My eye fell
upon this comment from one poster: “In 2018, [Pres. Russell M.] Nelson gives
the infamous talk, ‘The Correct Name of the Church.’ I think this talk makes a
convincing argument that Nelson is in apostasy. In 1990, he gave nearly the
exact same talk. In the following conference, he was called out by name and
corrected by Hinckley.”
The problem
this poor critic has is that anyone can check out his assertions with but a few
mouse clicks. So I decided to do just that. We will ignore the stupid use of the
word “infamous” and start by comparing the October 2018 address by Pres. Nelson,
“The
Correct Name of the Church,” with his April 1990 address, “Thus
Shall My Church be Called.”
We quickly find that while the subject is the same and Brother Nelson quoted some of the same scriptures, the two addresses are not really that similar. In his earlier talk Elder Nelson took time to define each segment of the Church’s name and why it was important, which was not done in the later talk. The later one given as President of the Church is also much shorter, perhaps half as long. Anyone can use the links provided to see for themselves. Thus our critic has been easily caught in his first lie—President Nelson simply did not give “nearly the exact same talk.”
Next, our
critic tells us that Elder Nelson “was called out by name and corrected by
Hinckley” for what he had said in his April 1990 address. So, what did
President Hinckley say in his October 1990 talk “Mormon
Should Mean ‘More Good’”?
Again, we
find another bald-faced lie. Elder Nelson was indeed “called out by name” by
President Hinckley, but he was not corrected; instead he was commended for its
excellence. President Hinckley said: “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.”
No
correction, just commendation with counsel to reread it. Another black bald-faced
lie from this critic.
Some
charges and assertions that critics make are harder to investigate and prove
false because of the time and/or research skills involved, but this one was so
very simple. Yet, I noticed that none of the scores of follow-up commenters on
the initial false assertions checked up on him and pointed out his false
assertions. They were all too busy spewing hate and supporting their friend in
falsehood.
One of the
purposes of the Joseph Smith Paper project is to make it easy, or at least
easier, for anyone to quickly check up on any critic’s usage of Joseph Smith
sources. It is one thing for a critic to state a negative interpretation or
view of an original Joseph Smith document, but when anyone can hop on the JSPP
website and find that source and read it, they can then judge for themselves
whether the critic got it right or not. Of course, too many people are too lazy
to do that and prefer to believe the worst and take comfort in that—but at least
the opportunity is there, free of charge to all.
Thank you for the article. I have found very similar challenges with the more prominent critics of our faith having challenges with the truth. I have documented these on my website, https://www.answeringldscritics.com/lds-critics
ReplyDelete