volgadon Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 Really -- I find that interesting. Orthodox icons are very stylized art -- my perusal of Greg Olson doesn't seem to fit the standard icon form. I'm not saying what you say isn't true, I'm just saying that it would be odd to walk into an Orthodox church and see an Olson painting revered as an icon (unless there are iconic paintings of his that I haven't seen).I've never seen any of his in a church, but I have seen them take the place of the paper icons that common believers place on their car's dash, or in a corner of the home with a candle in front. So, definitely at a folk level. I'm not sure that most LDS realise to what use pictures they give away will be put.
Yirgacheffe Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) Really -- I find that interesting. Orthodox icons are very stylized art -- my perusal of Greg Olson doesn't seem to fit the standard icon form. I'm not saying what you say isn't true, I'm just saying that it would be odd to walk into an Orthodox church and see an Olson painting revered as an icon (unless there are iconic paintings of his that I haven't seen).I was told that icons are highly stylized because they "picture belief" or theology. I would like to see Mr. Olson's artwork displayed in an Orthodox church, I'd be curious to see how it matches up to other icons.Added:I just finished the thread and saw what was said about the use of Mr. Olson's artwork that makes sense to me more than use in an Orthodox church. Edited October 30, 2012 by Yirgacheffe
MiserereNobis Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 I was told that icons are highly stylized because they "picture belief" or theology. I would like to see Mr. Olson's artwork displayed in an Orthodox church, I'd be curious to see how it matches up to other icons.They wouldn't -- that's why I was surprised. Do a google image search of "orthodox icons" and you'll see what I mean.It makes more sense if they are used in a folk-way, but still they are a long way from the traditional iconic style (at least the ones I see on google image search).
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) the Church leaders do not object to the use of the name Mormon as a descriptor of things pertaining to the Church of Jesus Christ, EXCEPT in referring to the name of the Church itself. In that case, it should be called the Church of Jesus ChristThe Church of Jesus Christ belongs to another group. Use of this name is misleading on the part of Mormons.As for Jesus giving the name of the L-dS church. He did not do so until after at least three other names were used. One even without Jesus or Christ in the name at all.Already addressed. See posts #56 and #57.I think you are taking offense at the breeze as even The Mormon Church uses that name in advertising worldwide.What advertising? If you are referring to websites, this has already been addressed. See post #37 and #65.I am new to posting but not to this site. I realize folks get kicked off here for little things. Hope that does not happen because of what I have posted.No skin off my nose, but if you are hoping to avoid getting kicked off the board, you may want to reconsider how prudent it is to begin your posting history with an immediate complaint about the moderation. It conveys a chip-on-the-shoulder attitude. Just sayin'.But, it seems to me the L-dS Church as constituted now does not even use the "Official" name as given in the Doctrine and Covenants originally. It was changed to add a hyphen. Different from what was supposedly 'revealed'.Petty quibbling in the extreme. Edited October 30, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) If that were true, then why would we need to keep reminding people that the word "Jesus Christ" is in the church's official name? Why not just live a righteous lifestyle and let our actions speak for themselves?Because some people keep denying our Christianity in spite of our righteous lifestyle and exemplary actions.I am LDS and I believe that Mormonism is a Christian faith. I just think that (1) reminding people that the words "Jesus Christ" are in the church's official name does not in itself convince anyone that we are Christian, ...What it does do is assert our self-definition and sustain it in the face of the continuing falsehood that we are not Christian. If we affirm the proper name of the Church, those who deny our Christianity are compelled to explain why they do so.(2) if we are in the business of looking for outward professions of our Christianity, we are completely ignoring the most potent symbol of Christianity, which is the cross.I'm pretty much indifferent on this point except to say that we don't need to permit others to pick our symbols for us. Edited October 30, 2012 by Scott Lloyd 2
Biz Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 I know you don't mean anything by it but it is critical to not call The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the Mormon Church, especially during this time of great scruinty by the public. D&C 115:3 and 4 plainly tell us what Christ wants his Church to be called. I read a nice post on here about Lamanites and the Church but the poster called it the Mormon Church throughout his post.It drove me nuts. I read an article about Billy Graham and Romney's Mormon Church. I stopped reading it. If we don't correct people and call the Church by the correct name it hurts the missionary effort. How do I know? I'm a convert and I had no idea whatsoever that Mormons were Christian until I went to the Worlds Fair in Spokane and went to an exhibit. It matters and I believe we had a GC talk by President Monson on this subject last year. It matters because it forces people to realise we believe we ARE His Church and we want them to join us in Christ.Tell that to the Church itself, they are just as inconsistent with their use of Mormon in referring to the Church as common members are. Quite frankly, their lack of consistency in using the term Mormon gets extremely frustrating.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 (edited) Tell that to the Church itself, they are just as inconsistent with their use of Mormon in referring to the Church as common members are. Quite frankly, their lack of consistency in using the term Mormon gets extremely frustrating.Examples, please.And before you reply, please read through the thread and pay attention to the points about the distinction between the name of the Church itself and the application of the word "Mormon' in usages other than the name of the Church itself. Also, note the explanation about the use of "Mormon church" in websites as a strategy to attract search engine hits to the Church website, where it can then be made clear what the proper and preferred name of the Church is. Edited October 30, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Cobalt-70 Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Because some people keep denying our Christianity in spite of our righteous lifestyle and exemplary actions.That was my point, which is why I'm saying instead of obnoxiously correcting everybody when they say "Mormon Church," maybe it would be far more effective to start using the cross again. Why not put a cross in our logo? Having a huge "JESUS CHRIST" there isn't working, so maybe a cross will work.
volgadon Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 That was my point, which is why I'm saying instead of obnoxiously correcting everybody when they say "Mormon Church," maybe it would be far more effective to start using the cross again. Why not put a cross in our logo? Having a huge "JESUS CHRIST" there isn't working, so maybe a cross will work.Who are you kidding?
