Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
RevTestament

Good for you Pres. Nelson!

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm sure this is close to what happens.  But, it shows it's far less about revelation, or led by God, then is ever stated.  It's really just business leaders making decisions, the most supported decision amongst the highest level of leadership is what they go with.  For years apparently the highest level of leaders have heard and considered Nelson's push for the name thing and the issue did not get agreement from the top leadership crew.  I've seen this exact thing play out in professional environments for years.  Someone's pet issue doesn't really get notice unless that person gets vaulted to a high position--and in this case the highest.  The Church claiming being led by god via revelation starts to sound silly, unless they are willing to admit their is nothing unique happening there.  It is really just business decisions made in the same way any other business decisions are made in any other company or enterprise.  

Perhaps a part of fallibility is a desire to appear unified, when in actuality they are not. I don't think we can really know that. To the extent that they moved on to campaigns such as I am a Mormon without being truly unified, they weren't really following the spirit of the instruction to be unified in their decisions. But I don't think we really know that either. Is it possible that the support for the I am a Mormon campaign was made solely by the President as the corporate sole and holder of the purse strings? I am not sure we know that either. So there are too many uncertainties to conclude that they are making purely business decisions. Sorry you feel that way. I do not. I do think they are just as fallible as the Biblical prophets and certainly just as fallible or moreso than Joseph Smith. The desire to paint themselves as infallible I think is unfortunate, because it causes all this debate and unrest every time a change in direction is made and seems to result in some members becoming disenchanted. Maybe the Church is OK with that. I am not. It's a kind of worship-the-prophet syndrome I don't care for.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I fully understand that there are some intra-family (LDS) disputes into which I should probably not step. I am an outsider and as such my perspective will not always be appreciated. I also realize that I do not always say things well. Anyway, here I go . . .  I only speak from a non-LDS Christian perspective - in no way am I anti-LDS Christians. I spent some of this week studying Joseph Smith's letters from the Liberty jail. I gained insight from those and learned a new phrase - "wimbling willows." He referred to Governor Boggs and his followers as "wimbling willows" beside a river. I checked dictionaries and asked five professors of 19th century American literature what the term "wimbling" might have meant in that context. Not one could identify the word in Smith's context (only the noun as a farm tool designed to bore holes in wood). Those kinds of intellectual pursuits fascinate me. Maybe I am a "wimbling willow," whatever that means! I digress.

I would simply like to reflect that most evangelicals and Protestants who reject LDS doctrine, reject it because of its Christology. That is a major stumbling block. Thinking that using the name Jesus Christ in the name of the Church will be appealing or validating to non-LDS Christians is probably an intent that will never be realized. It makes no matter (remember the OP requested non-LDS Christians to weigh in on this) what is in the name; the LDS doctrine of Christ is a non-starter for many and they reject LDS doctrine out of hand because of it. I don't and I know a growing number who don't, but many, probably the majority do. Obviously I am not suggesting that the LDS Christians change their doctrine, but just pointing out that much of the non-LDS Christian opposition to the Church is based on its doctrine of Christ. This is not a prejudice, it is not a bias, nor is it just because they want to be anti-LDS Christian. It is a genuine, very important doctrinal difference. It may stem from misunderstandings, challenges in the differences of usage of common terms, or it may simply be a difference.

Whatever LDS Christians call themselves will not make a difference to many. I would also suggest that my experiences with the split-off groups from the LDS Christian church suggest that they claim Joseph Smith as their prophet and the Book of Mormon as a founding Scripture of their church. Therefore to most non-LDS Christians they are Mormons too. I think you all may be underestimating that. My personal experience is limited to Lebarons and to Community of Christ members and historians. They gladly accept a "Mormon heritage" and a sense of themselves as Mormons. I have not observed any hesitation in that whether it is at a rodeo in Chihuahua or a conference in Independence. I hope my comments, while they may be irrelevant, have not been offensive. best to each of you.

I love reading your comments and value your honest input.  I also agree with much of what you state above.

