Columns Jana Riess: Flunking Sainthood Opinion

Top 5 Mormon rumors about this weekend’s General Conference

Your General Conference Rumor Bingo card, courtesy of Jenny Dye and Brandt Malone at the Mormon News Report Podcast.

 

It’s that time of year again, when Mormons spend almost as many hours speculating in the days leading up to General Conference as they do actually listening to General Conference! This year, the rumor mill has been grinding away at a fever pitch like I’ve never seen, so there’s a lot to cover.

Here I’m choosing the top five rumors that I think are the most credible. If you’d like to go deeper and hear some others, listen to recent podcast episodes on Mormon Matters, Mormon Land, and The Mormon News Report. (My favorite completely bogus online rumor: “the Word of Wisdom will be revamped to sanction medical marijuana if it is dispensed and blessed by Mormon bishops.” Oh, honey.)

1. Rebranding

I’m expecting that August’s announcement about using the full name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will find its way into many, many talks. Already we are hearing that the Mormon.org domain name is becoming—wait for it—becoming.org.

I’m not quite sure what the vague “becoming” language is intended to accomplish, since the reasoning given for the name change has been to emphasize the role of Jesus Christ in our religion. “Becoming” could mean just about anything, and is not necessarily Christocentric.

In any case, there are signs that the Church is doing what it can to rid itself of the words Mormon and Mormonism, and the acronym LDS. The hashtag is no longer #LDSConf but #GeneralConference, by the way. #SorryNotSorry, Methodists. (Related rumor, apparently substantiated by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland when speaking to a Draper, Utah stake in September: we should even prepare ourselves for the “Mormon” name to be dropped from the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Ouch.)

2. Two-hour church

I didn’t believe it would really happen. In July, I blogged about my skepticism and annoyance that this particularly optimistic rumor just would. Not. Die. In fact, I went so far as to say that I would eat my hat if two-hour church ever became policy.

If the two-hour rumor is true, I’ll have to eat this cake. Actually I think I will do so in any case, because if the rumor turns out NOT to be true, I will be so sad about the prospect of continuing three-hour church that I will be obligated to eat my feelings.

Fortunately, I also added a codicil stipulating that maybe I would instead eat a cake in the shape of a hat. I say “fortunately” because since then I have encountered enough evidence to convince me that this may actually happen, possibly as soon as January 2019, and I will have to consume said hat. (I have been Pinteresting hat-shaped cakes. What do you think of this one?)

Anyway, I’d give pretty good odds now that two-hour church is the real deal. It’s unclear whether the new schedule would involve lopping off Sunday School entirely, shortening each of the blocks to forty minutes, or alternating weeks between Sunday School and Relief Society/priesthood. I’m hoping for the 40/40/40 option myself.

3. Changes in missionary service

I don’t have any official intel on this (or on anything from here on out in the post), but just to repeat the rumors, the scuttlebutt is that missionaries may be able to choose whether to serve for a shorter length of time than two years (men) or eighteen months (women).

I certainly hope it’s true. As I wrote last week, one surprising finding of the Next Mormons Survey was how many Millennials had come home early from a mission. Flexibility in length of service could help with this, and also enable more young people internationally to serve.

I’ve also heard that missionaries may be given more humanitarian service options, or even the choice of serving an entirely humanitarian mission rather than a proselytizing one. That would be fascinating.

I would also love to see an end to the silly policy of women automatically serving a shorter length of time than men. There’s no obvious up side to that particular dose of institutional sexism.

4. Home-based programs

If this is true, let the people say Amen. One of the things Elder Holland said in Draper was that church leaders often hear from members, “Why doesn’t the church [fill in the blank with desired program]?” And that the Brethren’s answer is, “This is your church, so why don’t you?”

He said that coming changes would focus on making the faith “home sponsored and church supported” rather than “church sponsored and home supported.” I am entertaining wild hopes that this is true, because in my research about Millennials I’ve learned that the most exciting ways to engage them in faith are through small local initiatives, not massive generic programs that are supposed to be the same everywhere. The Church needs to let people start their own programs locally—scripture study groups, dinner fellowships, Friends Home Evenings, whatever—and then not co-opt those local initiatives when they are successful in one place.

5. A focus on temples

This is my wild-card entry. I don’t know that we’re going to hear any jaw-dropping announcements about new temples—certainly nothing as gasp-worthy as last conference’s unexpected announcement about a temple in Russia. (Though if there’s going to be one in Independence, MO, that would certainly get folks excited.)

