Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Good for you Pres. Nelson!


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'd guess this push to move away from what people recognize the Church as will stick around in Church for a while, a couple years.  But most others will have a hard time caring about the church without a name and it's admonishing ways.  And the church will realize how silly it is to get worked up about the name.  But perhaps in all of this the church will gain a better understanding and appreciation for what they call the scriptures.  

I don't think our Lord feels the name of His Church is silly - and I don't think He cares for the most common name being bantered about as "the Mormon Church." His word is what makes Him our leader, and if you think the name is a silly concern, it seems you don't care what He thinks...or says. 

Despite what others say about Nelson, I believe he is bravely steering the Church away from using this pet name, and warning us about errors which have crept into the Church. This is what the servants of the Lord are supposed to do.... steer the Church even when it is not popular. So, I commend him. And I commend others who have refrained from acceding to "Mormon Church." It is not a hard thing. I think reluctance to give it up is in itself a matter of feeling a loss of identity... and the pride that goes with it.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It has been a funny looking scene when LDS members get up set at the notion that weirdo offshoots are called Mormons.  "that precious nickname refers to members of the COJCOLDS exclusively" was the refrain.  NOw they'll have to be like, "well Jesus got really upset and apparently offended when we demanded we were Mormons and not members of the Churchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaints so now we can shed the nickname and you are free to use it for weirdo offshoots and not get up riled up."  

If we just call ourselves "Saints" that's declaring we're sanctified.  From what I understand from the endowment ordinances - only women priestesses in our church can declare this to be true.  Strong's #40 hágios – properly, different (unlike), other ("otherness"), holy; for the believer, 40 (hágios) means "likeness of nature with the Lord" because "different from the world."

Should we discuss canonization?  2 verified miracles?  There's likely only 10 - 20 couples/year who receive the second anointing. 

Edited by blueglass
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I do not believe there is any historical evidence as to exactly when the Saints were first referred to as Mormons and that it was Protestants who began the practice. The best evidence is that it was the press; newspaper writers who began the practice very early on. Of course, if it was the press, the individuals using the term could have been Protestant, Jewish, Catholic, atheist . . . who knows? The Painesville Telegraph was very influential in this regard once the Saints moved to Kirtland. It is said Joseph Smith was a faithful reader of that newspaper.  I have never researched of what affiliation, if any was the founder of that paper. It could have been as early as 1832 or 1833 in various newspapers around the country. I know of no evidence that Protestants began the use of the term nor that it was used to reflect a negative intent. That is the common perspective, but it may not be accurate.

I cannot  put my finger on it now, but there are several references to this in the early Church. Joseph Smith himself said something to a group of Church members that if you are called Mormons, accept it, and declare "I am a Mormon" and believe in the restored gospel, etc. In other words he meant to turn their declaration of disdain into a brand of honor. However, we do not know how he would specifically respond to calling the Church "the Mormon Church." My guess is he would frown on that. He didn't seem to respond to Church members that way but referred to them as saints. Acceding to the name Mormons was more in response to jeerers. I think he was interested in trying to remove the sting from inferences that the Church members were not Christian. Did this come from Protestants? It most certainly did. The local papers are replete with the usage of "the Mormons," and yes it was meant with disdain. Even when the Church moved out west, the eastern newspapers ran disdainful comics picturing "Mormon harems" and multi-racial wives. The name was used to avoid any inference of Christianity or Church. Now in later times Mormon Church is used unless it is "Mormon cult." As Pres Nelson said, if we won't use the proper name of the Church, it is hypocritical of us to expect others to use it. 

Edited by RevTestament
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I don't think our Lord feels the name of His Church is silly - and I don't think He cares for the most common name being bantered about as "the Mormon Church." His word is what makes Him our leader, and if you think the name is a silly concern, it seems you don't care what He thinks...or says. 
 

Nah..As it is this is really simple to me.  I don't think God cares one bit about what the name is, if he does then he's being silly and him being silly like that doesn't really make him god in my mind.   You think he cares because someone said so.  

Quote

Despite what others say about Nelson, I believe he is bravely steering the Church away from using this pet name, and warning us about errors which have crept into the Church. This is what the servants of the Lord are supposed to do.... steer the Church even when it is not popular. So, I commend him. And I commend others who have refrained from acceding to "Mormon Church." It is not a hard thing. I think reluctance to give it up is in itself a matter of feeling a loss of identity... and the pride that goes with it.

