[LDS Watchman]

Why mention Nelson by name? That’s what significant.

It's no more significant than mentioning Joseph Smith by name. There names are mentioned so it's clear who is being referred to. You just have a problem with the President Nelson being named because you can't stand the man.

If a member who has been given authority to baptize, let’s say a bishop, performs that ordinance… because he has authority…. why does the member have to express faith in the current president?

Because the current president being the legitimate successor of Joseph Smith who holds all the necessary keys to lead the church is a key tenant of the faith. If a person doesn't believe this, then they have no business joining the church because if this isn't the case then the church doesn't have the authority it claims, including the authority to perform the baptism.

You yourself have agreed that there are many prophets, as is implied in Numbers 11:29… so why focus on one man when God wishes “ALL” His children would be prophets?

Others besides the president of the church may be blessed with the gift of prophecy and the testimony of Jesus, but that's not the same thing as being the president of the Lord's church and the only one authorized to receive revelation for the church and lead the church. Hence the distinction and the question about the president of the church specifically.

[Gadianton Slayer]

Why mention Nelson by name? That’s what significant.

It's no more significant than mentioning Joseph Smith by name. There names are mentioned so it's clear who is being referred to. You just have a problem with the President Nelson being named because you can't stand the man.

If a member who has been given authority to baptize, let’s say a bishop, performs that ordinance… because he has authority…. why does the member have to express faith in the current president?

Because the current president being the legitimate successor of Joseph Smith who holds all the necessary keys to lead the church is a key tenant of the faith. If a person doesn't believe this, then they have no business joining the church because if this isn't the case then the church doesn't have the authority it claims, including the authority to perform the baptism.

You yourself have agreed that there are many prophets, as is implied in Numbers 11:29… so why focus on one man when God wishes “ALL” His children would be prophets?

Others besides the president of the church may be blessed with the gift of prophecy and the testimony of Jesus, but that's not the same thing as being the president of the Lord's church and the only one authorized to receive revelation for the church and lead the church. Hence the distinction and the question about the president of the church specifically.

Lol, alright.

I feel like I just read a speech from Joe Biden.

[Seeker144k]

Since I know people who have had visions in the church, I know that your claim that the church is at best guided by the Holy Ghost is false.

I think it is fair to assume that we both agree that the Prophet/President of the Church is the highest physically present leader over all the church who is solely responsible for decisions made, policies implemented, doctrine taught, etc. For example, The emphasis on the name of the church.

In the April 1990 General conference, Elder Nelson (apostle) gave a talk titled, "“Thus Shall My Church Be Called”

President Hinckley acknowledged that he was correct from a technical point of view, but didn't agree with his application. So, Hinckley pressed harder on the use of the Nickname "Mormon" and created more advertising around the term Mormon like, "Meet the Mormons". He embraced the term Mormons. Not only that, but he snubbed Elder Nelson the following conference in a talk entitled, "Mormon Should Mean 'More Good'" in which he said the following,

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.)

It was a very polite way to say, yes, who cares. Then President Hinckley made even more effort to push the name Mormon in ads and media. he was acting under his own inspiration at best, perhaps guided by the Holy Ghost, not under the direction of Christ from a vision or visitation. (Remember that he said there were no more visions and the church is led by the promptings of the Holy Ghost.

Elder Nelson as an apostle has always pushed for members to call the Church by its full name rather than using the name Mormons. But he wasn't able to make the decisions to push the correct name of the church in media and ad campaigns that Hinckley as prophet was doing.

Elder Nelson became the prophet/president of the church in Jan. of 2018. The following October General Conference he gave the talk, "The Correct Name of the Church" is which he said, he was making a "course correction" meaning that Hinckley had been taking the church off course. He essentially stated that President Hinckley had been offending the lord by adopting and sponsoring the nickname "Mormons" in media and ads.

Today I feel compelled to discuss with you a matter of great importance. Some weeks ago, I released a statement regarding a course correction for the name of the Church. I did this because the Lord impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He decreed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
...
Thus, the name of the Church is not negotiable. When the Savior clearly states what the name of His Church should be and even precedes His declaration with, “Thus shall my church be called,” He is serious. And if we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, He is offended.
...
What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement.
...
After all He had endured—and after all He had done for humankind—I realize with profound regret that we have unwittingly acquiesced in the Lord’s restored Church being called by other names, each of which expunges the sacred name of Jesus Christ!
...
Brothers and sisters, there are many worldly arguments against restoring the correct name of the Church. Because of the digital world in which we live and with search engine optimization that helps all of us find information we need almost instantly—including information about the Lord’s Church—critics say that a correction at this point is unwise. Others feel that because we are known so widely as “Mormons” and as the “Mormon Church,” we should make the best of it.