Rather, I expect we’re going to start finding out why President Nelson chose to announce his First Presidency choices while in the Salt Lake Temple. In the press conference that followed in the Church Office Building, he said he wanted to begin his new presidency “with the end in mind”—the end being that people would be “endowed with power in a house of the Lord.”

Whatever focus there will be on temples this conference weekend, it will be about steering members toward that end. I know that Church leaders are very concerned about poor temple attendance, particularly among young adults, so I would not be surprised to see, in addition to the usual rhetoric about the blessings of the temple, more concrete changes that will actually help drive traffic.

Postscript

And here’s a final rumor I would love to be true: for something exciting to be announced in the Saturday evening women’s meeting. I can’t tell you how many times the Church has made an announcement in the priesthood session that actually also affected women. Wouldn’t it be nice to for once have the women’s conference session be the site of something newsworthy? (But do NOT let it be a canonization of the Proclamation on the Family. I just can’t even.)

 

 

About the author

Jana Riess

Senior columnist Jana Riess is the author of many books, including "The Prayer Wheel" (Random House/Convergent, 2018) and "The Next Mormons: How Millennials Are Changing the LDS Church" (Oxford University Press, 2019). She has a PhD in American religious history from Columbia University.

119 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Its horrific that they wont let a man of Color in the Quorum of 12 Jana. Racism is alive and well in this Cult. Jana, Why do they have this Policy against Black Men ??? It makes me Sick.

  • Ruth, whatever satanic source led you to believe that the church has such exclusive and racist policies is clearly in league with the father of lies. If you’re so high up in these ranks, why don’t you go back and discuss how BEST to troll this peaceful and good-doing church with your cultist conspirators?

  • Also, is a lack of black major authorities the only weapon you have against this church? It seems to be so based on the other conversations you disrupted, using only the same, blatant, rude, ineffective challenge. If you are so concerned, why don’t you ask God? You clearly believe that these people are in a position of power and that it is important to be in it, based on your posts, so logic also leads me to believe that you believe in this religion’s importance, and simultaneously its truth. If a black man did get in the quorum of the 12, would you support him, support this religion? Or would you just lose purpose in life until you found some other topic to troll?

  • that’s my point. POTC becomes the 139th section….announcement during Women’s session. Just a guess.

  • If you might be able to answer my question, it could possibly clarify things concerning your posts, which I would very much like to see.

  • You can Dance around the issue all you want. Its 1000 % true that these RACIST will not allow a Black Man in this group.

  • Where are the facts? This church has been around 200 years, only about 40 of which were when the African Americans may have been eligible to be appointed to such a position, and it was unlikely due to such a low count of their race in this church. You have no power in this argument, no proof. Acting like a toddler won’t change that.

  • Dance , Dance, Dance little Tabby Nackle. Now how many in the Quorum of 12 are Black ???? Ha Ha !!!

  • He knows you too, and even as he does not approve of conflict such as this, I cannot stand silent while idiots like you reject his light.

  • Try to find any christian religion that does not have the definition of a cult. If you do not know it, look it up.

  • Making an attempt to sound like a toddler to mock me is ineffective and, frankly, hilarious on this end.

  • All of my friends play a game with their kids called I wanna be in the Quorum of 12, No you cant Tyrone, Why not Daddy, CAUSE YOUR BLACK !!!!!

  • Then your friends are highly mistaken. Serving in the quorum is not a matter of race, but rather a matter of quality, which I’m sure a black man somewhere has.

  • Again, look up the definitions of racist and cult and you’ll see how stupid you really are

  • Here’s some grammar for you; beaten: what you are in this conversation, adjective.

  • Is the right thing to devote much of my time to trolling a church with only good intentions and great results? to use inaccurate and offensive language to anyone who opposes me or my views? How about trying to find a life instead?

  • Try again, maggots are not human. Maybe you should quit trolling and take a refresher course in biology, and maybe FIND A LIFE.

  • When your Racist Cult stops judging a man solely on the Color of the Skin I will till then GFU !!!

  • They never have and never will. Again, please look up the definition of a cult so you might sound even partially educated.

  • And it’s sooooo funny to crank up profane trolls who can’t hold their own in an argument for their life

  • I mean, I’m frigging fifteen and beating you at this! Go back to preschool and try again.

