Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Name of the Church


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Did you have to refer to the style guide once, or twice, to assure your comment was in full compliance?

I didn't refer to the style guide at all.  Got substance, or is mere substance-free sneering your specialty? :huh: 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I didn't refer to the style guide at all.  Got substance, or is mere substance-free sneering your specialty? :huh: 

I've already referred to the style guide a few times to get the preferred usage right. I don't think I'm the only one.

Not saying it won't become more natural with time, but I doubt most members, and non-members, will get it correct without referring to the style guide at least once or twice.

Most just aren't going to do that.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Why would it be odd that God prioritizes making sure we remember that we are to be called after Him. Remembering we truly are motivates individuals to be the best they can be.

if we don't prioritize this aspect of our relationship with the Lord, how do we expect to get the guidance to deal with other issues.

Through small and simple things

I think this has been a Nelson issue for a long time not just a recent impression.  He is just now in a position to get a wider level of attention

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1990/04/thus-shall-my-church-be-called?lang=eng

 

If we are really being accurate maybe we should insist on using the " THE CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS" more often.

Nelson can ask his members to refer to the mormon church however he wishes but to expect people and media outside the church to follow suit is unreasonable.  

 

Edited by sjdawg
Link to comment
14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I fear what consequences await the membership of the Church if the people collectively reject what the prophet declared the Lord has “impressed upon [his] mind.”

I'd prefer that he be more direct. If he believes it is prophetic revelation from God, I wish he'd just say that. Pres. Nelson tends to hint around to insinuate revelation by using broad language that could be interpreted many ways.

I've had many things impressed upon my mind. Doesn't mean they are all revelation. Even if I assign the Lord as the source as I try to understand why something is impressed on me, doesn't mean it actually is. As long as Pres. Nelson continues to speak ambiguously it will give people the out of not accepting it as from God while still supporting him as president. Also, in the newsroom article, why refer to him as "president" instead of prophet? I would think prophet would carry more weight than president.

Link to comment

Since we're on the subject, when are we going to talk about the small d in "Latter-day Saints," which is in violation of CMOS 17, section 8, subsection 161 ("Hyphenated compounds in headline-style titles")? That's been bugging me for a long time ;) 

Seriously, though. I raised my arm to sustain President Nelson in a solemn assembly just a little over 4 months ago, so I am hesitant to criticize this new direction too much. I knew what I was getting into. Having observed President Nelson over many years and having read a good chunk of his official biography, I knew he wouldn't simply be a caretaker president. And knowing myself, I had an inkling that he might do and say some things that would cause me heartburn at some point. But this isn't one of those things.  

 President Nelson's short statement on the front page of lds.org doesn't bother me at all, actually. I can accept it without reservation (even the part where he says that this is an "important matter"). And I'm mostly okay with the Newsroom style guide statement. The one line that chafes a bit is the sentence: "The term 'Mormonism' is inaccurate and should not be used." I think that could be more nuanced, as the term is useful (and probably indispensable) in academic and historical contexts.

Edited by Nevo
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Nevo said:

The one line that chafes a bit is the sentence: "The term 'Mormonism' is inaccurate and should not be used." I think that could be more nuanced (certainly the term is useful in academic and historical contexts).

This expresses my own reaction,

Link to comment

Is "Mormon Funeral Potatoes" okay?

I think there may be some confusion on what to do for descriptions, especially if unsure the "Mormon" is part of a proper name or not.

This is one case I think it would be very beneficial to provide an extensive list of what is viewed as appropriate and provide context.

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

You joke, but being called after the name of Jesus Christ is an important aspect of our baptismal covenant. If the Lord wants us to take this aspect of the covenant more seriously, I think that would be a very important thing to do.

I was jesting.  But I don't mean undermine the covenants you have made ..nor do I undermine the Savior.  It is not what we call ourselves..it is who we are.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Is "Mormon Funeral Potatoes" okay?

I think there may be some confusion on what to do for descriptions, especially if unsure the "Mormon" is part of a proper name or not.

This is one case I think it would be very beneficial to provide an extensive list of what is viewed as appropriate and provide context.

 

Purely from a marketing and branding point of view, every exception that is made weakens the chance of this succeeding even among church members

Link to comment
On 8/16/2018 at 4:15 PM, cinepro said:

Hate to be the guy to say it, but with everything that's going on with the Church and the world, it's good to see God focusing on the big things.

He focuses on the small things too, including you!

Link to comment

I am still going to use the terms "Mormon" and "LDS Church".  Nelson is correct that these are not the official names of the church and at least in public documents and journalists should refer to the official name of the Church at the beginning and use a shorter alternate thereafter but I think is most private conversations, it is easier and simpler to use a very short version.  I just takes too long to say "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints" over and over and over again.  We should not however spend a lot of time correcting non-members who use the word "Mormon".  I knew a chatter in Paltalk years ago who was very big on this issue.  He refused to use "Mormon" and anyone who would say "Mormon Church" he would respond in ways like "I don't know of any Mormon Church" and so forth.  It would lead to long arguments which was a waste of time.  We should not get so caught up in the official name of the Church that it leads to distractions and needless headaches. 