If this were a discussion about branding a man-made organization, those arguments might prevail. But in this crucial matter, we look to Him whose Church this is and acknowledge that the Lord’s ways are not, and never will be, man’s ways. If we will be patient and if we will do our part well, the Lord will lead us through this important task. After all, we know that the Lord helps those who seek to do His will, just as He helped Nephi accomplish the task of building a ship to cross the sea.
...
My dear brothers and sisters, I promise you that if we will do our best to restore the correct name of the Lord’s Church, He whose Church this is will pour down His power and blessings upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints, the likes of which we have never seen. We will have the knowledge and power of God to help us take the blessings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people and to prepare the world for the Second Coming of the Lord.

Nelson talks about the efforts made by Hinckley to push the nickname "Mormons" as if President Hinckley had "unwittingly" secured "a major victory for Satan" in his efforts.

Did Nelson get the inspiration to make this "course correction" for the church as an apostle or did he get the inspiration to do it immediately after Hinckley died, (because Hinckley's inspiration was not to do this)?

This is how the Lord leads the church... LOL. Or rather, this is how the Lord allows the church to be led by its presidents and prophets. (I believe that Elder Nelson is correct in pushing that the name of the Church include Jesus Christ.) For neither prophet did the Lord personally come to them and say, "Hey, about the nicknames of the church, let's do this for a while...."

President Nelson had a major revelation with the heart surgery. It was a true vision. Not based on his faith, but based on the faith of his patient. But because Nelson had that vision, he believes in more than Hinckley who never had one. He is striving for more and believes in more. But, he is still being led by the Holy Ghost, doing the best he can.

As for the Hinckley "quote," I believe that the first part of the "quote" where is says "Revelation no longer comes by vision" is the author of the articles interpretation of what he said. I suspect that Hinckley was asked if continuing revelation comes by vision, to which Hinckley responded that it comes by the Holy Ghost, and then the author of the article interpreted his answer to mean that revelation no.longer comes by vision, only by the Holy Ghost. But there's an easy way to find out. Do you have a transcript or video recording of the interview where we can see the original question and answer?

The reason we call them quotes and put "s around them is because it is a direct quote from what the person said. If the reporter put "s around it and claimed that he said it when he did not, then it would be as bad a if I said that you said, "God doesn't exist." It would be a lie and the church would have refuted it if he didn't actually say it. This is basic journalism. Also, the quote fits in line with all of his other comments on revelation. Here's an example where he responded about the blacks and the priesthood and how that revelation was received and he says that revelation comes through the Holy ghost.

PBS Interview:
We've spoken to a lot of people about the significance of that 1978 revelation [ending the ban on people with African blood becoming priests]. Blacks and whites and Mormons describe it as one of the most extraordinary moments in the church's history in the 20th century. I haven't spoken to anybody who was there, but I have read what you've said and written about that moment. Can you talk about it?

It was a landmark occasion. We were in the temple. We gathered in prayer, and President [Spencer] Kimball led [us] in prayer, and he talked about it. It had been on his mind for a good while. And as he prayed, he talked with the Lord about it, and there just settled over us a feeling that this is the right thing; the time has come; now is the opportunity. And on the basis of that we proceeded.

In some of your speeches and writings on the subject, you also used language that I would love to know more about. You felt that a conduit to God had opened up and almost a Pentecostal spirit [was there] in the room.

No, it wasn't like any other moment. There was something of a Pentecostal spirit. But on the other hand it was peaceful, quiet, not a cataclysmic thing in any sense. There was just a feeling that came over all of us, and we knew that it was the right thing at the right time and that we should proceed. And this made all the difference in the world. We've grown strong in Africa and in Brazil and in other places. There is no race bias among us. It's been well received all over the church, and I'm satisfied in my own mind, as one who was there, that the right thing happened at the right time in the right way.

I gather for President Kimball it was something he brought to the Lord on many occasions, that he prayed night after night. Is that true?

That's my understanding. This was not just all of a sudden. This had been on his mind for a good long time. He had prayed about it, worried about it, talked about it. And then it happened.

Could I ask you a little about revelation itself? Some scholars who have not experienced it describe it as communication with God, but distinct from impressions or insights. How would you describe it or explain it?

I think it's best described in the experience of Elijah: When there was a great wind and the Lord was not in the wind; and a great fire and the Lord was not in the fire; and then a still small voice, and the Lord was there. That's the best description I know of the process of revelation.