  • Little Tabby Nackle be Hatin, Dont be hatin little Tabby Nackle, So how man Blacks are in the 12 ??

  • Already asked, already answered. Would you happen to have severe short-term memory loss?

  • It’s actually hilarious how little you know, how little power you have in debate and conversation, and yet you attempt to troll the RELIGIOUS portion of the web. This is literally my first religious conversation, I’m fifteen, I’m no religious scholar, and yet you are FAILING against me, a CHILD!

  • Again, perhaps you should restart your education at the pre-school level so you have a chance against a kid.

  • why “ouch” when the Church announced the new name change to the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square?

  • Thanks for the warning. The list just reminds me why being a Jack Mormon is a better choice than ever before. I am proud of my Mormon ancestry but thoroughly ashamed for the bad joke on organized religion that the Church has become as it canonizes racism, sexism and homophobia.

  • The problem with Nelson and the 14 other old men is that most of them are too senile to know what century they are in. They seem to think that they are still in the 19th Century.

  • You realize that President Nelson and the quorum members are all in perfectly good health despite their age? Nelson also made a major change to church service in his FIRST talk to the church. He wasn’t even alive in the 19th century.

  • You clearly have not done much research on this matter. To quote a famous fictional character, “Amazing, every word you just said was wrong”.

  • I would love new scripture to be added to what we already have, though I doubt it will happen anytime soon

  • You do realize that none of the leaders get ANY money from tithing, right? Also, is that the only offensive comment that you have about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? It’s getting old.

  • I highly doubt that 700 days at church is “just too many”. I “shell out” tithing by my own discretion. I paid it even before it was necessary to do so. I highly doubt you know what it’s like to be charitable and grateful for what you have.

  • I’m almost 64, been “less active” for a decade, so 54 years of attendance. When I was a kid that about about 4.5 hours of church per week trimmed down 3+ hours in 1980 or so (not including uber-boring “leadership” meetings, so it’s more like 10.5K hours (or 1.2 years) of my life wasted at LDS church services, not including my two-stint on an LDS mission. But thank you for bringing up that topic.

  • Mormonism will slowly fade from society as will contemporary Christianity and Islam because of the obvious problems with the founders of these religions especially their angelic/satanic hallucinations and related prophecies. “Pretty and ugly wingie thingies” simply do/did not exist.

    Moroni was a “pretty talking fictional thingie” or would a better description be “one of the many
    hallucinations seen by founders of the major religions” or ” a cloneof the fictional Gabriel” or “Moroni the golden hornblower”, or “son of Mormon, the propheteer/profiteer”, or “actually Nephi”, or “good buds with John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, Moses, Elijah, and Elias all who ministered to Joseph Smith as angels” or as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Moroni.

  • From: lds-mormon.com/time.shtml

    “The first divergence between Mormon economics and that of
    other denominations is the tithe. Most churches take in the greater part of
    their income through donations. Very few, however, impose a compulsory 10%
    income tax on their members. Tithes are collected locally, with much of the
    money passed on informally to local lay leaders at Sunday services. “By
    Monday,” says Elbert Peck, editor of Sunstone, an independent Mormon
    magazine, the church authorities in Salt Lake City “know every cent that’s
    been collected and have made sure the money is deposited in banks.” There
    is a lot to deposit. Last year $5.2 billion in tithes flowed into Salt Lake
    City, $4.9 billion of which came from American Mormons.”

    “The Mormons are stewards of a different stripe. Their
    charitable spending and temple building are prodigious. But where other
    churches spend most of what they receive in a given year, the Latter-day Saints
    employ vast amounts of money in investments that TIME estimates to be at least
    $6 billion strong. Even more unusual, most of this money is not in bonds or
    stock in other peoples’ companies but is invested directly in church-owned,
    for-profit concerns, the largest of which are in agribusiness, media,
    insurance, travel and real estate. Deseret Management Corp., the company
    through which the church holds almost all its commercial as-sets, is one of the
    largest owners of farm and ranchland in the country, including 49 for-profit
    parcels in addition to the Deseret Ranch. Besides the Bonneville International
    chain and Beneficial Life, the church owns a 52% holding in ZCMI, Utah’s
    largest department-store chain.

