Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bsjkki

LDS.org and Mormon.org changing names

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Are you saying Pres Neslon is going to get embarrassed in front of God, trying to convince the mighty one that the name is the moistest important thing about it all?  

Nope. Partly because I don't believe in an afterlife.

36 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think of that matthew passage and chuckle.  I can't believe God would be like that.  Sounds silly.  "oh you tried, did you?  well trying didn't do anything useful to me.  Get out of my presence, loser".

Passage doesn't say anything about trying. In the context of the Sermon on the Mount, those who do the will of the Father are those building the Kingdom of God (where the poor, powerless, starving, and mourning are taken care of). Jesus is saying that's what God cares about, not about transcendent miracles done in his name. Because names and their importance are ultimately about ego and power over others (such that God in the OT is frequently portrayed as horribly ego driven and narcissistic), and Jesus is far more concerned with helping others rather than his own ego.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Seriously?

I had no idea that Mormonism had anything to do with Christianity.

Something about worshiping American Indians who they thought were saints... And read about in The Book of the Mormons.

What does Jesus Christ have to do with that?

We had kind of a strange family that lived next door we thought were Mormons but they kept to themselves thank goodness. Lots of kids. People came and went we didn't know how many wives the guy had or what.

That's the way they are after all pretty clannish people. ;)

When I first actually understood the church I thought "Man they got to get rid of that name Mormon... Why haven't they figured out that's their main problem?"

And then we have  "Hail to the prophet ascended to heaven traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain ... mingling with gods  can plan for his brethren..." 

And then we wonder why people think we worship Joseph Smith?

It's got to change.

“Jesus anointed that prophet and seer.”

Delete or de-emphasize Joseph Smith and you lose the aspect of Christ’s gospel that is perhaps the most timely and relevant to our age.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

When I first actually understood the church I thought "Man they got to get rid of that name Mormon... Why haven't they figured out that's their main problem?"

And then we have  "Hail to the prophet ascended to heaven traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain ... mingling with gods  can plan for his brethren..." 

So does that now mean that Joseph and the gods are hurling thunderbolts at his enemies?

And then we wonder why people think we worship Joseph Smith?

There's a whole lot that can be misconstrued.

It's got to change.

I know you're being facetious but it is so sad there are people in the Church that really feel that way.

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“Jesus anointed that prophet and seer.”

Delete or de-emphasize Joseph Smith and you lose the aspect of Christ’s gospel that is perhaps the most timely and relevant to our age.

Amen!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Seriously?

I had no idea that Mormonism had anything to do with Christianity.

Something about worshiping American Indians who they thought were saints... And read about in The Book of the Mormons.

What does Jesus Christ have to do with that?

We had kind of a strange family that lived next door we thought were Mormons but they kept to themselves thank goodness. Lots of kids. People came and went we didn't know how many wives the guy had or what.

That's the way they are after all pretty clannish people. ;)

When I first actually understood the church I thought "Man they got to get rid of that name Mormon... Why haven't they figured out that's their main problem?"

And then we have  "Hail to the prophet ascended to heaven traitors and tyrants now fight him in vain ... mingling with gods  can plan for his brethren..." 

So does that now mean that Joseph and the gods are hurling thunderbolts at his enemies?

And then we wonder why people think we worship Joseph Smith?

There's a whole lot that can be misconstrued.

It's got to change.

Maybe rather than working hard to align with words and labels, just focus more on emulating Jesus. Instead of demanding that others see us as Christians, show them what it means to follow Jesus. Stop obsessing with how many times we can use the word Jesus, and instead read the Gospel accounts about him--especially the slightly more historical synoptic ones--and ask how concerned he is with his name being plastered everywhere, beautiful temples, and nuclear families, as opposed to his concerns about bringing justice to those under temporal oppression.

Or, maybe we should just ignore the actual Jesus and be more like this guy:
 

 

Edited by the narrator

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, the narrator said:

Nope. Partly because I don't believe in an afterlife.

Well, you're a slickery one then.  

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

Passage doesn't say anything about trying. In the context of the Sermon on the Mount, those who do the will of the Father are those building the Kingdom of God (where the poor, powerless, starving, and mourning are taken care of). Jesus is saying that's what God cares about, not about transcendent miracles done in his name. Because names and their importance are ultimately about ego and power over others (such that God in the OT is frequently portrayed as horribly ego driven and narcissistic), and Jesus is far more concerned with helping others rather than his own ego.

feels convoluted in a sense, since Jesus helped others by doing miraculous things that seemed to draw attention to himself, in the NT record.  And yet another, hypothetically, who tried to help another in the name of Jesus is heartily and ultimately condemned.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, the narrator said:

Nope. Partly because I don't believe in an afterlife.