I gather that in your church, revelation can have as its subjects monumentally important events like the one we just talked about -- the revelation on the priesthood -- but it can also be about smaller things.

Oh, of course. We believe in continuous revelation. We believe this church is guided by revelation. We pray, we ponder, we think, we ask, and we receive direction as to what to do. I think that's going on all the time. That's faith, [the] story of this church. That's the reason it's made such tremendous progress, and it's going on all the time. Without it, we just stand still. With it, nothing can get in our way.

There are lots of interviews and he says basically the same thing in those interviews, never varying.

~Seeker

[LDS Watchman]

Since I know people who have had visions in the church, I know that your claim that the church is at best guided by the Holy Ghost is false.

I think it is fair to assume that we both agree that the Prophet/President of the Church is the highest physically present leader over all the church who is solely responsible for decisions made, policies implemented, doctrine taught, etc. For example, The emphasis on the name of the church.

In the April 1990 General conference, Elder Nelson (apostle) gave a talk titled, "“Thus Shall My Church Be Called”

President Hinckley acknowledged that he was correct from a technical point of view, but didn't agree with his application. So, Hinckley pressed harder on the use of the Nickname "Mormon" and created more advertising around the term Mormon like, "Meet the Mormons". He embraced the term Mormons. Not only that, but he snubbed Elder Nelson the following conference in a talk entitled, "Mormon Should Mean 'More Good'" in which he said the following,

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.)

It was a very polite way to say, yes, who cares. Then President Hinckley made even more effort to push the name Mormon in ads and media. he was acting under his own inspiration at best, perhaps guided by the Holy Ghost, not under the direction of Christ from a vision or visitation. (Remember that he said there were no more visions and the church is led by the promptings of the Holy Ghost.

Elder Nelson as an apostle has always pushed for members to call the Church by its full name rather than using the name Mormons. But he wasn't able to make the decisions to push the correct name of the church in media and ad campaigns that Hinckley as prophet was doing.

Elder Nelson became the prophet/president of the church in Jan. of 2018. The following October General Conference he gave the talk, "The Correct Name of the Church" is which he said, he was making a "course correction" meaning that Hinckley had been taking the church off course. He essentially stated that President Hinckley had been offending the lord by adopting and sponsoring the nickname "Mormons" in media and ads.

Today I feel compelled to discuss with you a matter of great importance. Some weeks ago, I released a statement regarding a course correction for the name of the Church. I did this because the Lord impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He decreed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
...
Thus, the name of the Church is not negotiable. When the Savior clearly states what the name of His Church should be and even precedes His declaration with, “Thus shall my church be called,” He is serious. And if we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, He is offended.
...
What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement.
...
After all He had endured—and after all He had done for humankind—I realize with profound regret that we have unwittingly acquiesced in the Lord’s restored Church being called by other names, each of which expunges the sacred name of Jesus Christ!
...
Brothers and sisters, there are many worldly arguments against restoring the correct name of the Church. Because of the digital world in which we live and with search engine optimization that helps all of us find information we need almost instantly—including information about the Lord’s Church—critics say that a correction at this point is unwise. Others feel that because we are known so widely as “Mormons” and as the “Mormon Church,” we should make the best of it.

If this were a discussion about branding a man-made organization, those arguments might prevail. But in this crucial matter, we look to Him whose Church this is and acknowledge that the Lord’s ways are not, and never will be, man’s ways. If we will be patient and if we will do our part well, the Lord will lead us through this important task. After all, we know that the Lord helps those who seek to do His will, just as He helped Nephi accomplish the task of building a ship to cross the sea.
...
My dear brothers and sisters, I promise you that if we will do our best to restore the correct name of the Lord’s Church, He whose Church this is will pour down His power and blessings upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints, the likes of which we have never seen. We will have the knowledge and power of God to help us take the blessings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people and to prepare the world for the Second Coming of the Lord.

Nelson talks about the efforts made by Hinckley to push the nickname "Mormons" as if President Hinckley had "unwittingly" secured "a major victory for Satan" in his efforts.

Did Nelson get the inspiration to make this "course correction" for the church as an apostle or did he get the inspiration to do it immediately after Hinckley died, (because Hinckley's inspiration was not to do this)?

This is how the Lord leads the church... LOL. Or rather, this is how the Lord allows the church to be led by its presidents and prophets. (I believe that Elder Nelson is correct in pushing that the name of the Church include Jesus Christ.) For neither prophet did the Lord personally come to them and say, "Hey, about the nicknames of the church, let's do this for a while...."