    All told, TIME estimates that the Latter-day Saints farmland and
    financial investments total some $11 billion, and that the church’s nont-ithe
    income from its investments exceeds $600 million. ”

    “Members of the church celebrate the Lord’s Supper with water
    rather than wine or gra-pe juice. They believe their President is a prophet who
    receives new revelations from God. These can supplant older revelations, as in
    the case of the church’s historically most controversial doctrine: Smith
    himself received God’s sanctioning of polygamy in 1831, but 49 years later,
    the church’s President announced its recision. Similarly, an explicit policy
    barring black men from holding even the lowest church offices was overturned by
    a new revelation in 1978, opening the way to huge missionary activity in Africa
    and Brazil. “

  • While there are no black people in the 12 the LDS is not a racist church. If and when we get a black person in the 12 members will gladly accept and sustain him. Please look into the humanitarian work that the church has provided in not only countries that are mostly black but to all races, kindreds and tounges. Please keep in mind that there are people from many countries whom are general authorities, some of which are of the 12. I invite you to do your homework before calling someone a racist otherwise you belittle those whom have tried been oppressed by racist. I invite you to visit the one of our meetings. I’m sure you will find yourself pleasantly corrected.

  • Here are the changes in a nut shell. 1.God finally answered the prayers of members. The 2 hour block is a reality. 2.Oaks has finally admitted he was wrong about gay people. Oh wait, my mistake. He is still the same homophobic old man he was before.3. Members get to pretend they are doing home study on Sunday while they watch football. Now this is inspired leadership! Long live President Nelson!

  • Hey…if everyone BLOCKS little Davie boy there then we don’t have to hear from him again ever, anywhere. (click on his name and block).
    Bu-bye Dave.

  • I gave an update on changes earlier today. This is an update to the update. The prophet said eery mormon including past prophets have offended God by using the term mormon. Why didn’t God tell the previous prophets about this abomination of using this horrible word? Thank goodness we finally have an inspired prophet after all this time.

  • Trenton, I’ve seen RTL’s posts for a while now. He/she is not a troll. Dave Ruth literally popped up out of nowhere. Dave is a troll. I’ve been reading Jana’s stuff for several years now. I’m a former member much like RTL, resigned of my own accord, i was not exed. Former high council, bishopric, seminary teach, missionary to South Africa, married in temple, etc.

    There are so many truth problems for the church it is hard to know where to begin. All you have to do is dig just a little. It’s not like the 70s, 80s, 90s, where the church could control information. mormonthink.com, cesletter.org, just to name a couple. Go ahead and lurk on Reddit r/exmormon. It’s fun.

    Mostly now I just shake my head at the near continual foot-shooting the church does. So 2 hours instead of 3 is a revelation? Don’t use Mormon anymore is a revelation? Not a peep about war, famine, pestilence, human trafficking, climate change, etc. #Lord’sPriorities I’m thinking that hotline to heaven is two cans connected by a string.

    It seems I remember in the D&C that the Lord’s priesthood was designated “Melchizadek” in order to avoid the too frequent mention of his sacred name. Yet now we insist using his name. So, which is it? Avoid too frequent, or not using enough? And then MoTab becomes Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square. Not a hint of the name Jesus anywhere.

    So, when Hinckley and Monson were promoting “I Am A Mormon” campaign, they were just helping Satan? I Am A Mormon was actually a stealth program by Satan? Otherwise, how do you reconcile Rusty Nelson’s statements with past prophets. Used to be the prophets were dead a while before the church threw them under the bus. Seems like not so much anymore.

    Now that I realize these guys aren’t anymore inspired than anybody else, I can just laugh and feel bad for those still in.

  • Technically, might be true. But where do you think the money originated for the church to be able to invest in businesses to begin with? Also, take another look at your tithing slip. You agree the church can do ANYTHING with your money once you release it to them. Also, with no financial transparency, there is no way to say for sure what the church does financially. And no, I don’t trust the church leadership to be truthful. Too many “carefully worded denials”. https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-topics-essays/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

  • Well, I think you’re deliberately taking Nelson’s words out of context and minsconstruing them.

    I had a more in-depth rebuttal, but I don’t think some rando on the Internet who upvotes his own posts is worth the effort.

    [Edit: I now find it rich that the last time we discussed things, you said that no prophet ever acknowledges the mistakes of past prophets, and here is a prophet doing it, and you ridicule that too. But again, you’re just a guy on the Internet who upvotes his own posts.]

