Jump to content
bsjkki

LDS.org and Mormon.org changing names

Recommended Posts

Quote

Let the City

Far West

, be a holy and consecrated land unto me, and <it shall> be called <most> holy for the ground upon which thou standest is holy Therefore I command you to build an

house unto me

for the gathering togethering of my Saints that they may worship me, and let there be a begining of this work; and a foundation and a preparatory work, this following Summer; and let the begining be made on the 4th day of July next; and from that time forth let my people labour diligently to build an house, unto my name, and in one year from this day, let them recommence laying the foundation of my

house

; thus let them from that time forth laibour diligently untill it shall be finished, from the Corner Stone thereof unto the top thereof, untill there shall not any thing remain that is not finished.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-26-april-1838-dc-115/2

Right after this little passage says the Church should be named the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Joseph goes on to say the above.  

I was always confused by this.  Far West is largely an empty set of fields now.  Why is there something remaining, that is the cornerstones, and yet the building not finished?  if we are to take the scripture here literally, wouldn't one think that the cornerstones too should not remain because the building was never finished?  

I never really got the literalist, nor letter of the law type of rendering in the Church.  To go the route that Nelson has here, seems to really make a mockery of the scriptures if his use of this passage is extended to others.  I mean, oh well, because it's no skin off my nose.  But I'm curious where this type of reasoning takes the Church.  

Share this post


Link to post
8 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. 

The Board Guidelines state  what the purpose of the board is:

Board Guidlines

Quote

THE PURPOSE OF MORMON DIALOGUE AND DISCUSSION: People of all faiths are welcome to engage in substantive and civil discussion about topics related to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Mormonism in general.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

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?

In my recent study of “Come Follow Me” and the related New Testament passages, I can’t say that I found many teachings about preserving one’s reputation. To the contrary, I seem to recall several instances of the Savior teaching that one should not do things to be seen of others and that one should do things in secret. It’s as if He understands that the natural man’s need to preserve his reputation places a barrier between the man and the Divine. But perhaps you could inform everyone of how He got it wrong. Perhaps you’ve read ahead and could give us some insight. 

And if you really believe that using one’s real name is an adequate safeguard against speaking nonsense and silliness, then allow me to be the first to welcome you to your first week of using the internet. As you continue to use this miraculous technology you will likely find that many of your beliefs about human nature are quite naive.

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

The Board Guidelines state  what the purpose of the board is:

Board Guidlines

 

Again I ask, is the tone and moderation of this board tilt toward a faithful views or dissenting views? Do the “contributors,” on average present a faithful view or a dissenting view?

I’m shocked that the idea that this Board is a faithful board is so controversial.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, not_my_real_name said:

Again I ask, is the tone and moderation of this board tilt toward a faithful views or dissenting views? Do the “contributors,” on average present a faithful view or a dissenting view?

I’m shocked that the idea that this Board is a faithful board is so controversial.

I believe, based on my somewhat limited experience and time here, that the term "faithful" means very different things to those who post here. When you are asking whether or not this is a faithful board, I have no idea what you mean by faithful. We have posters here who in my opinion believe in their own interpretation of the Mormon canon version sola scriptura, we have posters here who I think believe in prophetic infallibility though they would claim otherwise, we have posters here who would like to see minor changes to the church like more non-priesthood involvement for women and girls, while others are in full support of women getting the priesthood, some here are absolutely convinced that the church's position on LGBT is wrong, and others here believe that a fictional Book of Mormon is okay. Then there are those who think a global flood happened and that Adam and Eve were real people who lived 6000± years ago in Missouri. All of these people consider themselves faithful. ( I am not claiming all posters here consider themselves faithful.) So, when you propose that this is a faithful board, no one really knows what you mean, especially since we have less than 20 posts of yours from which to judge you. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/6/2019 at 8:01 PM, Okrahomer said:

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.”

 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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."

 

I think that is my point. Even the style guide goes against the reason President Nelson gave for dropping the name Mormon.

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

President Nelson uses God's commanding what the name of the church is for the change, and then allows a modification of that very name.  Kinda a half step in obedience if he really thinks God's wish is to call the church by the name He gave it.  Either you believe it is the will of God and follow His will or you don't.  I haven't heard any new revelation to shorten the name.  Have you?  What would be the reason for the church shortening the name?  It's just too hard to use the one God wants?  Really?

