Jump to content
RevTestament

Good for you Pres. Nelson!

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

I think she is publishing a paper of some sort on spiritual abuse within the Church.  

Yes. She's serious. 

Vaguely,  I think she was ex'd for something some time ago.  

I’m not aware of her being excommunicated, I’m fairly certain she is an active member. 

She is also a professor at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

President Nelson didn’t make it a revelation or a commandment, the Lord did

I understand that's what you believe.  

I believe that President Nelson has been bothered by this for quite awhile and it's been a pet peeve of his.  Once he became the Prophet, he took it to the Lord in prayer and feels he got a confirmation that a change or (new emphasis) was something that would be a good cause for him to push with the members.  I support him in this and will do my best to use the proper name of the church from now on.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I’m not aware of her being excommunicated, I’m fairly certain she is an active member. 

She is also a professor at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand. 

Whoever she is, she is an articulate voice and that voice may speak for the silent thinking of a lot of folks in and outside the Church. Such a voice is worthy of our attention. You don't have to agree to listen and learn.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, california boy said:

I am going to put on my marketing hat for a moment. and let's see where this whole rebranding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is headed.  With less than 1% of the world's population, I think we can all agree that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one of the smallest religious organizations in the world.  If I mention Tiburon, Sonata, Tuscon, Santa Fe, Lavita, Grandure, Gensis, Veracurz or Terracan, would you have any idea what I  was talking about?  What if I told you they all refer to a car company, would you know what car company I was talking about?  

This is what is happening with the dismantling of the "Mormon" brand.  Instead of having one big overall name that is associated with the church, what is happening is that branding is breaking up into a hundred and eventually thousands of different pieces.  What was once all associated with the Mormon church is now sounding like vegetable soup.  The Third Hour, We Believe, Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square, etc.  I can't even recall all of the new names because broken apart from the brand "Mormon", they all become forgettable,   This isn't a rebranding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  This is a dismantling of the branding of the "Mormon" Church.  

This is the impact of what President Nelson is attempting to do.  This is what you don't do if you want to have a bigger name recognition of a small organization or company in the marketplace.  What small presence the "Mormon" Church had in the marketplace is going to push the Church into further obscurity.  All those small organizations that used to help in supporting the "Mormon" brand are all disappearing.  

And the car company?  You probably do recognize Hyundi.  There is a reason all marketing is done under the Hyundi brand, rather than each of the models of the cars they make.  By putting them all under the Hyundi brand, the recognition of the car company becomes much bigger than the individual cars they make.  

You left out Entourage! I drive a Hyundai, and still don't know how to say it. In fact it's been a good van, but wish it would die! My kids want me to ditch the van, haha! 

I think you make a very good point about the church now becoming obscure by blending it in with other churches that believe in Christ. I think the church had a different flavor to add to that belief, a huge unique flavor that it use to speak about in zest! And I can see now how that different Christ/God is much better in some ways than some Bible belief churches that think it is literal.

Recently listened to a Mormonstories podcast that has a woman on there that left Mormonism and studied many faiths and came to literal belief that we can burn in hell if we don't accept all of the Bible to the letter. Well, at least Mormonism has a little bit better softer landing and doesn't believe we'll burn in hell. I'll give it that much. But that is the flavor, the church may bury if they blend too much with the other churches and stop others from further research with it's uniqueness.

Here is the podcast, segment 4, it about had me running back to the church! I can see why some Christians join the church! The church has added so many flavors to the mix, flavors that give people more personal power. So I hope it can stand out, by keeping it's nickname Mormon, although I never referred to myself as Mormon, always LDS! Pres. Nelson's talk in 1990 probably affected me more than I know. 

https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/kathleen-melonakos/

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Whoever she is, she is an articulate voice and that voice may speak for the silent thinking of a lot of folks in and outside the Church. Such a voice is worthy of our attention. You don't have to agree to listen and learn.

So you think a lot of folks are thinking that President Nelson decided to push the correct name of the Church now because of some devious stragety to divide us?

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Whoever she is, she is an articulate voice and that voice may speak for the silent thinking of a lot of folks in and outside the Church. Such a voice is worthy of our attention. You don't have to agree to listen and learn.

I agree and I have listened to a few of her podcasts.  She’s an important voice (in my opinion) and expresses how many members feel & believe.

I’ve heard several members say things similar to what’s in her quote about the name of the church (posted earlier).  She speaks her mind, but many members probably agree with her.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

So you think a lot of folks are thinking that President Nelson decided to push the correct name of the Church now because of some devious stragety to divide us?

 

It doesn’t need to be “devious” to be part of the reason or motivation on his part, does it?

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

I disagree. There is nothing fearful for the Saints in using the proper name, but there are people and demons who are very fearful of using the name of Christ

What people are fearful of using the name of Christ?  Who do you have in mind?  

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

So you think a lot of folks are thinking that President Nelson decided to push the correct name of the Church now because of some devious stragety to divide us?