  • You make my point how absurd this whole name change thing is. Apologists such as yourself look for reasons on absurd things in church history and try with all their might to explain them away. Why? Because they know something is off. Such is the case here. Nelson is saying every prophet before him got it wrong including Joseph Smith. All over a stupid name.God was not bothered by the name and in fact was for programs such as “Meet the Mormons.” According to nelson, that program was supported by Satan. Really?
    You say I talk about how prophets rarely admit mistakes. Nelson is not admitting a mistake that he made. In fact he is puffing himself up with pride over every prophet who came before him, including Joseph.
    Your ad hominem attack on me is typical of so called faithful members who really don’t follow Christ and His example.

  • Mike, you’re going WAAAY too far with Nelson’s remarks. You’re saying things he didn’t say and drawing conclusions that aren’t justified by what he did say.

    The name of the Church has never been the “Mormon Church”. Calls for correct usage of the name occur every few decades or so.

    You’ve moved the goal posts on the admission of mistakes issue so far since the last time you brought this up that we now need to declare those goal posts to customs.

    Ad hominem? Pot, meet kettle? Why do you upvote yourself, anyway? Seriously, what is the motivation? Is it to lift yourself up and pretend that anyone other than yourself gives your comments any kind of credibility?

  • I am going by his words. He said if you use the word “mormon” then you are assisting Satan. Try and spin those words anyway you like. This whole name change has been a pet peeve of his for a long time and now he finally has the authority to do something about it and people like you just go along with it. The sad thing is hard working people who pay tithing will watch it being spent in frivolous ways to undo the work mormon.
    Are you in love with me? You seem to focus on me a lot.

  • Actually, he didn’t say those words. You’re doing a bad paraphrase. I would paraphrase much differently (the transcripts not out yet and I’m not in a position to transcribe from the video right now): When we refer to the Church by some other name, we take the focus away from Christ, which assists Satan. Your paraphrase makes it seem like the word “Mormon” is now taboo, which mischaracterizes the talk completely.

    Do you think renaming the Momron Tabernacle Choir cost any money? People like you really have to dig to find something truly negative about this, which of course, is what you’re really after. You don’t have any helpful arguments, but you get some amount of pleasure or satisfaction out of complaining about minor things that shouldn’t even matter to you.

    Wow. Just wow. But really, why do you upvote yourself?

  • You are missing the point. No one including nelson is saying the church is named after mormon. Are you being obtuse on purpose? The word “Mormon” has been used as a nick name and as a marketing campaign since Joe Smith. Now we have a 94 year old man saying he has a revelation if the term is used at all then those members are deceived by Satan. Try as you may, you cannot change his words. As a TBM, you refuse to believe the prophet. How dare you. Turn in your temple recommend this minute.
    Why is this nuts? Because he spending peoples hard earned money to make this change. Yes, it costs money. In addition, this is what a prophet focuses on? Did he mention accepting LGBT people? No! Did he talk about members like Hatch who are dreadful? No. Did he talk about protecting young people in the church from sexual predators? No. He spoke of nothing important. Even non members think it is silly! The title on one story is “Mormon Leader does not want to be called a mormon.”
    Again, you focus on me a lot. I do it for attention from you my love! Sweet dreams!

  • If it’s so silly, why are you obsessed with it? Are you in love with President Nelson? Clearly, that is the only explanation if you insist on a topic!

    And it is you who is being deliberately obtuse about what President Nelson is saying, as I’ve already pointed out.

  • Oh my word. You really are ignorant. Answer everyone of my questions with an intelligent non-apologetic response and then we can talk more. Sweet dreams love!

  • Really? That’s the standard? What qualifies to you as non-apologetic. Your points basically amount to “the Prophet didn’t address the things I think are important.” I’m not going to go point by point and point out why that is; it’s a waste of time. It’s also a double standard. Imagine if I had said, “I won’t continue this conversation until I get a non-flip answer to why you upvote your own comments.”

    You have mischaracterized President Nelson’s message, which was not that any use of the term “Mormon” by anyone at any time is evil, but that our collective complacency with the use of the nickname is contrary to the will of God.

  • Perhaps because it was the best way to spread the word about this religion, perhaps he was just tolerating it for a short time. Nobody living person really knows why, but all of his prophets have been called by God and are inspired by him.

  • Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. You have a lot of research to do OUTSIDE of WIKIPEDIA my prejudiced friend.

  • He did not renounce polygamy, only announced the ending of a temporary commandment. As for barring black men from the priesthood, how do you think the majority white population would have seen it if a slave was telling an entire congregation what to do? The church was saved from extinction by the wisdom of God in temporarily not granting the Black population some of the same blessings and service opportunities as other people, and the Black members suffered through this well.