It's easy to say the name, sure.  It's hard to imagine the effectiveness of spending millions to cater to Nelson's will on this.  But, such silly, letter by the law stuff, and obeying leaders without thought kind of mindset is what has me at odds with the religion, as much as anything.  

Edited by stemelbow
Link to comment
3 hours ago, rongo said:

It sounds like you don't have gospel conversations with non-members very often, either . . . ;) With high school students who just want answers about some things, it's better to just . . . answer them, and not introduce or get pulled into the weeds on "we don't like nicknames, I know it's a common one and one you know, but anyway . . ."

 

 

For many, "Mormon" is far better than LDS or Latter-day Saint (both of which violate the spirit and the letter of President Nelson's counsel, too). "Mormon" allows you to naturally flow with the conversation and be talking about the same thing, without confusion. LDS/Latter-day Saint/formal name would needlessly pull out into the weeds, in most cases on the ground for me and LDS students. 

It will be interesting to hear how students navigte this in their conversations. 

I just don’t see a quick statement that I prefer to avoid the nicknames as getting “pulled into the weeds” — unless the question comes up. And isn’t that the point of a discussion anyway, to answer questions? 

My understanding was that President Nelson is OK with “Latter-day Saint.” Am I wrong in this? And why is “Mormon” of “LDS” better? That’s not self-evident to me. 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I don't think our Lord feels the name of His Church is silly - and I don't think He cares for the most common name being bantered about as "the Mormon Church." His word is what makes Him our leader, and if you think the name is a silly concern, it seems you don't care what He thinks...or says. 

Despite what others say about Nelson, I believe he is bravely steering the Church away from using this pet name, and warning us about errors which have crept into the Church. This is what the servants of the Lord are supposed to do.... steer the Church even when it is not popular. So, I commend him. And I commend others who have refrained from acceding to "Mormon Church." It is not a hard thing. I think reluctance to give it up is in itself a matter of feeling a loss of identity... and the pride that goes with it.

So does this mean that our our prophets (including Nelson himself) over the past couple decades have been leading the church astray by promoting the use of the name Mormon?

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, blueglass said:

If we just call ourselves "Saints" that's declaring we're sanctified.  From what I understand from the endowment ordinances - only women priestesses in our church can declare this to be true.  Strong's #40 hágios – properly, different (unlike), other ("otherness"), holy; for the believer, 40 (hágios) means "likeness of nature with the Lord" because "different from the world."

Should we discuss canonization?  2 verified miracles?  There's likely only 10 - 20 couples/year who receive the second anointing. 

huh?

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Nah..As it is this is really simple to me.  I don't think God cares one bit about what the name is, if he does then he's being silly and him being silly like that doesn't really make him god in my mind.   You think he cares because someone said so.  

Yes. He said so. I honor Him - not Mormon. 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So does this mean that our our prophets (including Nelson himself) over the past couple decades have been leading the church astray by promoting the use of the name Mormon?

I think that depends on the specific circumstance. I personally don't think we need to get too bent out of shape when the term is used for an individual ie Are you a Mormon? I realize that is going to happen lots. I typically respond that "I call myself a LDS Christian." I don't accede to the usage of "are you in the Mormon Church?" I will respond that there are a number of sects which call themselves Mormon, but I am a member of the original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I think most if not all those Church leaders may respond similarly. If Nelson himself admits he was wrong to say what he used to - more power to him. I think it high time Church leaders acknowledge some of the errors which have crept into the Church. They are going to have to sooner or later anyway - the Lord will correct His Church to the extent He has to.

Link to comment

I have been reflecting on the promises that President Nelson made in conference regarding this name change restoration.  They are surprisingly profound!

He said:

I promise you that if we will do our best to restore the correct name of the Lord’s Church, He whose Church this is will pour down His power and blessings upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints, the likes of which we have never seen... We will have the knowledge and power of God to help us take the blessings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people and to prepare the world for the Second Coming of the Lord.”

Maybe there is more to this name change than meets the eye.

He also said "it is the command of the Lord". 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I think that depends on the specific circumstance. I personally don't think we need to get too bent out of shape when the term is used for an individual ie Are you a Mormon? I realize that is going to happen lots. I typically respond that "I call myself a LDS Christian." I don't accede to the usage of "are you in the Mormon Church?" I will respond that there are a number of sects which call themselves Mormon, but I am a member of the original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I think most if not all those Church leaders may respond similarly. If Nelson himself admits he was wrong to say what he used to - more power to him. I think it high time Church leaders acknowledge some of the errors which have crept into the Church. They are going to have to sooner or later anyway - the Lord will correct His Church to the extent He has to.