At first, I thought that President Nelson was sincere in his desire to do what he felt was the will of God.  Since this doesn't seem to be fully about pleasing God, from my perspective, it now seems more like a PR move.  As if Christ needs His name used more to show that a church is doing His will.  Or maybe it is a way of confusing people from all the past things the Mormon Church did that is known for, polygamy, banning blacks and passing Prop 8.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gets a fresh start and maybe people will be confused about what was once called the Mormon Church.  Whatever the reason, it now appears this is not about pleasing God.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I believe, based on my somewhat limited experience and time here, that the term "faithful" means very different things to those who post here. When you are asking whether or not this is a faithful board, I have no idea what you mean by faithful. We have posters here who in my opinion believe in their own interpretation of the Mormon canon version sola scriptura, we have posters here who I think believe in prophetic infallibility though they would claim otherwise, we have posters here who would like to see minor changes to the church like more non-priesthood involvement for women and girls, while others are in full support of women getting the priesthood, some here are absolutely convinced that the church's position on LGBT is wrong, and others here believe that a fictional Book of Mormon is okay. Then there are those who think a global flood happened and that Adam and Eve were real people who lived 6000± years ago in Missouri. All of these people consider themselves faithful. ( I am not claiming all posters here consider themselves faithful.) So, when you propose that this is a faithful board, no one really knows what you mean, especially since we have less than 20 posts of yours from which to judge you. 

I was under the impression that this board was created and is administered by those who are faithful to the directives of the Lord as given through His Prophet, including clear direction to cease using terms for the Church, its members, and doctrines that have been explicitly noted as inappropriate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

I think that is my point. Even the style guide goes against the reason President Nelson gave for dropping the name Mormon.

President Nelson uses God's commanding what the name of the church is for the change, and then allows a modification of that very name.  Kinda a half step in obedience if he really thinks God's wish is to call the church by the name He gave it.  Either you believe it is the will of God and follow His will or you don't.  I haven't heard any new revelation to shorten the name.  Have you?  What would be the reason for the church shortening the name?  It's just too hard to use the one God wants?  Really?

At first, I thought that President Nelson was sincere in his desire to do what he felt was the will of God.  Since this doesn't seem to be fully about pleasing God, from my perspective, it now seems more like a PR move.  As if Christ needs His name used more to show that a church is doing His will.  Or maybe it is a way of confusing people from all the past things the Mormon Church did that is known for, polygamy, banning blacks and passing Prop 8.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gets a fresh start and maybe people will be confused about what was once called the Mormon Church.  Whatever the reason, it now appears this is not about pleasing God.

No, the style guide doesn't do any such thing.  And I think it's kind of funny that because you understands the issue in a different way than Pres. Nelson seems to (which the style guide that he provided proves) you feel comfortable judging him as being insincere.

But that's fine, you are entitled to your opinion.  We'll just agree to disagree.

Edited by bluebell
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So because you understands the issue in a different way than he seems to, you feel comfortable judging him as being insincere?  That makes me laugh a little bit, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.

No.  The mistake I made was taking President Nelsons word for the reason he was making the change..Though, given my history of trusting Church leaders, that was probably where I made the mistake.  And that you can laugh at me about.  When will I learn.

Edited by california boy

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, california boy said:

No.  The mistake I made was taking President Nelsons word for the reason he was making the change..

I edited my original post, but like i said, you can really believe whatever you want.  It really makes no difference and doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
14 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. 

The moderators and administrators of this discussion board do not demand in any way that participants be faithful to some particular religious/theological POV.  Instead they are concerned with having polite, civil discussions among all participants.  In fact, the participants here run the gamut in POVs and attitude.  There are various types of believers and unbelievers, as you will find if you spend any time here at all.  The board itself does not have a POV.  Only the participants do that, and the discussions can be as open-ended as the participants wish.

Quote

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. 

We have already had extensive discussions on this board of the new directive, including detailed quotations.  My reading of the directive is that it applies directly to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an official organization and to the members of that Church.  Pres Nelson did not order the world to comply with that directive, although the Newsroom would like all non-member or unaffiliated news organizations to comply -- that is merely a request.  Pres Nelson knows very well that he cannot order outsiders to do anything, and also understands that the efforts internally to make this change will take time.  All of those nuances seem to have escaped your grasp.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The moderators and administrators of this discussion board do not demand in any way that participants be faithful to some particular religious/theological POV.  Instead they are concerned with having polite, civil discussions among all participants.  In fact, the participants here run the gamut in POVs and attitude.  There are various types of believes and unbelievers, as you will find if you spend any time here at all.  The board itself does not have a POV.  Only the participants do that, and the discussions can be as open-ended as the participants wish.

We have already had extensive discussions on this board of the new directive, including detailed quotations.  My reading of the directive is that it applies directly to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an official organization and to the members of that Church.  Pres Nelson did not order the world to comply with that directive, although the Newsroom would like all non-member or unaffiliated news organizations to comply -- that is merely a request.  Pres Nelson knows very well that he cannot order outsiders to do anything, and also understands that the efforts internally to make this change will take time.  All of those nuances seem to have escaped your grasp.

Again with the mind-reading of the Prophet. Perhaps you could comment on how you are qualified to provide commentary on what the Prophet thinks. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, california boy said:

No.  The mistake I made was taking President Nelsons word for the reason he was making the change..Though, given my history of trusting Church leaders, that was probably where I made the mistake.  And that you can laugh at me about.  When will I learn.