We were discussing this recent name emphasis by President Nelson in an informal Bishopric meeting this week, and we also feel that this is part of an ongoing desire to become more thought of as a mainstream Christian religion.  It's an effort to hopefully distance ourselves from so many uncomfortable or troubling events and issues from the past (such as polygamy, for example....which is what many nonmembers immediately think of when they hear the word Mormon....also the anti-gay reputation, the Mormon involvement with prop 8....and so on... ).  I believe there are many reasons why Pres. Nelson is pushing so hard for this and I do understand.  However, I highly doubt it will be successful outside the very active members.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Perhaps a part of fallibility is a desire to appear unified, when in actuality they are not. I don't think we can really know that. To the extent that they moved on to campaigns such as I am a Mormon without being truly unified, they weren't really following the spirit of the instruction to be unified in their decisions. But I don't think we really know that either. Is it possible that the support for the I am a Mormon campaign was made solely by the President as the corporate sole and holder of the purse strings? I am not sure we know that either. So there are too many uncertainties to conclude that they are making purely business decisions. Sorry you feel that way. I do not. I do think they are just as fallible as the Biblical prophets and certainly just as fallible or moreso than Joseph Smith. The desire to paint themselves as infallible I think is unfortunate, because it causes all this debate and unrest every time a change in direction is made and seems to result in some members becoming disenchanted. Maybe the Church is OK with that. I am not. It's a kind of worship-the-prophet syndrome I don't care for.

 

 

 

 

I didn't raise the issue of fallibility here.  not sure what you're exactly going for.  I'm merely pointing out that the claim for latter-day revelation and uniqueness on that front feels hollow.  

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Navidad said:

I fully understand that there are some intra-family (LDS) disputes into which I should probably not step. I am an outsider and as such my perspective will not always be appreciated. I also realize that I do not always say things well. Anyway, here I go . . .  I only speak from a non-LDS Christian perspective - in no way am I anti-LDS Christians. I spent some of this week studying Joseph Smith's letters from the Liberty jail. I gained insight from those and learned a new phrase - "wimbling willows." He referred to Governor Boggs and his followers as "wimbling willows" beside a river. I checked dictionaries and asked five professors of 19th century American literature what the term "wimbling" might have meant in that context. Not one could identify the word in Smith's context (only the noun as a farm tool designed to bore holes in wood). Those kinds of intellectual pursuits fascinate me. Maybe I am a "wimbling willow," whatever that means! I digress.

I would simply like to reflect that most evangelicals and Protestants who reject LDS doctrine, reject it because of its Christology. That is a major stumbling block. Thinking that using the name Jesus Christ in the name of the Church will be appealing or validating to non-LDS Christians is probably an intent that will never be realized. It makes no matter (remember the OP requested non-LDS Christians to weigh in on this) what is in the name; the LDS doctrine of Christ is a non-starter for many and they reject LDS doctrine out of hand because of it. I don't and I know a growing number who don't, but many, probably the majority do. Obviously I am not suggesting that the LDS Christians change their doctrine, but just pointing out that much of the non-LDS Christian opposition to the Church is based on its doctrine of Christ. This is not a prejudice, it is not a bias, nor is it just because they want to be anti-LDS Christian. It is a genuine, very important doctrinal difference. It may stem from misunderstandings, challenges in the differences of usage of common terms, or it may simply be a difference.

Whatever LDS Christians call themselves will not make a difference to many. I would also suggest that my experiences with the split-off groups from the LDS Christian church suggest that they claim Joseph Smith as their prophet and the Book of Mormon as a founding Scripture of their church. Therefore to most non-LDS Christians they are Mormons too. I think you all may be underestimating that. My personal experience is limited to Lebarons and to Community of Christ members and historians. They gladly accept a "Mormon heritage" and a sense of themselves as Mormons. I have not observed any hesitation in that whether it is at a rodeo in Chihuahua or a conference in Independence. I hope my comments, while they may be irrelevant, have not been offensive. best to each of you.

Do you call the Community of Christ the Mormon Church? Does anyone else refer to them as the Mormon Church? Do they refer to themselves as the Mormon Church? That is the crux of the matter. 

