Fair Dinkum

Interesting, but then I travel a lot, yes even during the pandemic, and as soon as I'm asked where I am from, they assume Australia or the U.K. , and I say Utah, the second question I'm asked is. Oh are you a Mormon? to which I always respond, No, I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. J/K

Yeah I see where you are coming from, that was not my intent, attempt at humor. But from my experience referring to oneself as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a mouth full. One choice would be to respectfully provide the full name of the church while the other option would be to comply but not necessary do so in the spirit it was intended to be given

In another thread Scott Lloyd and I got into a pedantic discussion over the use of the I'm a Mormon terminology when referencing oneself and my assertion of its use being a victory for Satan. This discussion caused me to wonder at the great power and influence President Nelson's had to enact such a seismic change in LDS vernacular with seemingly one simple request where in he made the use of the term Mormon, when referring to ones self, a hiss and a by word. Not only have I personally been corrected when calling myself a Mormon, I've actually had members of the church get rather agitated

What a wild unsupported assertion. Until there is substantive proof or support— difficult or laborious as that may be to produce — your observation is at best an expression of opinion.

You seem to enjoy that devil emoji when replying to my post. Hmmm

Get ready to be attacked, there are some on this board who didn’t like a more Christ centered conference

Groan. 🙄🙄🙄. I find it interesting that after listening to every address in every session of conference I sensed that this conference had been the most Christ focused conference in recent memory. I mistakingly thought this was a good thing and decided to share. But instead of finding agreement I immediately received push back, so I took the added step of confirming my impressions by providing evidence from nothing more than the churches own web site. For doing this I’ve been attacked, been called a critic, had my evidence from the churches website questioned all for pointing out the fact

And yet the first presidency did just reform it Robert, so they must have held their collective fingers to the wind and concluded reform was in fact required. They concluded that it was broken and needed fixing. I would have preferred even more reform

Are you asserting that they can not carry out their duty in a loving compassionate manner?

Ms Bluebell, First its not "MY" topic search but that of the churches and I'm more than willing to defer to the churches own web managers on what criteria constitutes a Jesus Christ centered conference address but you seem intent on not accepting their criteria, which is fine. Yeah it's entirely possible that when you referred to me as a critic I may have misunderstood your tone and am open to clarification. Edit to Add: This is completely anecdotal but I went back and read one of the talks that was not considered in the Jesus Christ search. While the talk did make mention of the S

I agree, let's hope they exercise that right in a more loving and compassionate manner

I've edited my post to add that I do not believe that my experience is the rule, but neither do I believe it is an anomaly. When a stake has a tyrant as a unchecked leader these kinds of things are bound to take place. We've all heard of those wacky fundamentalist who hide within the church, well sometimes they find their way into leadership positions where they can do great damage. Mine was able to serve his entire 10 year calling and wrecked great damage during his tenure. I credit a lot of my own loss of belief on him, he added a lot of things to my already burgeoning shelf. Fortun

While I accept that your experience has been positive, I can only comment from what my experience has been. Our Stake President, whom I lost respect for when he was serving, was a believer in exacting a heavy toll on the sinner. He tasked our high council on helping the accused reach a state where he/she would understand the scriptural standard of sackcloth and ashes, he taught that the court attendee needed to reach the depths of hell before they could fully expect to pay for their sins and find forgiveness (something I know now to be a complete bastardisation of what the scriptures teach).

I almost cried when the church made this change. I fully support it and see it as a step in a more compassionate loving direction. I just don't believe it went far enough. But I ask this question in return. What would the repentance process look like if it were designed to fully minister to the one who committed the sin instead of designed to serve the interests of the institutional church? How could it be designed to provide more love and compassion for the individual and still achieve its end goals of helping the individual return to full worthiness? We've all been taught the steps

Cool in that the church has increased its emphasis of Jesus Christ. And I reject your assertion that it has been shown to be inaccurate. When in fact it has been shown to be very much accurate. Do the search yourself and count. Yes its just that simple or provide proof of your assertion that TheChurchofJesusChrist.org 's own search engine is providing false search tabulations. Edit to add: I also reject your assertion that I'm now a critic just because I don't comport to your personal check list. Geeze do you even know how offensive and judgmental that is?