Passage doesn't say anything about trying. In the context of the Sermon on the Mount, those who do the will of the Father are those building the Kingdom of God (where the poor, powerless, starving, and mourning are taken care of). Jesus is saying that's what God cares about, not about transcendent miracles done in his name. Because names and their importance are ultimately about ego and power over others (such that God in the OT is frequently portrayed as horribly ego driven and narcissistic), and Jesus is far more concerned with helping others rather than his own ego.

I’ll stick with honoring my covenant to take the name of Christ as commanded. You do as you please. We can leave the rest to the Lord

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, the narrator said:

Maybe rather than working hard to align with words and labels, just focus more on emulating Jesus. Instead of demanding that others see us as Christians, show them what it means to follow Jesus. Stop obsessing with how many times we can use the word Jesus, and instead read the Gospel accounts about him--especially the slightly more historical synoptic ones--and ask how concerned he is with his name being plastered everywhere, beautiful temples, and nuclear families, as opposed to his concerns about bringing justice to those under temporal oppression.

Or, maybe we should just ignore the actual Jesus and be more like this guy:
 

 

Who is demanding others see us as Christian?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On March 5, 2019 at 12:16 PM, california boy said:

The changes still do not call the Church the name God gave it.  And is all it is doing from a marketing point of view is making the search engines generic to a hundred other religions.  In reality, it really does nothing to solve both issues.  It is however facinating to watch.  

I'm sure the full name of the Church is properly used in the content. These are domain names where "Mormon" is no longer used and "Christ" is, and labels that no longer use LDS, Mormon, etc. according to plan.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm sure the full name of the Church is properly used in the content. These are domain names where "Mormon" is no longer used and "Christ" is, and labels that no longer use LDS, Mormon, etc. according to plan.

Got that.  It is more about Pres Nelson making such a big deal about using the proper name of the Church as God instructed and then going to all the work of changing the name of the Church web site but still not using the proper name of the Church as God instructed.  Isn't the Church still not meeting the goal that Pres. Nelson felt must take place?  

It just seems like adding more confusion to those trying to Google the Church web site by now throwing it in with all the other web sites that are the Church of Jesus Christ, and still the proper name of the church is not being used.  Seems like a disconnect to me.  But hey, personally I have no skin in this issue.  So whatever.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Has Pres. Nelson made a big deal about using the full name of the church?  I mean, I know he has spoken about using the name the Lord chose, but has using the full name been his emphasis?

From my perspective, he’s made a big deal about not using nicknames that leave Jesus Christ out of the equation.  

I thought he made a big deal about using the name of the Church that God revealed.  Isn't that the whole basis for all this?

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng

Quote

Today I feel compelled to discuss with you a matter of great importance. Some weeks ago, I released a statement regarding a course correction for the name of the Church.1 I did this because the Lord impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He decreed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.2

 

 

Quote

Instead, it is a correction. It is the command of the Lord. Joseph Smith did not name the Church restored through him; neither did Mormon. It was the Savior Himself who said, “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”4

 

 

I never have seen anything that says Christ named the restored church The Church of Jesus Christ.  Have you?

 

Edited by california boy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, not_my_real_name said:

Yes, I think it was a commandment for all mankind; he is not just President of the Church but Prophet to the world. For anyone to not heed a command so clearly identified by the Prophet as being from God is disobedience, regardless of membership in the Church. Going back to my original post, it seems only natural that a faithful discussion board make efforts to align itself with a divine directive.

I agree with sjdawg that your notion is a very ambitious overreach.  This is not a "faithful discussion board," and not even Pres Nelson believes that the whole world is going to abide by his directive, aside from the fact that most people will never hear or read his directive.  Those professional journalists who do hear it will perhaps accord the Church the full title on first mention (just to be mannerly), but will see the demand as impractical and unworkable purely from a standard journalistic POV.