I agree with you that Protestants and evangelicals in the Americas will continue to call the Saints "Mormons" and refer to us as the Mormon Church. I believe this is largely because our "Christology" and beliefs about the nature of God are different from their's so they do not want to call us Christian. But if we stop acceding to that, I believe in time that will change. As you keep telling us Protestants and evangelicals have changed. The deep-seated antagonism towards the restored gospel is not the same as it was in the earliest days of the Church, and some, such as yourself, are beginning to recognize us as Christians. And there are plenty of people in the world who do not know who the Mormons are. They do not know we believe in the Godhead much like them, and the central role and leadership Christ plays in our Church. So for them it is not too late to change. We should not continue mistakes of the past, which will result in us becoming known as the Mormon Church worldwide. Further, doing what we were is not working. So, just from a pragmatic standpoint, we need to change. From a scriptural standpoint we need to change. Everything suggests we need to change. I think one of the barriers is some pride about being known as Mormon. 

There are several options to how the Church currently tends to refer to themselves. We can call ourselves

1. The Saints. This will encourage a discussion about Daniel and how all followers - not just a select few - are Saints. However, responding to "what are you" with "I am a saint" just seems...stilted. A better option in the instance is Latter Day Saint.

2. LDS Christians. In the past this is my chosen self-identifier. I remember one conversation I had in particular with a lady on a plane with me. I think she asked about what was on my computer which led into a conversation. I said I am a LDS Christian. She asked what is that? And I said LDS stands for latter day saints. The term latter day comes from Daniel, which talks about a restoration of the kingdom in the latter days. So right away I am identifying my beliefs with something familiar to other Christians - the Bible. And just easily starting a conversation about the restored gospel. We talked for most of the rest of the flight. Now, I doubt this would have occurred if I said "these are my Mormon scriptures" to start the conversation. Maybe I am wrong, but most people would go "oh" and that is it. The end of the conversation. As it was I got The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in there. So although I will no longer say "LDS Church" I will continue to use LDS in reference to myself. It's simple, it's also widely known. It also gives an opportunity for discussion like that above. Nor will I try to correct others who use LDS Church. I will just use Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in the conversation as a gentle re-direction.

3. member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  A bit of a mouthful for me, but possible for new introductions. 

4. Disciple of Christ - too generic for me, but scripturally accurate. There are those who do not care to identify themselves with any modern Church. 

5. Messianist - sounds like a Jewish convert.

6. Possible new identifiers such as Yeshuan. I just don't think such will ever catch on.

Thank you for your thoughts. I respect you so much for showing the willingness to respect this change yourself, and being a sounding board for us so to speak. :) 

Edited by RevTestament

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Do you call the Community of Christ the Mormon Church? Does anyone else refer to them as the Mormon Church? Do they refer to themselves as the Mormon Church?

I think the difference here is that they never did refer to themselves or allow themselves to be identified as the Mormon church (that I'm aware of.....correct me if I'm wrong).  They never did an "I'm a Mormon" campaign or spoke publicly about it being a positive name and term (such as President Hinckley did, for example).

They were formerly known as the "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" ( or RLDS)....but not the Mormon Church.

Our church will have an extremely difficult time separating itself from that name (Mormon), IMO.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think the difference here is that they never did refer to themselves or allow themselves to be identified as the Mormon church (that I'm aware of.....correct me if I'm wrong).  They never did an "I'm a Mormon" campaign or spoke publicly about it being a positive name and term (such as President Hinckley did, for example).

They were formerly known as the "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" ( or RLDS)....but not the Mormon Church.

Our church will have an extremely difficult time separating itself from that name (Mormon), IMO.

No I don't call them that. I do call individual members who I know Mormons. They have not refuted that, especially the LeBarons, some of whom I know fairly well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think the difference here is that they never did refer to themselves or allow themselves to be identified as the Mormon church (that I'm aware of.....correct me if I'm wrong). 

Not wanting to argue, but PEW finds that there is a measurable percentage (0.3 %) of self-identified "Mormons" who are members of "other" Mormon churches.  (See the expanded data under "Mormon")

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Okrahomer said:

Not wanting to argue, but PEW finds that there is a measurable percentage (0.3 %) of self-identified "Mormons" who are members of "other" Mormon churches.  (See the expanded data under "Mormon")

Oh yes, I agree.  The real issue our leaders had (IMO) was how those still living polygamy (in Utah and surrounding areas) were lumped in with our church and all called Mormons.  This was something that Pres. Hinckley clarified several times.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

No I don't call them that. I do call individual members who I know Mormons. They have not refuted that, especially the LeBarons, some of whom I know fairly well.

