The name change reminds me of why i left

[Emower]

This is why I left.
I have been thinking about the name change much more than I think I should be. I have been mulling over why it seems so important to me. But I think I arrived at my answer lately. Changing the name is not the issue, throwing past prophets under the bus is not the issue, muddying already muddy waters is not the issue, using prophetic declarations for mundane pet peeves is not the issue, it is all of the above that is the issue.

My faith crisis began I think when the official declaration 2 was changed to indicate that the cause for the priesthood ban was unknown and might have been cultural. At the time it was like putting an anvil up on the shelf. I had always taught that the ban was what God wanted, and he often did things we did not understand. Heck, at one point even some white guys didn't have the priesthood, so no biggie right?! I didn't think about the denial of blessings at the time...
Anyway, I could not reconcile that change. Did Brigham talk to God or not? How could that ban have been cultural?

Fast forward 6 months when I began to talk to people about their faith crisis and after that I found Mormon stories. Then I did the digging and realized that dang near every doctrinal thing we have has some sort of backpedaling or issue associated with it. The BOM, BOA, Priesthood, Temple stuff, the list goes on. And all of these issues have someone giving a contradictory story and throwing someone else under the bus.

So now we have Nelson, in the strongest terms possible, saying that previous prophets were wrong, Satan has been running the Mormon boat, and we need to change the name. Normally I would be jumping up and down about someone allowing that previous leaders were wrong! We never do that. We always just quietly go about changing things, but never admit wrongdoing (think polygamy, priesthood ban etc). We don't challenge the foundation. But Nelson did. Sweet right!

No. What he did is a microcosm of why I left and why I cannot participate either.

Nelson said all the old guys were deceived by Satan, and that we need to follow him. He is asking for more out of people than they have ever given before. And they are bowing their heads and saying yes. If you don't, you are rejecting modern revelation and you are throwing in with the deceived. If you would like to take a faithful perspective, you have to allow that maybe old doctrines are not right. This puts someone into a real bind. At first blush it appears that Nelson is allowing for past mistakes and possibly a cafeteria approach? Naw, all he is offering is a new brand with his prophetic stamp on it with the same old demand for loyalty to promises that may be rescinded later.

It is what the church does best. At least for me. You have nowhere to turn except to pledge increased allegiance to what seems like a power play. Its almost like we are back in the 1830's again. All this from a simple name change. Its more than a name. And that's why I left.

[hiding in plain sight]

The first rule of fight club is to not talk about fight club.

The first rule of the mormon church is to not talk bad about the mormon church.

Even in examples like this, where clearly Russell Marion Nelson, Senior is throwing past prophets under the bus, mormons will not acknowledge that is what he is doing. They do as you say. Just bow their heads and say yes.

My biggest issue with the church is trust.

I don't trust them.

[Red Ryder]

The church requires 69 reasons and a PhD in 3D chess to explain it's problems.

However, admitting to oneself that Joseph Smith made it all up suddenly solves every one of those problems.

It's really that simple.

[Corsair]

The church requires 69 reasons and a PhD in 3D chess to explain it's problems.

At one point I did run across the further apologetic from FairMormon about why having an extensive background in LDS history, doctrine, and theory is a reasonable expectation for believers. As long as the average believer doesn't run across difficult material, they really don't need advanced apologetics. But if you deign to step into those deep doctrinal and historical subjects, you have consciously left the safety of the correlated LDS gospel under your own free will and choice. So now the obligation is thrust upon you. It's your fault for reading extracurricular material so now you have extra homework.

This is, of couse, a terrible explanation that only doubles down on the gaslighting. "If only you had stayed in the safe parts of religion and not studied further you would have been fine and would have stayed faithful." That's capital baloney. The name change of the church is only the latest issue. Nelson fervently expounded the change and we are supposed to just forget that the movie "Meet the Mormons" was released on October 10, 2014 right at the height of the "I'm a Mormon" campaign.

I tried bringing up "Meet the Mormons" and "I'm a Mormon" in Sunday School the week after conference. The subject was "following the prophet" and the class was happily virtue signalling each other on their obedience to Nelson's bold proclamations the week before. It was amazing to see the casual, yet rapid, dismissal of the "Meet Satan's Major Victory" movie and the "I'm a Major Victory for Satan" campaign. My ward was exuberant about their support of these two ridiculous outreaches just a couple of years ago. I had stake leaders encourage me to make a profile and talk about all of my outside activities with networks and electronics. No, I would rather spend all day licking the terminals of 9 volt battery than put that on my profile.

Joseph made it up. Those four words are all you need to know after you have done enough study. It's a deeply painful process before you fully arrive there.