One of the prophets brought in the “golden questions.”
What do you know about the Mormon Church.
Would you like to know more?

It was a big deal to ask those questions we had talks on how to do it. In general conference we were instructed on how to do it. We had lessons at church on how to do. We were told how easy it was to do it.

Now the Prophet gets up today in General Confrence and days Jesus is offended.What happened between those days and today to make Him offended?

One simple question Russ, it was a big deal back then, why did Jesus or Heavenly Father not correct it then?

one may be tempted to conclude that the Mormon church is actually not led by divinely inspired prophets, seers and revelators.

One may be tempted to even go so far as to form the educated opinion that the leaders of the organization have always been pompous uninspired men with big egos who have just been making things up as they go.

One may be tempted in such fashion.

And one would not be wrong to give in to such temptation. ;o)

If I was to invent the response to question, I would easily say this:

Different Times, different programs, different routes to appeal to people that may have been effective earlier, but aren't now.


I also see the wisdom in adapting to changing times, who doesn't?

I'm trying to develop that idea into a full-blown, persuasive excuse for the change. But, so far it's failing on all fronts.

Changing times? Possible. But the next step is to explain what has changed and how jettisoning the word "Mormon" now is preferable to spraying it everywhere like chocolate kisses to hungry children the way that Monson was doing it just a few years ago.

I can't see anything that has changed since then that makes the "Mormon" label any better or worse than it was 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago...

Likewise, I can't see anything that makes the "Latter-day Saint" or "Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" monikers any better.

I guess you could say the purpose is to emphasize the Christ connection, but the approved abbreviation, "Latter-day Saint" fails to do that. And, besides, that rationale would have been the same at all points in time back to the founding of the church.

As a result, still with my apologist hat on, I'm forced to resort to one of the standard default positions:

"The Lard's ways are not our ways. We cannot with our limited knowledge understand now what the future implications of this inspired decision will be. We know that President Nelson holds the keys of revelation and inspiration for the current age and therefore we must assume that the Lard, in his infinite wisdom, has chosen President Nelson as his chosen vessel to deliver a message whose time is now. A-hay-men!"

What you say is solid in most circumstances. The quote oft used that God is the same, yesterday, today, and forever--or however it goes--is what make it hard to accept in this Mormon occasion.

Why is the one true church adapting to the world instead of vice versa? It seems comparable to your Science professor saying, "The earth moves around the sun, but we can ignore that if it makes you uncomfortable, or, we can say we don't know for sure even though we do, or we can say the opposite, or even say the opposite?"

Some adaptation may not be a good thing. Some adaptation falls into the co-dependent column perhaps.

Adapting to change is perfectly acceptable. Saying that the old way of doing something was inspired by Satan is another matter. Russ and his consolation prize trophy wife are disgusting.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2018 04:04PM by scmd1.

I think he’s delivering the medicine in doses. If this dose doesn’t make the patient throw up, he’ll deliver the next dose.

Christians have known for decades that Mormons offend Jesus.

"Christians" can get off their high horses as far as their knowledge of what offends God is concerned. A whole lot of "Christians" probably offend Jesus as well. I'm saying this not so much in defense of Mormons but more against fundamental/evangelical Christianity.

Healthy orgs change & adapt, unhealthy ones don't.

the Core message of Mormonism won't change, it hasn't since they buried Honesty & Kindness.

Changes at the margins give TBMs something to swoon over, youth to chase after the Audi with the 'President' inside, reason to hire lots of security personnel (any women?)

Changing missionary ages

Re-vamping the temple ceremony (often Denied)

3 hour block? I don't remember that!

Demonym? I don't know that word!!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2018 12:14PM by GNPE.

If the name of the church is so important, why did God take eight years, and six tries to get it right? If "Mormon" is so offensive to him, why did he direct Monson to invest a lot of time and money on the "I'm a Mormon" campaign and to produce the "Meet the Mormons" documentary" just a few short years ago?

There can only be four possible answers to these questions: 1) Russ is not a prophet, 2) Tom was not a prophet, 3) God is a flake who can't make up his mind, 4) God does not exist.

I keep thinking that all the fuss about "mormon" being offensive to god is coming from one source, the secondary profit, Mrs Wendy Watson Nelson (with assistance from her "girlfriend", Sheri Don't)

Find the picture of her walking out of conference on his arm wearing I'm sure the same damned red dress she wore last month and the look on her face is "I guess he knows who boss now. I told him Jesus is offended and he went for it".....

He was speaking as a man and not a prophet. /case closed.