President Nelson had a major revelation with the heart surgery. It was a true vision. Not based on his faith, but based on the faith of his patient. But because Nelson had that vision, he believes in more than Hinckley who never had one. He is striving for more and believes in more. But, he is still being led by the Holy Ghost, doing the best he can.

As for the Hinckley "quote," I believe that the first part of the "quote" where is says "Revelation no longer comes by vision" is the author of the articles interpretation of what he said. I suspect that Hinckley was asked if continuing revelation comes by vision, to which Hinckley responded that it comes by the Holy Ghost, and then the author of the article interpreted his answer to mean that revelation no.longer comes by vision, only by the Holy Ghost. But there's an easy way to find out. Do you have a transcript or video recording of the interview where we can see the original question and answer?

The reason we call them quotes and put "s around them is because it is a direct quote from what the person said. If the reporter put "s around it and claimed that he said it when he did not, then it would be as bad a if I said that you said, "God doesn't exist." It would be a lie and the church would have refuted it if he didn't actually say it. This is basic journalism. Also, the quote fits in line with all of his other comments on revelation. Here's an example where he responded about the blacks and the priesthood and how that revelation was received and he says that revelation comes through the Holy ghost.

PBS Interview:
We've spoken to a lot of people about the significance of that 1978 revelation [ending the ban on people with African blood becoming priests]. Blacks and whites and Mormons describe it as one of the most extraordinary moments in the church's history in the 20th century. I haven't spoken to anybody who was there, but I have read what you've said and written about that moment. Can you talk about it?

It was a landmark occasion. We were in the temple. We gathered in prayer, and President [Spencer] Kimball led [us] in prayer, and he talked about it. It had been on his mind for a good while. And as he prayed, he talked with the Lord about it, and there just settled over us a feeling that this is the right thing; the time has come; now is the opportunity. And on the basis of that we proceeded.

In some of your speeches and writings on the subject, you also used language that I would love to know more about. You felt that a conduit to God had opened up and almost a Pentecostal spirit [was there] in the room.

No, it wasn't like any other moment. There was something of a Pentecostal spirit. But on the other hand it was peaceful, quiet, not a cataclysmic thing in any sense. There was just a feeling that came over all of us, and we knew that it was the right thing at the right time and that we should proceed. And this made all the difference in the world. We've grown strong in Africa and in Brazil and in other places. There is no race bias among us. It's been well received all over the church, and I'm satisfied in my own mind, as one who was there, that the right thing happened at the right time in the right way.

I gather for President Kimball it was something he brought to the Lord on many occasions, that he prayed night after night. Is that true?

That's my understanding. This was not just all of a sudden. This had been on his mind for a good long time. He had prayed about it, worried about it, talked about it. And then it happened.

Could I ask you a little about revelation itself? Some scholars who have not experienced it describe it as communication with God, but distinct from impressions or insights. How would you describe it or explain it?

I think it's best described in the experience of Elijah: When there was a great wind and the Lord was not in the wind; and a great fire and the Lord was not in the fire; and then a still small voice, and the Lord was there. That's the best description I know of the process of revelation.

I gather that in your church, revelation can have as its subjects monumentally important events like the one we just talked about -- the revelation on the priesthood -- but it can also be about smaller things.

Oh, of course. We believe in continuous revelation. We believe this church is guided by revelation. We pray, we ponder, we think, we ask, and we receive direction as to what to do. I think that's going on all the time. That's faith, [the] story of this church. That's the reason it's made such tremendous progress, and it's going on all the time. Without it, we just stand still. With it, nothing can get in our way.

There are lots of interviews and he says basically the same thing in those interviews, never varying.

~Seeker

None of this has anything to do with statement of mine you quoted. It's just an attempt to move the goal posts.

So I'll say it again.

Since I know people who have had visions in the church, I know that your claim that the church is at best guided by the Holy Ghost is false.

[darknesstolight]

Since I know people who have had visions in the church, I know that your claim that the church is at best guided by the Holy Ghost is false.

I think it is fair to assume that we both agree that the Prophet/President of the Church is the highest physically present leader over all the church who is solely responsible for decisions made, policies implemented, doctrine taught, etc. For example, The emphasis on the name of the church.