  • To answer your first and second questions, yes, those are revelations, though small as they seem are still very important. our third question is invalid, as this is Jesus Christ’s church in which we use his name, not Heavenly Father’s, whose name we preserve. When Hinckley and Monson promoted that campaign, it was not helping Satan, just less appropriate than it would be if they used the proper name. “I am a Mormon” was not a stealth program by Satan, I don’t quite believe he has any of those sponsored by many churches.

    No prophets of this dispensation were ever thrown under the bus, and all were inspired by God, more than you or any other non-member will ever be.

  • Trenton, thank you for your reply.
    You: To answer your first and second questions, yes, those are revelations, though small as they seem are still very important.

    If you insist changing church meeting length and the Mormon thing are revelations, fine. But putting wings on a pig doesn’t make it an eagle. Referring to these policy changes as revelation offends the whole concept of revelation. To think about the world’s problems and say that what was most important to God for the members of his church that weekend were the 2 policy changes is to acknowledge that God at least for those 2 day focused on completely unimportant issues.

    You: our (sic) third question is invalid, as this is Jesus Christ’s church in which we use his name, not Heavenly Father’s, whose name we preserve.

    Your answer is provably incorrect. Please go back and re-read D&C 107: 3-4. Verse 3 says: “Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.” The supreme being whose name is being protected is Jesus, not Elohim. Don’t you pay attention in seminary class?

    You: When Hinckley and Monson promoted that campaign, it was not helping Satan, just less appropriate than it would be if they used the proper name. “I am a Mormon” was not a stealth program by Satan…

    Oh no, no, no. You don’t get to change the standards set by Nelson. He said, “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.”

    The “I Am A Mormom” campaign lasted for years. Are you saying that even though they were “inspired” prophets to the nations, Hinckley and Monson were spiritually tone deaf to such an important matter to Jesus…for years? And all of the general authorities got fooled too? And they were unwittingly participating in a major victory for Satan”?

    You: No prophets of this dispensation were ever thrown under the bus…

    Oh my stars and garters! Where have you been? May I suggest you go to a church-approved site, and read what the church now says about past prophets, most notably Brigham Young in the following link: https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

    A gem: “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”

    Trenton, who do you think “advanced” those theories in the past? Church leaders and prophets. Yep. Some of those theories were taught as doctrine. Just do a little research. It’s all there. Pray to Google. Your prayers will be answered.

    You: …and all were inspired by God

    I appreciate your enthusiasm. But, you are the one making the claim, so you have the burden of proof. Please provide me evidence that would lead the ordinary rational person to believe it is more likely than not a Mormon prophet is inspired.

    You: …more than you or any other non-member will ever be.

    Don’t be petulant. This assertion is a unprovable. If you meant it as a slam, fine.

  • According to Nelson, past prophets were not inspired on this topic. They must have had their windows closed when the Spirit bore witness.

  • The definition of troll, which both you and RTL are. “A person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord”. Check your facts.

  • You: “A gem: ‘Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.’ ”

    First of all; Jeez, you really are steaming from the ears because of all the digging you had to do. I mean, you actually went to one of the church’s sites! Congratulations and zippity doo da, you think you’ve found something effective! Note, this says nothing about the second prophet of the last dispensation doing something wrong. Keep digging, and good luck finding something that doesn’t exist; something bad about a church from its own sources.

    You: “you have the burden of proof”

    No I don’t. This gospel is about finding out for yourself if it is true. Millions of people have come to the same conclusion by themselves. Not through their teachers or bishops, but through their own digging. You have to realize that you are a part of a minority that actively tries to troll the church and its members. YOU. WILL. GET. NOWHERE.

    You: “Hinckley and Monson were spiritually tone deaf to such an important matter to Jesus…for years? And all of the general authorities got fooled too? And they were unwittingly participating in a major victory for Satan?”

    I’m glad you are phrasing this as a question, because if you were phrasing it as fact you would lose all credibility among those who actually have a religion. Hinckley and Monson were never spiritually tone deaf, at least not while they were serving in the Presidency. Jesus never talked to them about it. He probably didn’t like it, but he knew it would advance his work upon the Earth, which even you can’t deny. And please don’t ever cite the whole “major victory for Satan” line ever again. If you truly are a religious scholar, you’ll know that every victory is a major victory for Satan.

