Jump to content

phaedrus ut

Members
  • Content Count

    816
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

357 Excellent

About phaedrus ut

  • Rank
    Separates Lights & Darks

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    SLC, UT

Recent Profile Visitors

2,009 profile views
  1. phaedrus ut

    What Would You Do?

    When something is obvious and rational to you yet seems confusing to others it could be a problem with your communication skills or your ability to think clearly. For example I don't think it's clear what you mean about all the "Paradigms". I would consider having a conversation about your thinking to someone you know well and trust for an unbiased opinion. If they think your ideas are good then that's a great success. If they suggest something isn't quite right with your thinking then you may want to speak to a health professional. Best of luck, Phaedrus
  2. phaedrus ut

    The use of "Mormon" in academic settings

    Ah yes, I get Interpreter Journal of Mormon Scripture and International Journal of Mormon Studies mixed up. I do the same thing with Bill Pullman and Bill Paxton. Phaedrus
  3. phaedrus ut

    The use of "Mormon" in academic settings

    I expect the most closely affiliated and orthodox organizations to be the first to change. I didn't notice the name change, I'm guessing they didn't want any connection with "Mormon Studies" like happens at the Maxwell Institute. I don't think they can change to "A Journal of LDS Scripture" or "A Journal of Latter-Day Scripture". According to the style guide "When describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" is accurate and preferred." That may be the direction they will need to go. Phaedrus
  4. phaedrus ut

    The use of "Mormon" in academic settings

    Nearly all these organizations are closely aligned with the church, run by members, or endowed/funded by members. Considering the request was for everyone to change what names they use for the church with a special request to members. It wasn't just said once that using "Mormon Church" will "offend God and please the Devil". He also said “When the savior clearly states what the name of his church should be, and even precedes his declaration with, ‘Thus shall my church be called,' he is serious. And if we allow nicknames to be used and adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, he is offended.” and that using common nicknames like "LDS Church" is a "major victory for Satan". Wouldn't a Latter-day Saint who runs one of these organizations be adopting or sponsoring the nickname?" Listen to his talk again. He said multiple times that God and/or Jesus are offended and that Satan/the Devil is pleased. Between the conference talk and the press release I think the context is pretty clear. Phaedrus
  5. phaedrus ut

    The use of "Mormon" in academic settings

    The church issued a press release asking everyone, not just members, to stop using the name Mormon. The request wasn't just for church members but for everyone. Phaedrus
  6. phaedrus ut

    The use of "Mormon" in academic settings

    There has been a discussion on this very board about whether there should be a name change since the conference announcement. Are you saying that discussion is also stupid and stereotypical? If it's a concern on a internet message board shouldn't it be a concern to a serious academic institution? Phaedrus
  7. phaedrus ut

    The use of "Mormon" in academic settings

    President Nelson said "Members offend God and please the Devil when they use the term Mormon" . Most people in these organizations are members of the church. Wouldn't they literally be choosing to offend God to continue to use the name? Phaedrus
  8. I was just thinking how the requested name change are going to not affect just the institutions of the church but many many other business and groups. One example that comes to mind are the many Mormon Studies academic programs. Examples are: Utah State University, Program of Religious Studies, including the Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture Claremont Graduate University, School of Religion, including the Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies Utah Valley University, Comparative Mormon Studies program University of Utah, Tanner Humanities Center's Mormon Studies Initiative and the Simmons Professor of Mormon Studies University of Virginia, Graduate Program in Religious Studies, including the Richard Lyman Bushman Chair of Mormon Studies University of Wyoming, Mormon Studies Initiative University of Southern California, School of Religion, including the John A. Widtsoe Chair of Mormon Studies Graduate Theological Union, Director of Mormon Studies Also affected is the Mormon History Association, Association for Mormon Letters, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Studies, Mormon Studies Review, Juanita Brooks Prize in Mormon Studies, University of Utah Mormon Studies Fellowship. Is the expectation that all these organizations change their name to match the church? Phaedrus
  9. I think there is a difference. The difference here being I haven't called your opinion on what is revelation "untrue", "false" or suggested it wasn't the "more professional approach". My definition was literally the orthodox definition as taught by the church in manuals and yet I managed to refrain from using insulting language. That is a distinction that has an important difference to me. Phaedrus
  10. I've provided evidence where official church publications are in agreement with me with both my claims. Are you saying the church is making false claims? Should we notify church headquarters they have been spreading false information for 40 years? I really have no idea where you are coming up with any of this. I'm "imagining that all revelation must be verbal or dialogic" ... really? I can't remember doing that. You are making arguments for me then arguing against those arguments and then expanding that with demands to answer questions that are not anyway relevant. In your reality it can be anything you want it to be. I share the same view as church publications that OD2 wasn't presented as a revelation but as an official declaration of the revelation. Phaedrus
  11. You're right I don't consider OD2 a revelation and I don't think it purports to be a revelation. And I'm not alone in this opinion and I don't believe it's ad hoc. If you read the wikipedia entry for Official Declaration 2 you will find this description The footnote for this references Doctrine and Covenants, Student Manual: Religion 324 and 325 which also describes Official Declaration 2 not as a revelation but as "the official declaration of the revelation". Phaedrus
  12. What about my statements are untrue? What about my approach is unprofessional? Again my post made two claims. D&C 138 was the most recent canonized item that purports to be revelation and that happened exactly 100 years ago to the day of my original post. I'm sure those are interesting questions to you but you are just moving the goal posts with your misdirection. I've been on this forum for 14 years, I don't hold any supernatural beliefs about revelations, astrology, magical powers, or angelic beings. Now you have called me dishonest and unprofessional. I made exactly two claims. D&C 138 was the most recent canonized item that purports to be revelation and that happened exactly 100 years ago to the day of my original post. Please demonstrate my dishonestly and unprofessionalism. Phaedrus
  13. Why exactly do I need to address other items in the D&C? I'm not making up any rules like you seem to claim that I am. My post said 2 things. What we know know as D&C 138 is the most recent canonized item that purports to be a revelation and that happened exactly 100 years ago from the date of the post on October 3, 1918. Phaedrus
  14. The definition is in the eye of the beholder so they obviously can't be my rules. For example with what now is D&C 138 an announcement was made by N. Eldon Tanner I don't consider this announcement to be a revelation and I don't think the announcement implies it is a revelation. It's merely an announcement of two other items of revelation. Phaedrus
  15. Defining what qualifies as revelation is about as possible as defining who is or isn't Christian. You'll never find universal agreement but in the case of OD2 it's much easier. OD2 doesn't say it's a revelation but merely an announcement that a revelation was received. Does the announcement that a revelation was received itself qualify as a revelation? The church released a statement clarifying that the policy regarding children of same sex couples aren't eligible for baptism and that policy was received by revelation to Thomas Monson. Does that statement qualify as revelation? You are more that welcome to consider and announcement about a revelation itself to be a revelation. In fact you are welcome to consider a forum discussion about the announcement about a revelation to be revelation. I do not. Phaedrus
×