In the April 1990 General conference, Elder Nelson (apostle) gave a talk titled, "“Thus Shall My Church Be Called”

President Hinckley acknowledged that he was correct from a technical point of view, but didn't agree with his application. So, Hinckley pressed harder on the use of the Nickname "Mormon" and created more advertising around the term Mormon like, "Meet the Mormons". He embraced the term Mormons. Not only that, but he snubbed Elder Nelson the following conference in a talk entitled, "Mormon Should Mean 'More Good'" in which he said the following,

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.)

It was a very polite way to say, yes, who cares. Then President Hinckley made even more effort to push the name Mormon in ads and media. he was acting under his own inspiration at best, perhaps guided by the Holy Ghost, not under the direction of Christ from a vision or visitation. (Remember that he said there were no more visions and the church is led by the promptings of the Holy Ghost.

Elder Nelson as an apostle has always pushed for members to call the Church by its full name rather than using the name Mormons. But he wasn't able to make the decisions to push the correct name of the church in media and ad campaigns that Hinckley as prophet was doing.

Elder Nelson became the prophet/president of the church in Jan. of 2018. The following October General Conference he gave the talk, "The Correct Name of the Church" is which he said, he was making a "course correction" meaning that Hinckley had been taking the church off course. He essentially stated that President Hinckley had been offending the lord by adopting and sponsoring the nickname "Mormons" in media and ads.

Today I feel compelled to discuss with you a matter of great importance. Some weeks ago, I released a statement regarding a course correction for the name of the Church. I did this because the Lord impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He decreed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
...
Thus, the name of the Church is not negotiable. When the Savior clearly states what the name of His Church should be and even precedes His declaration with, “Thus shall my church be called,” He is serious. And if we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, He is offended.
...
What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement.
...
After all He had endured—and after all He had done for humankind—I realize with profound regret that we have unwittingly acquiesced in the Lord’s restored Church being called by other names, each of which expunges the sacred name of Jesus Christ!
...
Brothers and sisters, there are many worldly arguments against restoring the correct name of the Church. Because of the digital world in which we live and with search engine optimization that helps all of us find information we need almost instantly—including information about the Lord’s Church—critics say that a correction at this point is unwise. Others feel that because we are known so widely as “Mormons” and as the “Mormon Church,” we should make the best of it.

If this were a discussion about branding a man-made organization, those arguments might prevail. But in this crucial matter, we look to Him whose Church this is and acknowledge that the Lord’s ways are not, and never will be, man’s ways. If we will be patient and if we will do our part well, the Lord will lead us through this important task. After all, we know that the Lord helps those who seek to do His will, just as He helped Nephi accomplish the task of building a ship to cross the sea.
...
My dear brothers and sisters, I promise you that if we will do our best to restore the correct name of the Lord’s Church, He whose Church this is will pour down His power and blessings upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints, the likes of which we have never seen. We will have the knowledge and power of God to help us take the blessings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people and to prepare the world for the Second Coming of the Lord.

Nelson talks about the efforts made by Hinckley to push the nickname "Mormons" as if President Hinckley had "unwittingly" secured "a major victory for Satan" in his efforts.

Did Nelson get the inspiration to make this "course correction" for the church as an apostle or did he get the inspiration to do it immediately after Hinckley died, (because Hinckley's inspiration was not to do this)?

This is how the Lord leads the church... LOL. Or rather, this is how the Lord allows the church to be led by its presidents and prophets. (I believe that Elder Nelson is correct in pushing that the name of the Church include Jesus Christ.) For neither prophet did the Lord personally come to them and say, "Hey, about the nicknames of the church, let's do this for a while...."

President Nelson had a major revelation with the heart surgery. It was a true vision. Not based on his faith, but based on the faith of his patient. But because Nelson had that vision, he believes in more than Hinckley who never had one. He is striving for more and believes in more. But, he is still being led by the Holy Ghost, doing the best he can.

As for the Hinckley "quote," I believe that the first part of the "quote" where is says "Revelation no longer comes by vision" is the author of the articles interpretation of what he said. I suspect that Hinckley was asked if continuing revelation comes by vision, to which Hinckley responded that it comes by the Holy Ghost, and then the author of the article interpreted his answer to mean that revelation no.longer comes by vision, only by the Holy Ghost. But there's an easy way to find out. Do you have a transcript or video recording of the interview where we can see the original question and answer?

The reason we call them quotes and put "s around them is because it is a direct quote from what the person said. If the reporter put "s around it and claimed that he said it when he did not, then it would be as bad a if I said that you said, "God doesn't exist." It would be a lie and the church would have refuted it if he didn't actually say it. This is basic journalism. Also, the quote fits in line with all of his other comments on revelation. Here's an example where he responded about the blacks and the priesthood and how that revelation was received and he says that revelation comes through the Holy ghost.