    You: “You don’t get to change the standards set by Nelson”

    Never have, never will. I don’t think you should either, hypocrite. You constantly say that this church is a cult, fake, uninspired, to name a few, all of which is false according to President Nelson, if you value his word so much. I understand that we are two very different people, but your logic in that statement applies to EVERYONE. While I can’t kill hypocrisy, I can hope to weaken it, hopefully starting with the largest bearer of it I have ever seen. You.

    You: “Putting wings on a pig doesn’t make it an eagle. Referring to these policy changes as revelation offends the whole concept of revelation. To think about the world’s problems and say that what was most important to God for the members of his church that weekend were the 2 policy changes is to acknowledge that God at least for those 2 day focused on completely unimportant issues.”

    You are right. Putting wings on a Pig doesn’t make it an Eagle. Just like calling a troll a religious expert doesn’t make him/her effective. You should also know that every situation is important to God, especially if it is personal, which these revelations are. “It is by small and simple things that great things come to pass”. Please forgive me, oh superior ego, if I got any small thing in that statement wrong, much like you have in nearly every sentence you type attempting to troll the Church.

    You: “The Lord’s priesthood was designated “Melchizadek” in order to avoid the too frequent mention of his sacred name…”
    Me: “This is Jesus Christ’s church in which we use his name, not Heavenly Father’s, whose name we preserve.”
    You: “Your answer is provably incorrect. Please go back and re-read D&C 107: 3-4. Verse 3 says: ‘Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.’ The supreme being whose name is being protected is Jesus, not Elohim. Don’t you pay attention in seminary class?”

    Wow. That just flew right over your head, didn’t it. When I said “not Heavenly Father’s [church]”, I assumed you knew that the priesthood is Heavenly Father’s power on Earth. I was clearly wrong, for which I apologize. Let me lay it all out for you. The priesthood is the power of God (Heavenly Father) on Earth. All the Keys of the priesthood – parts of God’s power, which only the Prophet can hold all at once – were given to Joseph Smith, and he gave certain Keys to certain people, those of which passed it down to others, and so on.
    This might be the hardest part to understand, but the Keys are TRANSFERABLE, they are not literal keys, not metal or plastic, got that? They are the ability passed down from others who have it to use God’s power on Earth. And before you attempt to troll this, remember that even the small things matter to God, such as distributing the emblems – blessed by HIS power – only by those with the Keys to his power.
    If you need me to explain more, please reply in your inevitable nitpicking response below, and specify the questions, as you know I’ll be able to answer them (or rebuke the lies you will inevitably present as fact).

    If you take nothing else from this extended cyber-argument, remember that you are nothing to me except a roadblock of spiritual progress for some of the susceptible. The only reason I am and will continue to argue with you is for the onlookers who think frauds like you actually know what they’re talking about. And please know that I haven’t had to look up anything to dispute your “research” because of my prior knowledge in this topic, which you clearly have none of.

  • That makes no sense and God makes sense. It does not pass the smell test. This decision by Nelson officially makes him an anti-mormon. Should he turn in his recommend?

  • Also, for those of you who want to defend the faith, please know that I am on your side. I will fight the good fight, as Peter said, against those who will attempt to degrade another church which testifies of Christ.

  • That stupid statement by you will not cut it. Logic says it makes no sense. I am willing to listen to you explain how it does make sense using logic. Make sure you actually use logic to make your case.

  • Firstly, that is a false claim with no proof to back it up. If you can’t decipher my oh so complex code of the spirit NOT testifying to the Prophets because it didn’t NEED to, then I’m afraid that is not my fault. Secondly, how does that statement make no logical sense? Are you really just responding to respond right now? Do you even have any idea of what you are talking about?

  • You; “Putting wings on a pig doesn’t make it an eagle. Referring to these policy changes as revelation offends the whole concept of revelation. To think about the world’s problems and say that what was most important to God for the members of his church that weekend were the 2 policy changes is to acknowledge that God at least for those 2 day focused on completely unimportant issues.”

    Yes, putting wings on a pig doesn’t make it an eagle, just like claiming a troll is a religious scholar doesn’t make it true. If you think that God is going to take care of all our problems, you are highly mistaken. You believe we think, “What was most important to God for the members of his church that weekend were the 2 policy changes”. And you call me ignorant. Please understand that these are not the largest policy changes, just policy changes. And please don’t make anymore false assumptions. If you actually looked into anything about religion, you would know that personal issues are very important to God, which both of these revelations are.