Cobalt-70 Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Who are you kidding?Why not. Maybe it could look something like this:
volgadon Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Why not. Maybe it could look something like this:How could I ever have been so skeptical? Of course that is the answer! Let's ditch the name of Jesus Christ and go with a letter T vaguely resembling the cross. That will convince everyone... 2
Cobalt-70 Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 How could I ever have been so skeptical? Of course that is the answer! Let's ditch the name of Jesus Christ and go with a letter T vaguely resembling the cross. That will convince everyone...Okay, fine. What about this one?
volgadon Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Okay, fine. What about this one?Better than your previous design, for sure, but if you think this will convince people, I'll ask again. Who do you think you are kidding?
blackstrap Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 I wonder if the Catholics on the board find it a bit presumpuous to see the mormons called 'saints' as saintly ,from their definition of the term,many of us aren't.
Cobalt-70 Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Better than your previous design, for sure, but if you think this will convince people, I'll ask again. Who do you think you are kidding?I'm not saying that it will itself convince anyone that we are Christian, but using the cross in our logo would be a step in the right direction. We can't change the official name of the church, but in the logo, I think it's more important for the cross to be there than that the logo have the full name of the church in it. Logos are about simplicity and creating a memorable symbol. Our best symbol is currently the angel Moroni, but unfortunately the symbol of Moroni doesn't have any indicia of Christianity.
Tacenda Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 I wonder if the Catholics on the board find it a bit presumpuous to see the mormons called 'saints' as saintly ,from their definition of the term,many of us aren't.Good question, I've wondered this myself.
rodheadlee Posted October 31, 2012 Author Posted October 31, 2012 Tell that to the Church itself, they are just as inconsistent with their use of Mormon in referring to the Church as common members are. Quite frankly, their lack of consistency in using the term Mormon gets extremely frustrating.That's all been covered, read the thread.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) I wonder if the Catholics on the board find it a bit presumpuous to see the mormons called 'saints' as saintly ,from their definition of the term,many of us aren't.Our definition is consistent with the Biblical one. Edited October 31, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 That was my point, which is why I'm saying instead of obnoxiously correcting everybody when they say "Mormon Church," ...It is not obnoxious to assert a self-definition or to express a preference about the use of a designated name. And I find it rather telling that for the most part, it is only disgruntled members who have a problem with it. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Better than your previous design, for sure, but if you think this will convince people, I'll ask again. Who do you think you are kidding?Don't you get it? Cobalt thinks the only way to affirm our Christianity is to be identical to the Protestant sects.
sheilauk Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 (edited) I've been getting more and more bemused while following this thread. Why is it in any way incorrect to use the proper name of the Church, especially in writing. If nothing else, its the polite thing to do. (of course, that could reveal intent) And why should incorrect use not be quietly corrected? If your name was Mark and someone kept calling you John, would you correct them or forever answer to John? I don't think using the proper name will convince anyone we are Christian, but it will raise awareness. And the mormon church does have other members - using that name when talking about the overall faith may be justified, but if its about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - use the proper name and be polite. Also, if we as members don't use it, then awareness of the proper name will continue to be poor, won't it? I always try (I do forget or take a lazy approach at times!) to say that i am a member of TCoJCoLdS and follow that up with, in other words a mormon, because in my experience just saying I'm a mormon will almost invariably be followed by a comment about polygamy, which means I have to distinguish my church from others.Whether using a cross more would lead more people to identify the Church with christianity is another issue. It may help with some and would be just another way to criticise the Church for others. Edited October 31, 2012 by sheilauk 4
MiserereNobis Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 I wonder if the Catholics on the board find it a bit presumpuous to see the mormons called 'saints' as saintly ,from their definition of the term,many of us aren't.I don't find it presumptuous because I know what you mean by it. It is amusing, however, to think of some terrible sinner being identified as a "saint" simply because he is LDS.For us, a Saint is someone who has lived a life of heroic virtue and is therefore an example for the rest of us to emulate. A Saint is also infallibly declared to be in heaven with God, so you can ask a Saint to pray and intercede for you with God.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 I don't find it presumptuous because I know what you mean by it. It is amusing, however, to think of some terrible sinner being identified as a "saint" simply because he is LDS.I think of a saint as someone who is earnestly pursuing a course toward eternal life -- including repentance from wrongdoing and diligent effort to improve behavior.
Mark Beesley Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Okay, fine. What about this one? Don't give up your day job. 2
Mark Beesley Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 If your name was Mark and someone kept calling you John, would you correct them or forever answer to John?I have a younger brother named John, and my dearly departed Mother, bless her soul, was always getting our names wrong. But we always knew from the context who she was scolding . . .
Recommended Posts