PBS Interview:
We've spoken to a lot of people about the significance of that 1978 revelation [ending the ban on people with African blood becoming priests]. Blacks and whites and Mormons describe it as one of the most extraordinary moments in the church's history in the 20th century. I haven't spoken to anybody who was there, but I have read what you've said and written about that moment. Can you talk about it?

It was a landmark occasion. We were in the temple. We gathered in prayer, and President [Spencer] Kimball led [us] in prayer, and he talked about it. It had been on his mind for a good while. And as he prayed, he talked with the Lord about it, and there just settled over us a feeling that this is the right thing; the time has come; now is the opportunity. And on the basis of that we proceeded.

In some of your speeches and writings on the subject, you also used language that I would love to know more about. You felt that a conduit to God had opened up and almost a Pentecostal spirit [was there] in the room.

No, it wasn't like any other moment. There was something of a Pentecostal spirit. But on the other hand it was peaceful, quiet, not a cataclysmic thing in any sense. There was just a feeling that came over all of us, and we knew that it was the right thing at the right time and that we should proceed. And this made all the difference in the world. We've grown strong in Africa and in Brazil and in other places. There is no race bias among us. It's been well received all over the church, and I'm satisfied in my own mind, as one who was there, that the right thing happened at the right time in the right way.

I gather for President Kimball it was something he brought to the Lord on many occasions, that he prayed night after night. Is that true?

That's my understanding. This was not just all of a sudden. This had been on his mind for a good long time. He had prayed about it, worried about it, talked about it. And then it happened.

Could I ask you a little about revelation itself? Some scholars who have not experienced it describe it as communication with God, but distinct from impressions or insights. How would you describe it or explain it?

I think it's best described in the experience of Elijah: When there was a great wind and the Lord was not in the wind; and a great fire and the Lord was not in the fire; and then a still small voice, and the Lord was there. That's the best description I know of the process of revelation.

I gather that in your church, revelation can have as its subjects monumentally important events like the one we just talked about -- the revelation on the priesthood -- but it can also be about smaller things.

Oh, of course. We believe in continuous revelation. We believe this church is guided by revelation. We pray, we ponder, we think, we ask, and we receive direction as to what to do. I think that's going on all the time. That's faith, [the] story of this church. That's the reason it's made such tremendous progress, and it's going on all the time. Without it, we just stand still. With it, nothing can get in our way.

There are lots of interviews and he says basically the same thing in those interviews, never varying.

~Seeker

None of this has anything to do with statement of mine you quoted. It's just an attempt to move the goal posts.

So I'll say it again.

Since I know people who have had visions in the church, I know that your claim that the church is at best guided by the Holy Ghost is false.

The people you know are they one of the Apostles or Presidency?

If these people you know are not the leaders of our church then these visions can't be used as evidence that the Church is being led by visions and revelations and conversations with Jesus, etc.

...

[LDS Watchman]

Since I know people who have had visions in the church, I know that your claim that the church is at best guided by the Holy Ghost is false.

I think it is fair to assume that we both agree that the Prophet/President of the Church is the highest physically present leader over all the church who is solely responsible for decisions made, policies implemented, doctrine taught, etc. For example, The emphasis on the name of the church.

In the April 1990 General conference, Elder Nelson (apostle) gave a talk titled, "“Thus Shall My Church Be Called”

President Hinckley acknowledged that he was correct from a technical point of view, but didn't agree with his application. So, Hinckley pressed harder on the use of the Nickname "Mormon" and created more advertising around the term Mormon like, "Meet the Mormons". He embraced the term Mormons. Not only that, but he snubbed Elder Nelson the following conference in a talk entitled, "Mormon Should Mean 'More Good'" in which he said the following,

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.)

It was a very polite way to say, yes, who cares. Then President Hinckley made even more effort to push the name Mormon in ads and media. he was acting under his own inspiration at best, perhaps guided by the Holy Ghost, not under the direction of Christ from a vision or visitation. (Remember that he said there were no more visions and the church is led by the promptings of the Holy Ghost.

Elder Nelson as an apostle has always pushed for members to call the Church by its full name rather than using the name Mormons. But he wasn't able to make the decisions to push the correct name of the church in media and ad campaigns that Hinckley as prophet was doing.

Elder Nelson became the prophet/president of the church in Jan. of 2018. The following October General Conference he gave the talk, "The Correct Name of the Church" is which he said, he was making a "course correction" meaning that Hinckley had been taking the church off course. He essentially stated that President Hinckley had been offending the lord by adopting and sponsoring the nickname "Mormons" in media and ads.