    You: “It seems I remember in the D&C that the Lord’s priesthood was designated ‘Melchizadek’ in order to avoid the too frequent mention of his sacred name. Yet now we insist using his name. So, which is it? Avoid too frequent, or not using enough?”
    Me: “Your third question is invalid, as this is Jesus Christ’s church in which we use his name, not Heavenly Father’s, whose name we preserve.”
    You: “Your answer is provably incorrect. Please go back and re-read D&C 107: 3-4. Verse 3 says: ‘Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.’ The supreme being whose name is being protected is Jesus, not Elohim. Don’t you pay attention in seminary class?”

    Wow. That one just flew right over your head, didn’t it. Let me lay it all out for you. This is the Church of Jesus Christ, but we use Heavenly Father’s power in the form of the Priesthood, just like Jesus did, got that? It was called the holy priesthood back then and associated with the name of the Son of God. No one on Earth knew Jesus the Christ, only Christ the savior, or the Lamb of God, or another name that was not Jesus Christ but belonged to him all the same, making your question invalid as I said before. We avoid using the name of Heavenly Father, but try to include Jesus Christ’s name more often. Do you pay attention ever?

    You: “You don’t get to change the standards set by Nelson. He said, ‘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.’ ”

    You’re absolutely right, I don’t get to change the standards set by President Nelson, and I never have. Did I change anything the Prophet said? No. Did I even twist his words a little bit? NO. I said that Satan didn’t have a victory, not a victory as we think it is, he reduced our victory. If you knew anything about Satan, which you obviously should, you’ll know that even a reduction in our victories is a victory for him, and that every victory is a major victory for him.

    You: “The “I Am A Mormom” (sic) campaign lasted for years. Are you saying that even though they were “inspired” prophets to the nations, Hinckley and Monson were spiritually tone deaf to such an important matter to Jesus…for years? And all of the general authorities got fooled too? And they were unwittingly participating in a major victory for Satan?” (lone quotation mark discluded)

    Thank goodness you phrased that as a question, perhaps you can salvage some of your credibility. The Prophets were never spiritually tone deaf, at least not in their latter years. If a person next to you said nothing and you heard nothing, that doesn’t make you deaf. The Holy Ghost does not make every revelation come at once, in months, or even in a lifetime.

    You: “Oh my stars and garters! Where have you been? May I suggest you go to a church-approved site, and read what the church now says about past prophets, most notably Brigham Young in the following link: https://www.lds.org/topics/

    A gem: ‘Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.’ ”

    “Oh my stars and garters”, did you read anything in that document? There is NOTHING in there that “throws him under the bus”. Perhaps you should join Dave Ruth in an education restart beginning with Preschool.

    You: “Who do you think “advanced” those theories in the past? Church leaders and prophets. Yep. Some of those theories were taught as doctrine. Just do a little research. It’s all there. Pray to Google. Your prayers will be answered.”

    Show me one shred of evidence that this is true, even a testimony from someone else and its VALID source.

    You: “You are the one making the claim, so you have the burden of proof.”

    Wrong again (I am starting to see a recurring pattern). This Church is about finding out for yourself if it is true, not being spoon fed the answer. Sure, there are meetings and testimonies borne by others, but all of that is just constructive logic and history. If you want to be spoon fed information, this is the wrong place to look. You can, however, find that in Preschool with Dave Ruth.

    Me: “All were inspired by God, more than you or any other non-member will ever be.”
    You: “Don’t be petulant. This assertion is a unprovable. If you meant it as a slam, fine.”

    It is provable if you look at ANY of the scriptures, including the Bible. That’s right, the book approved by about a third of the Earth’s population backing this claim. You see, the Holy Bible testified of prophets as messengers called of God to proclaim repentance unto “Both Jew and Gentile”, sharing revelations with them that they would never recieve on their own. If you want to say the standard works are wrong, you speak against millions. If you want to say the Bible is wrong, you speak against well over 2 Billion people.

    The fact is, I couldn’t care less about you or anything you say. I only care about the people who turn to your lies and falsehoods as a source of information. I only write for the people watching.

    Word to anyone who is reading. Don’t write in a snarky, condescending tone unless you know what you’re talking about. Don’t make the same mistake Danny did.

  • It seems you do not know the definition of the word “logic.” Since that is the case we will end the discussion.

ADVERTISEMENTs