 

Are they members of the Community of Christ Church?  (I honestly didn't think they were....but would doubt they are.)

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Are they members of the Community of Christ Church?  (I honestly didn't think they were....but would doubt they are.)

I am not real sure what you are asking me. Certainly LeBarons are not member of the Community of Christ Church. The call their church the Church of the Firstborn. They live about two hours south of us and do very well in agriculture and raising nuts.  Yes, they consider themselves Mormons. Totally separately I have had dialogue with members of the Community of Christ about their Mormon roots and heritage. They have explained all of that to me, along with some incredible insights about Mormon psychology, self-identity and the built in hard wiring (to use their term) that causes so many LDS Christians to see non-Mormons as outsiders at best and enemies at worst. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am not real sure what you are asking me. Certainly LeBarons are not member of the Community of Christ Church. 

Oh, ok....

I think I was confused by your response because this specific part of the discussion started with only referring to members of the Community of Christ Church as Mormons:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71121-good-for-you-pres-nelson/?do=findComment&comment=1209862100

But I follow you now....thanks! :)

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Are they members of the Community of Christ Church?  (I honestly didn't think they were....but would doubt they are)

PEW lists 3 response options under "Mormon":

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The Community of Christ, and "Mormon, not further specified". 

My guess is that a lot of this 0.3% would have to be from the Community of Christ, but I don't see that PEW has included specific data for that.

FWIW:  When I was growing up in small-town Oklahoma, there was one chapel and ward for Latter-day Saints and one chapel for the Reorganized.  My folks were fairly good friends with a married couple (both school teachers) who were active members of the Reorganized group.  I do recall that they seemed to avoid calling themselves Mormons; however, when I was in college and came home to work in the summers, one of the young fellows who worked with me responded to my missionary efforts toward him with this statement:  "Hey, Kevin.  No need to tell me about the Book of Mormon.  I'm a Mormon myself.  I go to the Reorganized Church."  There was also a humorous exchange that included his singing a few bars of "The Spirit of God", but one would probably have to have been there.

 

 

Edited by Okrahomer
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

My understanding is that Community of Christ members don't usually refer to themselves as Mormons.

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think the difference here is that they never did refer to themselves or allow themselves to be identified as the Mormon church (that I'm aware of.....correct me if I'm wrong).  They never did an "I'm a Mormon" campaign or spoke publicly about it being a positive name and term (such as President Hinckley did, for example).

They were formerly known as the "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" ( or RLDS)....but not the Mormon Church.

 

43 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

Not wanting to argue, but PEW finds that there is a measurable percentage (0.3 %) of self-identified "Mormons" who are members of "other" Mormon churches.  (See the expanded data under "Mormon")

Bingo. They don't get called the Mormon Church, because they don't call themselves "Mormons." Our Church culture has stubbornly hung onto that title while expecting everyone not to call us "the Mormon Church." I think it is our own fault. In the early days of the Church, the title came from Protestant critics, but things are quite different now.

39 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh yes, I agree.  The real issue our leaders had (IMO) was how those still living polygamy (in Utah and surrounding areas) were lumped in with our church and all called Mormons.  This was something that Pres. Hinckley clarified several times.

To me this is almost laughable. The Church not wanting to be called the Mormon Church, but stubbornly laying claim to the title of Mormon, and telling everyone "No, they're not Mormon, we are. They're apostates." Come now. Who else is going to call them apostates? To me it speaks clearly to why the Church gets called the Mormon Church. It has become an identity with which the Church is reluctant to depart. So what if Joseph said being Mormon is OK? Times have changed. I'm not saying there is technically anything wrong with it, but it is the root of our problem with being called and even calling ourselves "the Mormon Church." Hinckley wanted us to have our cake and eat it too. The good ship cannot falter after all, and all that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 

Bingo. They don't get called the Mormon Church, because they don't call themselves "Mormons." Our Church culture has stubbornly hung onto that title while expecting everyone not to call us "the Mormon Church." I think it is our own fault. In the early days of the Church, the title came from Protestant critics, but things are quite different now.