I wasn't referring to how church leaders may have personally referred to the church or their membership.

I was referring to past church leaders very intentional (and costly) efforts to make the church known by the Mormon nomenclature:  Mormon.org, I'm a Mormon campaign, pass a long cards, "Meet the Mormons", Mormon Newsroom, and all of the church managed social media channel bearing the Mormon name.

Were those leaders leading the church astray?

Link to comment
4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The Church is kind of goofy on this front, judging by history.  Sometimes cute little things like this get elevated to taboo status and sometimes they just die out.  I think it'll die out, and as it does people will realize, "oh this has nothing to do with prophetic counsel.  it has everything to do with Pres Neslon's preferences".  And one day the new prophet will shrug his shoulders and perhaps, hopefully, concern hisself with more important matters.  

The proper name of the Church is not only scriptural, it has been taught and emphasized for many years. I have no doubt that the high leaders of the Church are unified on it. I think the reason it id getting renewed emphasis now is that too many have been too determined for too long to ignore it. 

And I don’t believe “hisself” is a recognized pronoun in the English language. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, blueglass said:

It's great to see how a living prophet after so many years since his talk in April 1990, is now in a position to do something about it and push through the change.  His recent talk reveals more on the power dynamics within the quorum of 12 and first presidency.  Hinckley's talk was a great talk embracing "mormon" as more good, and more of tolerance, and mutual respect, and helpfulness.   President Nelson's talk completely destroys Hinckley's ideas as a massive distraction which offended the Lord for decades.   

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

The baton was then carried to President Monson's daughter Ann Dibb, "“I’m a Mormon. Are you?”

"I Know It. I Live It. I Love It."  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/i-know-it-i-live-it-i-love-it?lang=eng

This talk by Ann Dibb became our stake missionary work theme for 5 years.  

 

I reject the notion that President Hinckley or anyone else opposed the move to teach people to use the proper name of the Church as commanded by Christ. If I remember correctly, the formal style guide expressing the desire that the proper name of the Church be used and discouraging “Mormon church” or “LDS Church” was first published during President Hinckley’s presidency. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The proper name of the Church is not only scriptural, it has been taught and emphasized for many years. I have no doubt that the high leaders of the Church are unified on it. I think the reason it id getting renewed emphasis now is that too many have been too determined for too long to ignore it. 

This strikes me as a little bit of "revisionist history"...

The "high leaders of the Church are unified on it"?  What were they unified on when they were doing everything possible to get the "Mormon" name branded on everything?

And "too many have been too determined for too long to ignore it"?  Decades ago when the admonition came from our leaders to not use the term "Mormon", I followed it.  I kept following it all the way up to the time that the church leaders started promoting it again.

Edited by rockpond
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I reject the notion that President Hinckley or anyone else opposed the move to teach people to use the proper name of the Church as commanded by Christ. If I remember correctly, the formal style guide expressing the desire that the proper name of the Church be used and discouraging “Mormon church” or “LDS Church” was first published during President Hinckley’s presidency. 

good for you.  That's not what I was talking about (the official name of the church 115:4).

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I wasn't referring to how church leaders may have personally referred to the church or their membership.

I was referring to past church leaders very intentional (and costly) efforts to make the church known by the Mormon nomenclature:  Mormon.org, I'm a Mormon campaign, pass a long cards, "Meet the Mormons", Mormon Newsroom, and all of the church managed social media channel bearing the Mormon name.

Were those leaders leading the church astray?

In this particular regard, I believe the Church leaders were trying to create a Church identity - it was part of the push under Hinckley to mainstream the Church. I personally felt that Hinckley began to de-emphasize that Heavenly Father was a man, and it seemed to me the Snow couplet was removed from teaching materials for a couple of years. Did I agree with this media blitz? No. Not really. To the extent that it brought some people to the gospel it was good, but I have never liked the push to popularize the Mormon identity. It is a name which has become known, and was "brandable." The Church tried to turn it into a positive. But now 20 years later what do we have to show for it? The most paltry growth rates in at least 80 years if not ever in the history of the Church. If history is a teacher it seems the intended result has been reversed. Perhaps rather than relying on the advice of advertising firms we should have relied upon the spirit.   