Today I feel compelled to discuss with you a matter of great importance. Some weeks ago, I released a statement regarding a course correction for the name of the Church. I did this because the Lord impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He decreed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
...
Thus, the name of the Church is not negotiable. When the Savior clearly states what the name of His Church should be and even precedes His declaration with, “Thus shall my church be called,” He is serious. And if we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, He is offended.
...
What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement.
...
After all He had endured—and after all He had done for humankind—I realize with profound regret that we have unwittingly acquiesced in the Lord’s restored Church being called by other names, each of which expunges the sacred name of Jesus Christ!
...
Brothers and sisters, there are many worldly arguments against restoring the correct name of the Church. Because of the digital world in which we live and with search engine optimization that helps all of us find information we need almost instantly—including information about the Lord’s Church—critics say that a correction at this point is unwise. Others feel that because we are known so widely as “Mormons” and as the “Mormon Church,” we should make the best of it.

If this were a discussion about branding a man-made organization, those arguments might prevail. But in this crucial matter, we look to Him whose Church this is and acknowledge that the Lord’s ways are not, and never will be, man’s ways. If we will be patient and if we will do our part well, the Lord will lead us through this important task. After all, we know that the Lord helps those who seek to do His will, just as He helped Nephi accomplish the task of building a ship to cross the sea.
...
My dear brothers and sisters, I promise you that if we will do our best to restore the correct name of the Lord’s Church, He whose Church this is will pour down His power and blessings upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints, the likes of which we have never seen. We will have the knowledge and power of God to help us take the blessings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people and to prepare the world for the Second Coming of the Lord.

Nelson talks about the efforts made by Hinckley to push the nickname "Mormons" as if President Hinckley had "unwittingly" secured "a major victory for Satan" in his efforts.

Did Nelson get the inspiration to make this "course correction" for the church as an apostle or did he get the inspiration to do it immediately after Hinckley died, (because Hinckley's inspiration was not to do this)?

This is how the Lord leads the church... LOL. Or rather, this is how the Lord allows the church to be led by its presidents and prophets. (I believe that Elder Nelson is correct in pushing that the name of the Church include Jesus Christ.) For neither prophet did the Lord personally come to them and say, "Hey, about the nicknames of the church, let's do this for a while...."

President Nelson had a major revelation with the heart surgery. It was a true vision. Not based on his faith, but based on the faith of his patient. But because Nelson had that vision, he believes in more than Hinckley who never had one. He is striving for more and believes in more. But, he is still being led by the Holy Ghost, doing the best he can.

As for the Hinckley "quote," I believe that the first part of the "quote" where is says "Revelation no longer comes by vision" is the author of the articles interpretation of what he said. I suspect that Hinckley was asked if continuing revelation comes by vision, to which Hinckley responded that it comes by the Holy Ghost, and then the author of the article interpreted his answer to mean that revelation no.longer comes by vision, only by the Holy Ghost. But there's an easy way to find out. Do you have a transcript or video recording of the interview where we can see the original question and answer?

The reason we call them quotes and put "s around them is because it is a direct quote from what the person said. If the reporter put "s around it and claimed that he said it when he did not, then it would be as bad a if I said that you said, "God doesn't exist." It would be a lie and the church would have refuted it if he didn't actually say it. This is basic journalism. Also, the quote fits in line with all of his other comments on revelation. Here's an example where he responded about the blacks and the priesthood and how that revelation was received and he says that revelation comes through the Holy ghost.

PBS Interview:
We've spoken to a lot of people about the significance of that 1978 revelation [ending the ban on people with African blood becoming priests]. Blacks and whites and Mormons describe it as one of the most extraordinary moments in the church's history in the 20th century. I haven't spoken to anybody who was there, but I have read what you've said and written about that moment. Can you talk about it?

It was a landmark occasion. We were in the temple. We gathered in prayer, and President [Spencer] Kimball led [us] in prayer, and he talked about it. It had been on his mind for a good while. And as he prayed, he talked with the Lord about it, and there just settled over us a feeling that this is the right thing; the time has come; now is the opportunity. And on the basis of that we proceeded.

In some of your speeches and writings on the subject, you also used language that I would love to know more about. You felt that a conduit to God had opened up and almost a Pentecostal spirit [was there] in the room.