To me this is almost laughable. The Church not wanting to be called the Mormon Church, but stubbornly laying claim to the title of Mormon, and telling everyone "No, they're not Mormon, we are. They're apostates." Come now. Who else is going to call them apostates? To me it speaks clearly to why the Church gets called the Mormon Church. It has become an identity with which the Church is reluctant to depart. So what if Joseph said being Mormon is OK? Times have changed. I'm not saying there is technically anything wrong with it, but it is the root of our problem with being called and even calling ourselves "the Mormon Church." Hinckley wanted us to have our cake and eat it too. The good ship cannot falter after all, and all that.

Great post. I am still very interested, as a Non-LDS Christian LDS Christian historian (wow that is a mouthful) where the first use of the name Mormon came from for Latter-day Saints? You said again that it came first from "Protestant critics." I think that rolls off of LDS Christian's tongues and keyboards so easily, but I really wonder if it is historically accurate? Everything of a research based perspective that I have read said it came from 1832 or 1833 newspaper writers. Do you have any sources (not challenging you) for the Protestant claim? If I spend three hours researching "wimbling willows" you can imagine I am interested in this! Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Great post. I am still very interested, as a Non-LDS Christian LDS Christian historian (wow that is a mouthful) where the first use of the name Mormon came from for Latter-day Saints? You said again that it came first from "Protestant critics." I think that rolls off of LDS Christian's tongues and keyboards so easily, but I really wonder if it is historically accurate? Everything of a research based perspective that I have read said it came from 1832 or 1833 newspaper writers. Do you have any sources (not challenging you) for the Protestant claim? If I spend three hours researching "wimbling willows" you can imagine I am interested in this! Thanks!

I'm afraid I am not a Church historian, and not into Church history to that extent Phil. I consider myself more of a scripturian. However, newspaper writers are almost always just a mirror of the public. They pick up their facts from the public they are reporting about, and use the terms the public uses. As a member of the Church for some 42 years now, I can say that our SS materials taught us of Joseph's response to his critics, by laying claim to being Mormon rather than trying to fight it. After all the critics were not going to call the saints Christians. That was essentially the brunt of their criticisms - that we aren't Christian like they are.

For an honest appraisal of this issue, you might try the new Church history volume called "The Saints." You can get it for free through the Gospel Library app if you don't have it. Leonard Arrington might speak about it in his The Mormon Experience - I'm not sure. I just know that in SS the Church has historically been taught to have pride in its Mormon heritage, and not to be ashamed to say "I am a Mormon." When this is taught from a very young age, it becomes part of your identity. Again, that is really not the problem itself - if no one referred to us as the Mormon Church, we would not be talking about this right now - but it is really the root of why we get called the Mormon Church, and I think the Church just hasn't faced that fact, and hasn't really wanted to change until now. 

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

To me this is almost laughable. The Church not wanting to be called the Mormon Church, but stubbornly laying claim to the title of Mormon, and telling everyone "No, they're not Mormon, we are. They're apostates." 

That's not really the point I was making (but I get your view too).  I think what President Hinckley wanted to make clear was that even though we are both sometimes referred to as Mormons, they are not members of our church and if our members choose to openly live polygamy, they are excommunicated.  He was making clear that polygamists are not a part of our church and are a separate group.  I totally understood why he wanted to express that too as it could be confusing to those who were not members and read about these groups in the news.

Edited by ALarson

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

For an honest appraisal of this issue, you might try the new Church history volume called "The Saints." 

There are much better sources to seriously study church history, IMO.  I'd start with the Joseph Smith Papers before I'd ever recommend "The Saints" if someone is serious about actually studying church history.  I've not heard much positive about that new book from those who are reading it.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, Gray said:

My understanding is that Community of Christ members don't usually refer to themselves as Mormons.

On their website there is no mention of them referring to themselves as being Mormons nor can you even find the word Mormon, except the very few places where they refer to the Book of Mormon.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's not really the point I was making (but I get your view too).  I think what President Hinckley wanted to make clear was that even though we are both sometimes referred to as Mormons, they are not members of our church and members who choose to openly live polygamy are excommunicated.  He was making clear that polygamists are not a part of our church and are a separate group.  I totally understood why he wanted to express that too as it could be confusing to those who were not members and read about these groups in the news.

