Jump to content
RevTestament

Good for you Pres. Nelson!

Recommended Posts

"LDS Christian" has been my preferred quick descriptor of myself this last year or two.  Pres Nelson knocked home the point today, and I'll have to figure out how to best implement it in my life.  It's going to take some feeling out. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

While it is one thing to issue a press release regarding the need for change, it is quite another to acknowledge in front of the whole Church that we need to change the ways we do things. As I look upon the frame of this 95 year old man, and observe his countenance and gently prompting words, I realize I have been waiting to hear what he is telling the Church for 20 years. I know our Savior is happy with the new emphasis to use His name when speaking of His Church. Although when speaking of myself I may still refer to myself as LDS Christian, I have made a renewed effort when speaking of the Church at large to use the Church of Jesus Christ in my posts. 

I for one will not be sad to see the day when Mormonism becomes a thing of the past. However, I acknowledge the bravery and hard work of those who have gone before and have preserved and spread the restored gospel, for my sake and the sake of my ancestors. May the restored gospel live for ever in the hearts of people everywhere, and if others wish to call me a restorationist, I will happily accept that label, and proclaim the restored gospel of our Savior, Jesus Christ! And if they wish to call me Yeshuan, I will gladly accept that brand of His name as well!

How do you plan to follow  Pres. Nelson's admonition?

If you are not an LDS Christian, what do you think of the new emphasis not to be labeled "a Mormon"?

I think as the name of Jesus Christ takes higher priority and appreciation, it will be easy to do.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am going to put one of these on my car:

LP-11230__18790.1499360127.500.500.jpg?c

Mine will say, "I wonder what Mormon's nickname was."

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am going to put one of these on my car:

LP-11230__18790.1499360127.500.500.jpg?c

Hey, I can still call you what I want. How about The Chuckler...Ha!

I would say the greatest chance of meeting Him will come by joining the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS(shamless plug for the name - I know).

I once looked down to unsnap my beeper, and that was 1.5 secs too long. Nevertheless, I didn't move on to meet Him... and fortunately didn't cause anyone else to do so either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Honestly, it seems like much ado about nothing. My church firmly believes that we are the Church of Christ, established by Him and His Apostles and led by a direct successor of St. Peter and we are perfectly fine being called Catholic even though that does not contain the name of Christ. In the Nicene Creed it says, "I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."

I don't see my usage changing much. I already refer to your church as the LDS church, not the Mormon church. I can try to use LDS instead of Mormon when referring to a member of your church, but I'm not going to stress about it if I end up calling someone a Mormon here and there. It is not offensive and the reasons given for the change have nothing to do with removing a pejorative. Instead, it seems to be a way to strengthen your truth claims, which makes it less persuasive for non-members to do. I will continue to use Mormonism to refer to the totality of your experience: religion + theology + culture, because using "restored gospel of Jesus Christ" instead, as they style guide suggests, is 1) too long and 2) not neutral when it comes to truth claims.

I am curious to see how this all plays out over the next few years. I seriously doubt you'll have much success in the change with non-members; you've been Mormons for way too long ;)  I suppose the press will try to follow the style guide out of journalistic respect, but they will also have to make sure their readers know what church they are writing about, so I imagine the second or third sentence in an article will clarify that they are talking about the Mormons.

Anyways, good luck with the changes :)

 

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts after you have read Pres. Nelson's remarks on the name change that he just spoke of at the last session.  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, bluebell said:

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts after you have read Pres. Nelson's remarks on the name change that he just spoke of at the last session.  :) 

When will that be available?

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, MiserereNobis said:

When will that be available?

I'm not sure.  You might be able to watch it sometime today but I think the written version takes a bit longer.

His remarks focus on our belief that Christ specifically told JS what the name of the church should be (and also specified at that time that any church called by a man's name is that man's church and not His), and that to call it by any other name, even a nickname, is disobedience to His command.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Honestly, it seems like much ado about nothing. My church firmly believes that we are the Church of Christ, established by Him and His Apostles and led by a direct successor of St. Peter and we are perfectly fine being called Catholic even though that does not contain the name of Christ. In the Nicene Creed it says, "I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."

Well, in the U.S. at least we beat yuze gize to the name of "The Church of Jesus Christ," but you did have your chance...

Quote

I don't see my usage changing much. I already refer to your church as the LDS church, not the Mormon church. I can try to use LDS instead of Mormon when referring to a member of your church, but I'm not going to stress about it if I end up calling someone a Mormon here and there. It is not offensive and the reasons given for the change have nothing to do with removing a pejorative.

If a name offends someone, then it is offensive. Blacks have succeeded in changing their moniker from colored people to blacks, and now to African Americans. I do think some people use the name Mormons as a pejorative and a separator from their idea of Christianity. That way they can call us the "Mormon cult." That is not likely to happen as "LDS Christian cult."

Quote

Instead, it seems to be a way to strengthen your truth claims, which makes it less persuasive for non-members to do. I will continue to use Mormonism to refer to the totality of your experience: religion + theology + culture, because using "restored gospel of Jesus Christ" instead, as they style guide suggests, is 1) too long and 2) not neutral when it comes to truth claims.

I am curious to see how this all plays out over the next few years. I seriously doubt you'll have much success in the change with non-members; you've been Mormons for way too long ;)  I suppose the press will try to follow the style guide out of journalistic respect, but they will also have to make sure their readers know what church they are writing about, so I imagine the second or third sentence in an article will clarify that they are talking about the Mormons.