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, CV75 said:

He focuses on the small things too, including you!

Way to avoid Cinepro's comment, with which I feel the same, it's difficult to see Pres. Nelson not commenting on more pressing things. But I'm not him.

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I am still going to use the terms "Mormon" and "LDS Church".  Nelson is correct that these are not the official names of the church and at least in public documents and journalists should refer to the official name of the Church at the beginning and use a shorter alternate thereafter but I think is most private conversations, it is easier and simpler to use a very short version.  I just takes too long to say "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints" over and over and over again.  We should not however spend a lot of time correcting non-members who use the word "Mormon".  I knew a chatter in Paltalk years ago who was very big on this issue.  He refused to use "Mormon" and anyone who would say "Mormon Church" he would respond in ways like "I don't know of any Mormon Church" and so forth.  It would lead to long arguments which was a waste of time.  We should not get so caught up in the official name of the Church that it leads to distractions and needless headaches. 

Which brings to mind Elder Bednar's comment that there are no homosexuals in the church. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Thinking said:

I haven't read all of the 350+ replies before this post, so It's possible that somebody has already mentioned this. If so, I apologize.

This announcement seems to be something that would be part of the Law of Moses.

Actually, we're calling it the "Law of Jehovah" now.

Link to comment

I’m a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, yes I am!
And if you want to study a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I’m a living specimen.
Maybe you think I’m just like anybody else you see,
But trust in my word,
You’ll quickly observe,
I’m different as can be!

Doesn't quite roll off the tongue.

 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Nevo said:

 "The term 'Mormonism' is inaccurate and should not be used."

This line in the official statement is unfortunate.  Embarrassing this statement was not vetted, or checked with historians.

"Mormonism, is the pure doctrine of Jesus Christ, of which I myself am not ashamed." - Joseph Smith Jr.  Letter to James Arlington Bennet, 8-Sept 1842.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-james-arlington-bennet-8-september-1842/1

 

Edited by blueglass
Link to comment
5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'd prefer that he be more direct. If he believes it is prophetic revelation from God, I wish he'd just say that. Pres. Nelson tends to hint around to insinuate revelation by using broad language that could be interpreted many ways.

I've had many things impressed upon my mind. Doesn't mean they are all revelation. Even if I assign the Lord as the source as I try to understand why something is impressed on me, doesn't mean it actually is. As long as Pres. Nelson continues to speak ambiguously it will give people the out of not accepting it as from God while still supporting him as president. Also, in the newsroom article, why refer to him as "president" instead of prophet? I would think prophet would carry more weight than president.

I view it quite differently. I see “the Lord has impressed upon my mind” as being unambiguously, unequivocally a recounting of divine revelation. 

And President does not have the same meaning as prophet. All members of the Quorum of the Twelve and all First Presidency members are sustained as prophets, seers and revelators. President denotes a specific office held by one having all priesthood keys and the authority to delegate. Also, holding the authority to speak to the Church at large on behalf of the Lord.

To put it concisely, all who have been president of the Church were prophets at the time, but not all prophets are or will be president of the Church. Like all dogs are mammals but not all mammals are dogs. 

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, blueglass said:

This line in the official statement is completely wrong.  Embarrassing this statement was not vetted, or checked with historians.

"Mormonism, is the pure doctrine of Jesus Christ, of which I myself am not ashamed." - Joseph Smith Jr.  Letter to James Arlington Bennet, 8-Sept 1842.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-james-arlington-bennet-8-september-1842/1

 

President Hinckley said he was not ashamed of being called Mormon either. Start watching at 1:30, I know this talk has been mentioned before, but it was nice to listen to it from his own lips, miss this man's talks. 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1990/10/mormon-should-mean-more-good?lang=eng 

 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
On 8/17/2018 at 10:28 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

I quite earnestly disagree. He told Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my Church."

Some people may misinterpret or misunderstand the scriptures, but by virtue of latter-day revelation we know that Christ did indeed intend to build a Church.

And going off what I said in my prior post, if Christ said and did so much that "the world itself could not contain the books that should be written," how can you be certain "Christ never even expressed the desire for an organized religion of His Church"?

And that church has indesputably existed without end since the apostles. Sorry to derail. I'm a one man cheer squad. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Rivers said:

Do we need to change the name of this discussion board to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Dislogue and Discussion Board?

Well, that domain name is already registered, so they can't.

http://membersofthechurchofjesuschristoflatter-daysaintsdialogue.org/

 

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...