I've received your point quite clearly.  In one sense he's saying, "take the scripture very literally.  we must be so observant right down to the letter" and in another sense he's not saying that.  That's its the idea or the spirit of the notion that matters--which is odd because that's the kind of thinking that produces and embraces nicknames.  I think he's just being very inconsistent, which is actually precisely what the Church has been historically.  You either take the scripture literally, and word for word, to argue your point or you don't.  As I tried to point out the rest of the passage, after this calling the name of the Church part, has a very forgotten message.  

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, not_my_real_name said:

Again with the mind-reading of the Prophet. Perhaps you could comment on how you are qualified to provide commentary on what the Prophet thinks. 

You might try providing us with the quotes which prove your claims.  That is what I am referring to, even though you have ignored that fact.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, not_my_real_name said:

I was under the impression that this board was created and is administered by those who are faithful to the directives of the Lord as given through His Prophet, including clear direction to cease using terms for the Church, its members, and doctrines that have been explicitly noted as inappropriate.

 

I'm curious, do you think your name is God inspired?  I don't know if you were blessed and given a name as a child, but many in the Church think God essentially said, "and this baby shall be called...."  

If so, I wonder what that means when we go by monikers, in light of Pres Nelson's argument for dropping the commonly and pervasively used nickname.  If such things get the devil giggling and all excited too.  

Share this post


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

You might try providing us with the quotes which prove your claims.  That is what I am referring to, even though you have ignored that fact.

You want quotes supporting why I don’t qualify the Prophet’s counsel? Read his words; he offers no qualifications, including those you claim. But please share how you have gained special insight into his thought processes. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm curious, do you think your name is God inspired?  I don't know if you were blessed and given a name as a child, but many in the Church think God essentially said, "and this baby shall be called...."  

If so, I wonder what that means when we go by monikers, in light of Pres Nelson's argument for dropping the commonly and pervasively used nickname.  If such things get the devil giggling and all excited too.  

Really? Now we’re just reaching.

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, not_my_real_name said:

I was under the impression that this board was created and is administered by those who are faithful to the directives of the Lord as given through His Prophet, including clear direction to cease using terms for the Church, its members, and doctrines that have been explicitly noted as inappropriate.

 

I was under the impression that judgements about one's faithfulness were between a person, God and their ecclesiastical authority.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, not_my_real_name said:

Really? Now we’re just reaching.

Agreed.  I figured Nelson was just reaching to begin with.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/6/2019 at 6:23 PM, 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.  

Your boundless patience is no doubt in most instances a true virtue, on this thread however, I fear it’s just causing you to feed the trolls.  

You have two posts on this thread that i believe are spot on in describing the spirit of the direction we’ve received.  Anyone with a sincere heart and ears to hear would be satisfied with that explanation, even if they choose not to believe or follow it.

Just a thought from one who looks forward to your comments.  Godspeed to you.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I was under the impression that judgements about one's faithfulness were between a person, God and their ecclesiastical authority.

You would be in favor of referring this matter the ecclesiastical authorities of those who administer this board? You are in favor of silence? You are in favor of not being your brother’s keeper? 

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Agreed.  I figured Nelson was just reaching to begin with.  

Comparing the revealed, canonized name of the Church to the name of a child, even if revealed by personal revelation, is a poor comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, not_my_real_name said:

Comparing the revealed, canonized name of the Church to the name of a child, even if revealed by personal revelation, is a poor comparison.

yeah, I was curious how far you would take it.  If the "revealed, canonized name of the Church" gets altered, what's the problem in that?  If it's truly about, as Californiaboy has shown, the name revealed in scripture, then what gives license to alter what was said in section 115?  But if it can be altered to shorter versions, like, "The Church", or the "Church of Jesus Christ", then why use the claim that we ought to call it by the "revealed, canonized name of the Church"?  The real issue it seems is that we use the name Jesus each time we reference the Church.  It's not so much we take the words in section 115 as a directive, no?  

I'd maintain God takes a look at this little diversion created by Nelson and gets a bit of a chuckle at it, so it intrigues me when people get all defensive over it.  No offense, just curious how it works for you, or any member.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

yeah, I was curious how far you would take it.  If the "revealed, canonized name of the Church" gets altered, what's the problem in that?  If it's truly about, as Californiaboy has shown, the name revealed in scripture, then what gives license to alter what was said in section 115?  But if it can be altered to shorter versions, like, "The Church", or the "Church of Jesus Christ", then why use the claim that we ought to call it by the "revealed, canonized name of the Church"?  The real issue it seems is that we use the name Jesus each time we reference the Church.  It's not so much we take the words in section 115 as a directive, no?  

I'd maintain God takes a look at this little diversion created by Nelson and gets a bit of a chuckle at it, so it intrigues me when people get all defensive over it.  No offense, just curious how it works for you, or any member.  

See the style guide on the Newsroom site. The use of the term “Mormon” is a material departure from the revealed name of the Church. Not so with the names “The Church of Jesus Christ” or “The Chirch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...