What would you call Dr Lavina Fielding Anderson?  She has been an excommunicant from the Church for a couple of decades now.  Yet she has never ceased regular attendance at Church, and regularly plays piano in Relief Society meetings.  She is not a member of the Church, so we cannot call her a Latter-day Saint.  Yet she is clearly a Mormon in faith and culture.  What do we call someone like her, with such a strong faith in the Gospel which we preach?  She is a professional writer, editor, and historian, and was exed for writing a professional article on the Church for Dialogue.  No man would have been exed for that, and in fact Dr Sterling McMurrin was never exed despite his being an open apostate.  Would we call him a Latter-day Saint?  Or a Mormon?  Moreover, Lavina has never been told what it is she must repent of in order to be rebaptized.

The word "Saint" carries with it a heavy notion of holiness, while at the same time designating membership in the Church.  This new directive might fit references to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and to actual members of that Church, but what does one use to refer to people who are part of the broader culture?  What do we do to refer to Jews? should we go by the longer biblical designation of them as Hebrew qol qĕhal ˁădat yîśrāʼēl  “the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel” (Ex 12:6).  When we refer to the Hare Krishnas, should we use the longer official term, International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKON).  Rather than refer to the Roman Catholic Church, should we refer to it as the the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ?  Would Pres Nelson agree to call the RC Church  by that formal title?  Probably not.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, california boy said:

I thought he made a big deal about using the name of the Church that God revealed.  Isn't that the whole basis for all this?

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng

 

 

I never have seen anything that says Christ named the restored church The Church of Jesus Christ.  Have you?

 

The Style Guide (which was presumably approved by President Nelson) indicates that "The Church of Jesus Christ" is also appropriate:

“The official name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The full name was given by revelation from God to Joseph Smith in 1838.”

“In the first reference, the full name of the Church is preferred: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

“When a shortened reference is needed, the terms "the Church" or the "Church of Jesus Christ" are encouraged. The "restored Church of Jesus Christ" is also accurate and encouraged.”

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“Jesus anointed that prophet and seer.”

Delete or de-emphasize Joseph Smith and you lose the aspect of Christ’s gospel that is perhaps the most timely and relevant to our age.

 

I never suggested that.

I was giving you my first few takes on what Mormonism was before I understood it. How you could get that out of what I said is difficult to understand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I agree with sjdawg that your notion is a very ambitious overreach.  This is not a "faithful discussion board," and not even Pres Nelson believes that the whole world is going to abide by his directive, aside from the fact that most people will never hear or read his directive.  Those professional journalists who do hear it will perhaps accord the Church the full title on first mention (just to be mannerly), but will see the demand as impractical and unworkable purely from a standard journalistic POV.

What would you call Dr Lavina Fielding Anderson?  She has been an excommunicant from the Church for a couple of decades now.  Yet she has never ceased regular attendance at Church, and regularly plays piano in Relief Society meetings.  She is not a member of the Church, so we cannot call her a Latter-day Saint.  Yet she is clearly a Mormon in faith and culture.  What do we call someone like her, with such a strong faith in the Gospel which we preach?  She is a professional writer, editor, and historian, and was exed for writing a professional article on the Church for Dialogue.  No man would have been exed for that, and in fact Dr Sterling McMurrin was never exed despite his being an open apostate.  Would we call him a Latter-day Saint?  Or a Mormon?  Moreover, Lavina has never been told what it is she must repent of in order to be rebaptized.

The word "Saint" carries with it a heavy notion of holiness, while at the same time designating membership in the Church.  This new directive might fit references to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and to actual members of that Church, but what does one use to refer to people who are part of the broader culture?  What do we do to refer to Jews? should we go by the longer biblical designation of them as Hebrew qol qĕhal ˁădat yîśrāʼēl  “the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel” (Ex 12:6).  When we refer to the Hare Krishnas, should we use the longer official term, International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKON).  Rather than refer to the Roman Catholic Church, should we refer to it as the the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ?  Would Pres Nelson agree to call the RC Church  by that formal title?  Probably not.

Not a faithful board? Give me a break. We come here to discuss and defend the Restored Gospel. The few regular apostates don’t define the board, nor do they detract from its faithful mission.

As to your mind reading of the Prophet, you’re welcome to limit the reaches of the Lord’s directives but anyone reading President Nelson’s recent General Conference address with an intent to heed his counsel would impose no such limits. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, the narrator said:

Maybe rather than working hard to align with words and labels, just focus more on emulating Jesus. Instead of demanding that others see us as Christians, show them what it means to follow Jesus. Stop obsessing with how many times we can use the word Jesus, and instead read the Gospel accounts about him--especially the slightly more historical synoptic ones--and ask how concerned he is with his name being plastered everywhere, beautiful temples, and nuclear families, as opposed to his concerns about bringing justice to those under temporal oppression.