I am speaking in generalities, I don't wish to be unfair to Pres. Hinckley. I do realize and appreciate the importance of not being identified with the polygamist groups - especially the FLDS, who have historically sometimes referred to themselves as Mormons, and certainly been called Mormons by the press - they almost seemed to relish in it. i would have perhaps taken the chance to dump it on them, and lay claim to LDS Christian though ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

There are much better sources to seriously study church history, IMO.  I'd start with the Joseph Smith Papers before I'd ever recommend "The Saints" if someone is serious about actually studying church history.  I've not heard much positive about that new book from those who are reading it.

I didn't think about them - I agree the Joseph Smith papers would be one of the best sources. Do you have a link that would be accessible for Navidad? I haven't found things too easy to search in the past, but maybe that has changed in recent years.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I'm afraid I am not a Church historian, and not into Church history to that extent Phil. I consider myself more of a scripturian. However, newspaper writers are almost always just a mirror of the public. They pick up their facts from the public they are reporting about, and use the terms the public uses. As a member of the Church for some 42 years now, I can say that our SS materials taught us of Joseph's response to his critics, by laying claim to being Mormon rather than trying to fight it. After all the critics were not going to call the saints Christians. That was essentially the brunt of their criticisms - that we aren't Christian like they are.

For an honest appraisal of this issue, you might try the new Church history volume called "The Saints." You can get it for free through the Gospel Library app if you don't have it. Leonard Arrington might speak about it in his The Mormon Experience - I'm not sure. I just know that in SS the Church has historically been taught to have pride in its Mormon heritage, and not to be ashamed to say "I am a Mormon." When this is taught from a very young age, it becomes part of your identity. Again, that is really not the problem itself - if no one referred to us as the Mormon Church, we would not be talking about this right now - but it is really the root of why we get called the Mormon Church, and I think the Church just hasn't faced that fact, and hasn't really wanted to change until now. 

Ok. Don't want to distract your thread. I will check it out. I have lots of sources including Arrington's book you mention.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I didn't think about them - I agree the Joseph Smith papers would be one of the best sources. Do you have a link that would be accessible for Navidad? I haven't found things too easy to search in the past, but maybe that has changed in recent years.

I have access to all the Joseph Smith papers. After all they are where I found out about the "wimbling willows." Arrington's works are wonderful and complex. That is a discussion for another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, ALarson said:

I love reading your comments and value your honest input.  I also agree with much of what you state above.

We were discussing this recent name emphasis by President Nelson in an informal Bishopric meeting this week, and we also feel that this is part of an ongoing desire to become more thought of as a mainstream Christian religion.  It's an effort to hopefully distance ourselves from so many uncomfortable or troubling events and issues from the past (such as polygamy, for example....which is what many nonmembers immediately think of when they hear the word Mormon....also the anti-gay reputation, the Mormon involvement with prop 8....and so on... ).  I believe there are many reasons why Pres. Nelson is pushing so hard for this and I do understand.  However, I highly doubt it will be successful outside the very active members.

He is “pushing for this” because the Lord has impressed it upon his mind. Also, because the Lord has made known His will about what His Church should be called, both to the Nephites anciently and to the Church in the latter days. No need for second-guessing or Kremlin-watching when the purpose has been so clearly spelled out  

I don’t think it had anything to do with trying to “mainstream” the Church, an assumption that strikes me as odd. 

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, JAHS said:

On their website there is no mention of them referring to themselves as being Mormons nor can you even find the word Mormon, except the very few places where they refer to the Book of Mormon.

Correct.  Having been born and raised in Indep. Mo...and having lots of friends within all the various factions represented there....I can tell you, that almost without fail....members of all the Restoration Branches/Remnant Church/Church of Jesus Christ Restored etc... do NOT want to be referred to as "Mormons" because for the most part they still labor under the old nicknames of "Josephites" and "Brighamites".  Although the outright animosity has calmed down much over the last decade or so,  they still have that old mindset that anything connected with BY is bad.

Members of the CoC do not refer to themselves as Mormons because they simply do not want to be seen as being affiliated at all with the Restoration, more than they do with the liberal factions of Protestantism.

Having said that though...all of the Restoration Churches represented in Indep. Mo. have grown to have a very respectful attitude towards one another...and we do cooperate together nicely  within the community.  So in that regard...there has been progress made.

Share this post


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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...