I personally know Church leaders have been incorrect about a good number of things. This is personal knowledge, which is not easily conveyed to other Church members - that is not really my place to do, and I have not striven to teach other Church members these things - I don't believe their salvation is in jeopardy, and they will learn them sooner or later. I have striven to teach other Christians the truths of the restored gospel, and will otherwise refrain from derailing this thread.  

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

In this particular regard, I believe the Church leaders were trying to create a Church identity - it was part of the push under Hinckley to mainstream the Church. I personally felt that Hinckley began to de-emphasize that Heavenly Father was a man, and it seemed to me the Snow couplet was removed from teaching materials for a couple of years. Did I agree with this media blitz? No. Not really. To the extent that it brought some people to the gospel it was good, but I have never liked the push to popularize the Mormon identity. It is a name which has become known, and was "brandable." The Church tried to turn it into a positive. But now 20 years later what do we have to show for it? The most paltry growth rates in at least 80 years if not ever in the history of the Church. If history is a teacher it seems the intended result has been reversed. Perhaps rather than relying on the advice of advertising firms we should have relied upon the spirit.   

I personally know Church leaders have been incorrect about a good number of things. This is personal knowledge, which is not easily conveyed to other Church members - that is not really my place to do, and I have not striven to teach other Church members these things - I don't believe their salvation is in jeopardy, and they will learn them sooner or later. I have striven to teach other Christians the truths of the restored gospel, and will otherwise refrain from derailing this thread.  

I doubt slowing growth has anything to do with the name. More likely it's cultural and demographic shifts (affecting almost all churches, really)

Link to comment

I remember the old baiting question...”are you a Mormon or a moron?” I’ll never again be able to answer, “I’m a Mormon. Which are you?” Sad day. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

huh?

"through your faithfulness"  you may become clean "tahor" strong's #2889.  There are 3 washing ordinances, baptism, endowment initiatory, and the second anointing and washing of the feet.  If we just accept the first washing as acceptable for entrance into the kingdom, to become a member of the church of Christ then we can use Ephesians 5:26 as washing by the word, John 15:3.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rockpond said:

This strikes me as a little bit of "revisionist history"...

The "high leaders of the Church are unified on it"?  What were they unified on when they were doing everything possible to get the "Mormon" name branded on everything?

And "too many have been too determined for too long to ignore it"?  Decades ago when the admonition came from our leaders to not use the term "Mormon", I followed it.  I kept following it all the way up to the time that the church leaders started promoting it again.

Those who think there hasn’t been a years-long effort by the leadership of the Church to get people to stop dropping the name of Christ from the name of the Church and to stop saying “Mormon church” or “LDS Church” haven’t been paying attention. 

If you have been complying, good for you. Many have refused to do so. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Gray said:

I think the name change thing would carry more weight if it were accompanied by a greater emphasis on Jesus in official teachings.

Jesus pervades everything that is taught in the Church. 

If bynthr above you mean you want there to be a more sectarian or Protestant-like flavor in what is taught, that ain’t gonna happen. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I think that depends on the specific circumstance. I personally don't think we need to get too bent out of shape when the term is used for an individual ie Are you a Mormon? I realize that is going to happen lots. I typically respond that "I call myself a LDS Christian." I don't accede to the usage of "are you in the Mormon Church?" I will respond that there are a number of sects which call themselves Mormon, but I am a member of the original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I think most if not all those Church leaders may respond similarly. If Nelson himself admits he was wrong to say what he used to - more power to him. I think it high time Church leaders acknowledge some of the errors which have crept into the Church. They are going to have to sooner or later anyway - the Lord will correct His Church to the extent He has to.

Which sects are you referring to that “call themselves Mormon”? Not the Community of Christ, surely, and not the Restorationist break-off groups from that body.  And I don’t know that the polygamist or fundamentalist groups do either, for that matter. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The proper name of the Church is not only scriptural, it has been taught and emphasized for many years. I have no doubt that the high leaders of the Church are unified on it. I think the reason it id getting renewed emphasis now is that too many have been too determined for too long to ignore it. 

 

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

This strikes me as a little bit of "revisionist history"...

The "high leaders of the Church are unified on it"?  What were they unified on when they were doing everything possible to get the "Mormon" name branded on everything?

 

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Those who think there hasn’t been a years-long effort by the leadership of the Church to get people to stop dropping the name of Christ from the name of the Church and to stop saying “Mormon church” or “LDS Church” haven’t been paying attention. 

If you have been complying, good for you. Many have refused to do so. 

 

There has been a years long effort by the leadership of the Church to promote "Mormon" nomenclature.

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

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