Or, maybe we should just ignore the actual Jesus and be more like this guy:
 

 

You mean actually take the gospel to heart and live it?.......

What ARE you some kind of weirdo hippie or sumptin lahk at? 

;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I'm sure the full name of the Church is properly used in the content. These are domain names where "Mormon" is no longer used and "Christ" is, and labels that no longer use LDS, Mormon, etc. according to plan.

Which, of course, should go without saying. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, mfbukowski said:

You mean actually take the gospel to heart and live it?.......

What ARE you some kind of weirdo hippie or sumptin lahk at? 

;)

 

No. More like an agnostic. 

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I never suggested that.

I was giving you my first few takes on what Mormonism was before I understood it. How you could get that out of what I said is difficult to understand.

Maybe it was the “It’s got to change” imperative parting shot at the end. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, not_my_real_name said:

Not a faithful board? Give me a break. We come here to discuss and defend the Restored Gospel. The few regular apostates don’t define the board, nor do they detract from its faithful mission.

After 11 posts you are certain you know the composition of this board?  Give me a break, kid.

1 hour ago, not_my_real_name said:

As to your mind reading of the Prophet, you’re welcome to limit the reaches of the Lord’s directives but anyone reading President Nelson’s recent General Conference address with an intent to heed his counsel would impose no such limits. 

I heard and read it, and it is clear to me that you are putting words in Pres Nelson's mouth.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/6/2019 at 11:03 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

After 11 posts you are certain you know the composition of this board?  Give me a break, kid.

I heard and read it, and it is clear to me that you are putting words in Pres Nelson's mouth.

If it’s not faithful board then what is it? Neutral? Is it moderated like a neutral board? Are those that moderate and administer this board on the balance faithful to the Gospel and the Lord’s Church? Are those designated as contributors not, on average, more faithful? If it’s not a faithful board then explain what it is. And perhaps you could do it without using patronizing language. 

Regarding your claim that I am putting words in the mouth of the Prophet, I have not put a single qualification on what he said; you did. I have not sought to justify disobedience to an unqualified directive; you have. You are accusing me of the very thing you are doing. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/6/2019 at 10:55 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe it was the “It’s got to change” imperative parting shot at the end. 

So it should remain the same, to continue giving the same impressions?

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/5/2019 at 11:35 PM, mfbukowski said:

Pretty cool!

Wonder what the "Christians" will do with us taking back the brand name they co-opted. ;)

 

Next time the missionaries knock on my door and say ‘We’re from the Church of Jesus Christ,’ I’ll respond with ‘Really? You’re Orthodox? Me too! Which jurisdiction do you belong to?’

Can’t wait! 😃

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, not_my_real_name said:

If it’s not faithful board then what is it? Neutral? Is it moderated like a neutral board? Are those that moderate and administer this board on the balance faithful to the Gospel and the Lord’s Church? Are those designated as contributors not, on average, more faithful? If it’s not a faithful board then explain what it is. And perhaps you could do it without using patronizing language. 

Regarding your claim that I am putting words in the mouth of the Prophet, I have not put a single qualification on what he said; you did. I have not sought to justify disobedience to an unqualified directive; you have. You are accusing me of the very thing you are doing. 

 

Some of us post with our real names, some do not.

Some of us have reputations to uphold, some can go off with nonsense and remain anonymous.

What do you think makes the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/6/2019 at 7:51 PM, california boy said:

I thought he made a big deal about using the name of the Church that God revealed.  Isn't that the whole basis for all this?

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng

 

 

I never have seen anything that says Christ named the restored church The Church of Jesus Christ.  Have you?

 

Like I said, I know he taught those things, but I don't believe that using the entire name of the church in every instance has never been his emphasis.  Look at these quotes for example--

"What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name."

"After all He had endured—and after all He had done for humankind—I realize with profound regret that we have unwittingly acquiesced in the Lord’s restored Church being called by other names, each of which expunges the sacred name of Jesus Christ!"

"Every Sunday as we worthily partake of the sacrament, we make anew our sacred promise to our Heavenly Father that we are willing to take upon us the name of His Son, Jesus Christ.8 We promise to follow Him, repent, keep His commandments, and always remember Him.

When we omit His name from His Church, we are inadvertently removing Him as the central focus of our lives."

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...