 

Nope, I don't believe that. I believe after reading her post that she is articulate and may speak for the silent thinking of a lot of folks in and outside the Church. I don't buy her devious strategy concept, but I know for sure there are differing views among members of the Church on the concept of prophet, seer, and revelator and on the hierarchy, Benson's 15 points about the Prophets, etc. Obviously my opinion has no bearing or significance to LDS Christians. I can only say I have been in local senior leadership positions and have long encouraged all voices within our church to be heard, especially on decisions that impact it as a whole. I have never heard dissenting voices from the then current thinking cause damage to our church. In fact, it brings a much stronger cohesion as we respect ponder on and evaluate differences. My own personal observation as an outsider who has discussions with a lot of insiders at various events is that the pondering is going on, but only in frightened shadows in situations where folks feel they won't be "betrayed" for their thoughts. When I first came to this forum I thought it might be a healthy place where folks could sort of remain in the shadows but still voice their concerns, opinions, etc in a safe and non-judgmental way; that they (the opinions) could then be discussed and a dialogue result. I was wrong on that, but I still enjoy hearing differing perspectives. I don't mean anything negative about this forum, but it saddens me to read a heterodox (from a Latter-day Saint) perspective) comment made by an obviously intelligent and sincere poster and the apologists pounce. I am very interested in that which has been described as the priest-scholar debate in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have heard from both the priests and the scholars, and the priest-scholars (a group faithfully struggling). I don't mean to highjack the thread. Maybe I will start one on the priest-scholar issues as I see them as an outside-insider. I don't know if that would be of any interest or not.

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It doesn’t need to be “devious” to be part of the reason or motivation on his part, does it?

 

What exactly does calculated and worrying mean if not devious?

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What people are fearful of using the name of Christ?  Who do you have in mind?  

The enemies of Christ 

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

What exactly does calculated and worrying mean if not devious?

Calculated means deliberate (in my mind).  It does not mean devious (but of course can be.....just not necessarily).  And it does seem to be "worrying" for her (she's expressing her opinion).

I don't agree that it's worrisome.

I do think that Pres. Nelson may feel this is a test or is watching to see which members adhere to it or obey.  There's nothing wrong with him doing that either (and there's nothing devious about that, IMO).

 

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It doesn’t need to be “devious” to be part of the reason or motivation on his part, does it?

 

No. 

It could be intentional (but not devious) that eliminating the use of “Mormon” amongst the orthodox members serves to separate out entities like “Mormon Stories”.  That thought had crossed my mind since MS recently paid to advertise on a rather prominent SLC billboard. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No. 

It could be intentional (but not devious) that eliminating the use of “Mormon” amongst the orthodox members serves to separate out entities like “Mormon Stories”.  That thought had crossed my mind since MS recently paid to advertise on a rather prominent SLC billboard. 

I also believe it's to hopefully discard much of the negative connotations attached to the word "Mormon".  A lot of that includes much that the leaders would rather not have to discuss or deal with or answer questions about (even though they've been almost forced to publish and teach more about many of them, IMO).

Say the word "Mormon" to a nonmember and most immediately think of polygamy (and may even joke about it).  But, say "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and most won't think of polygamy (many probably won't even associate it with "Mormon").

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I do think that Pres. Nelson may feel this is a test or is watching to see which members adhere to it or obey.  There's nothing wrong with him doing that either (and there's nothing devious about that, IMO).

I don't think that thinking even entered his mind - nor any of the apostles. I don';t think there is any need to test members. Their activity is test enough. It tells me they are serious for the Lord. They volunteer their time, and their talents and even all that they have sometimes. There are still members who donate land to the Church. It's my understanding one local member did that for the Payson temple. We are already loyal to the Lord - even unorthodox members.  We may have different ideas on how to best proceed, but then we all have different talents and aptitudes. 

And what would he do to those who still use "Mormon Church?" Excommunicate them? That would be counter-productive and silly. It really is merely a habit I think we need to change in favor of a new more obedient habit, that our Lord may bless His Church and more fully publish His name. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I don't think that thinking even entered his mind - nor any of the apostles. I don';t think there is any need to test members. Their activity is test enough. It tells me they are serious for the Lord. They volunteer their time, and their talents and even all that they have sometimes. There are still members who donate land to the Church. It's my understanding one local member did that for the Payson temple. We are already loyal to the Lord - even unorthodox members.  We may have different ideas on how to best proceed, but then we all have different talents and aptitudes. 

And what would he do to those who still use "Mormon Church?" Excommunicate them? That would be counter-productive and silly. It really is merely a habit I think we need to change in favor of a new more obedient habit, that our Lord may bless His Church and more fully publish His name. 

That’s a nice thought but I don’t see it in practice.  My experience is that orthodox belief trumps all.  My service and devotion to the church don’t matter much to people when they hear my heterodox beliefs. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I also believe it's to hopefully discard much of the negative connotations attached to the word "Mormon".  A lot of that includes much that the leaders would rather not have to discuss or deal with or answer questions about (even though they've been almost forced to publish and teach more about many of them, IMO).

Say the word "Mormon" to a nonmember and most immediately think of polygamy (and may even joke about it).  But, say "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and most won't think of polygamy (many probably won't even associate it with "Mormon").

Could be true but that would be discouraging considering that Pres. Nelson is sealed to two wives.  We still believe in plural marriage, we just don’t practice it... right now. 

Share this post


Link to post

Thread closed as requested by OP.

Skylla

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.

×