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.