Anyways, good luck with the changes :)

Thank you. And thank you for being willing to refer to me as LDS Christian. I appreciate it. Since the press has a large impact on modern thinking, I think their following the style guide will definitely have an impact. I think if they talk about LDS, it is familiar enough for people to know who is being referred to ie "Mormons."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm not sure.  You might be able to watch it sometime today but I think the written version takes a bit longer.

His remarks focus on our belief that Christ specifically told JS what the name of the church should be (and also specified at that time that any church called by a man's name is that man's church and not His), and that to call it by any other name, even a nickname, is disobedience to His command.  

Thanks.

Sounds like you all are going to have to change things up if he says it's disobedient to use Mormon. I still don't see non-Members changing, especially if the reason given is that Christ commanded it, but maybe after a generation or three it will slowly permeate into non-LDS culture.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

If a name offends someone, then it is offensive

Just to check: are you offended when someone calls you a Mormon?

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, MiserereNobis said:

Thanks.

Sounds like you all are going to have to change things up if he says it's disobedient to use Mormon. I still don't see non-Members changing, especially if the reason given is that Christ commanded it, but maybe after a generation or three it will slowly permeate into non-LDS culture.

 

Yes, Pres. Nelson mentioned that it's not about forcing nonmembers to use any specific title.  This is about what members are doing more than anyone else.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Just to check: are you offended when someone calls you a Mormon?

I am if I request to be called LDS Christian and they refuse. 

I have had internet forums refuse to accept me as a "Christian" poster, and insist on my registering under their "mormon" moniker. I was offended by that since it disallowed me in certain forums. But, in general, no, I am not particularly offended by being called a Mormon. The problem for me is that non-LDS then "naturally" refer to the Church as the "Mormon Church" and then members accede to that. It is just something we need to not allow so easily. I believe it is offensive to our Savior.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I chuckled when I opened the LA Times this morning and saw this headline...

Mormons' church commitment each Sunday to be relaxed, leaders say

 

This was down at the end of the article:

The Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press are monitoring the rebranding, but their stylebooks still allow for use of the word “Mormon” in articles about the faith.

That seems a prudent thing for the press to do. Acknowledge the requested change, monitor the situation, and see if it warrants a change in the stylebook.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think as the name of Jesus Christ takes higher priority and appreciation, it will be easy to do.

My late wife was not a fan of "Mormonism" or "Mormon" as either a personal epithet or an adjective (as in "Mormon Church"), and in 35 years I don't think I ever heard her call herself a Mormon or refer to the Church as the "Mormon Church".  In her last few years, she usually identified the Church as the "Church of Christ" or "Church of Jesus Christ", and usually didn't add "of Latter-day Saints" unless it seemed necessary to avoid confusion.  She would have been most appreciative of the current push in how to properly identify the church.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Just to check: are you offended when someone calls you a Mormon?

Yes I am you papist scum! ;) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I once looked down to unsnap my beeper, and that was 1.5 secs too long. Nevertheless, I didn't move on to meet Him... and fortunately didn't cause anyone else to do so either.

Back in 1979 I was once busying myself with the radio dial for an half-second too long and when I looked up I was about 2 seconds from rear-ending a car that had stopped for a left turn.  My youthful reflexes and a small racing steering wheel enabled me to whip my Ford Pinto around the stopped car with bare inches to spare.  I drove on in shock for about 10 seconds and then pulled over to have a severe case of the shakes.  Before that day I had only rarely put on my seatbelt, but after that I almost never did without them.  That was scary!

Share this post


Link to post

Sincere question I’ve been pondering today.

I get the logic of not calling the Lords church by another’s name. But the Lord allows, perhaps commands, that his saving authority - priesthood - be named after imperfect mortal servants, Aaron and Melchizedek.

In fact, D/C 107 (below) explains that the true name of the higher priesthood includes the saviors name, but was changed to avoid repetition of his name so the name stays in reverence. Can anyone harmonize these apparently conflicting naming instructions? 

 

Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.

Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.

But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Sincere question I’ve been pondering today.

I get the logic of not calling the Lords church by another’s name. But the Lord allows, perhaps commands, that his saving authority - priesthood - be named after imperfect mortal servants, Aaron and Melchizedek.

In fact, D/C 107 (below) explains that the true name of the higher priesthood includes the saviors name, but was changed to avoid repetition of his name so the name stays in reverence. Can anyone harmonize these apparently conflicting naming instructions? 

 

Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.

Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.

But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.

 

We have to refer to the Priesthood a lot. We do not have to repeat the name of the church a lot.

Share this post


Link to post

 

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We have to refer to the Priesthood a lot. We do not have to repeat the name of the church a lot.

Really? Not in my experience. Prior to this conference I’d utter the words ‘Mormon church’ or say ‘I’m a mormon’ way more often than I would use the phrase ‘Melchizedek priesthhood’. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Honestly, it seems like much ado about nothing. My church firmly believes that we are the Church of Christ, established by Him and His Apostles and led by a direct successor of St. Peter and we are perfectly fine being called Catholic even though that does not contain the name of Christ. In the Nicene Creed it says, "I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."

FWIW, I believe that the epithet "Catholic" is an Anglicization of the transliteration ("katholikos") of the Greek "καθολικός", meaning "Universal".

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

 

Really? Not in my experience. Prior to this conference I’d utter the words ‘Mormon church’ or say ‘I’m a mormon’ way more often than I would use the phrase ‘Melchizedek priesthhood’. 

I work in an administrative calling so I might be biased.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×