No, it wasn't like any other moment. There was something of a Pentecostal spirit. But on the other hand it was peaceful, quiet, not a cataclysmic thing in any sense. There was just a feeling that came over all of us, and we knew that it was the right thing at the right time and that we should proceed. And this made all the difference in the world. We've grown strong in Africa and in Brazil and in other places. There is no race bias among us. It's been well received all over the church, and I'm satisfied in my own mind, as one who was there, that the right thing happened at the right time in the right way.

I gather for President Kimball it was something he brought to the Lord on many occasions, that he prayed night after night. Is that true?

That's my understanding. This was not just all of a sudden. This had been on his mind for a good long time. He had prayed about it, worried about it, talked about it. And then it happened.

Could I ask you a little about revelation itself? Some scholars who have not experienced it describe it as communication with God, but distinct from impressions or insights. How would you describe it or explain it?

I think it's best described in the experience of Elijah: When there was a great wind and the Lord was not in the wind; and a great fire and the Lord was not in the fire; and then a still small voice, and the Lord was there. That's the best description I know of the process of revelation.

I gather that in your church, revelation can have as its subjects monumentally important events like the one we just talked about -- the revelation on the priesthood -- but it can also be about smaller things.

Oh, of course. We believe in continuous revelation. We believe this church is guided by revelation. We pray, we ponder, we think, we ask, and we receive direction as to what to do. I think that's going on all the time. That's faith, [the] story of this church. That's the reason it's made such tremendous progress, and it's going on all the time. Without it, we just stand still. With it, nothing can get in our way.

There are lots of interviews and he says basically the same thing in those interviews, never varying.

~Seeker

None of this has anything to do with statement of mine you quoted. It's just an attempt to move the goal posts.

So I'll say it again.

Since I know people who have had visions in the church, I know that your claim that the church is at best guided by the Holy Ghost is false.

The people you know are they one of the Apostles or Presidency?

If these people you know are not the leaders of our church then these visions can't be used as evidence that the Church is being led by visions and revelations and conversations with Jesus, etc.

...

I don't know any members of the FP or Q12 personally. But that's not the point. I know local leaders and members who have had visions, seen angels, etc. And these individuals also lead the church in their respective spheres. Therefore I know from first hand knowledge that the church is not led exclusively by the Holy Ghost and the ideas of man. It is also led by visions. How frequently these visions occur I can't say. But I know that they do occur.

Whether the current brethren ever have visions or have seen angels or even Christ, I don't claim to know one way or the other. I know that there have been quite a few church presidents and apostles who have claimed to have seen visions, including seeing Christ post Joseph Smith and post Manifesto. I'm working on compiling as many of these accounts as I can find.

[LDS Watchman]

Why mention Nelson by name? That’s what significant.

It's no more significant than mentioning Joseph Smith by name. There names are mentioned so it's clear who is being referred to. You just have a problem with the President Nelson being named because you can't stand the man.

If a member who has been given authority to baptize, let’s say a bishop, performs that ordinance… because he has authority…. why does the member have to express faith in the current president?

Because the current president being the legitimate successor of Joseph Smith who holds all the necessary keys to lead the church is a key tenant of the faith. If a person doesn't believe this, then they have no business joining the church because if this isn't the case then the church doesn't have the authority it claims, including the authority to perform the baptism.

You yourself have agreed that there are many prophets, as is implied in Numbers 11:29… so why focus on one man when God wishes “ALL” His children would be prophets?

Others besides the president of the church may be blessed with the gift of prophecy and the testimony of Jesus, but that's not the same thing as being the president of the Lord's church and the only one authorized to receive revelation for the church and lead the church. Hence the distinction and the question about the president of the church specifically.

Lol, alright.

I feel like I just read a speech from Joe Biden.

Cool, another insult on the way out. Good stuff from you as always.

[Gadianton Slayer]

Good stuff from you as always.

Gracias hermano.

[LDS Watchman]

Good stuff from you as always.

Gracias hermano.

What's truly fascinating is that you felt the need to go back and add the Biden insult to your post long after you initially posted it originally. Just couldn't help yourself I guess.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I’m so happy we could keep this thread going.

[LDS Watchman]

What's also fascinating is that there appears to be two different levels of membership on this forum. Those who can edit their posts without it showing that it was edited and those who can't. Very strange.

But then again, it's common knowledge (or at least should be to the careful observer) that this forum is one giant double standard. Oh well.

[Gadianton Slayer]

Good stuff from you as always.

Gracias hermano.

What's truly fascinating is that you felt the need to go back and add the Biden insult to your post long after you initially posted it originally. Just couldn't help yourself I guess. Sad.

Insult? Your church leaders said that he is wise and thoughtful. Do you not see yourself that way?