RevTestament Posted December 17, 2016 Author Posted December 17, 2016 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: That's exactly it. What we are fighting is not Mormonism but outmoded ways of understanding what Mormonism is- which it never WAS!! We are so used to the anti's we actually believe what they tell us we believe. The doctrine is perfect- people's interpretation of the doctrine is not "restored" yet- that is the problem. Sorry to say these words but the Utah former Protestant farmers saved the church and brought it to Utah- hallelujah ! But with it, from the beginning, we still have the same Protestant culture with weird beliefs grafted into a mish-mash of Protestantism. Those ideas now have to go or we will lose the church itself. Prophets are not the Pope, never were never will be, never were meant to be. They are wise and inspired ministers who give wise and inspired advice but - thank God- they are humans. They are not Regal Kings who have a daily face-to face chat with the Father and bring back the Stone Tablets of the day- (I am not saying that kind of thing never happens) but they are humans who make mistakes. Joseph made mistakes. God does not live in "yonder heavens" he is right here interacting with us every day. God is not transcendent and barely notices us- I hate it when someone says "God knows my name"- DUH! MY God knows my every thought and is with me 24-7- he dang well BETTER know my name! That's like saying "my wife knows my name" or "I know my name". If he doesn't know me better than I know me- we are in serious trouble! God is not transcendent but immanent and is the "God who cries". He is our Father. Somewhere in the days of 40 wives and a hundred children it might have been nice to know that your father knows your name- but that is pure Utah culture! OK enough ranting! Go ahead and rant away! I am enjoyin chuckling
RevTestament Posted December 17, 2016 Author Posted December 17, 2016 4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I think we already do a pretty good job with the message; overwhelmingly people just don't hear it. Yesterday morning I attended the funeral for a dear brother in my ward. Afterwards I spoke to one of the non-member couples that had attended. The wife had a million questions for me, beginning with the role of Jesus Christ in our faith. I explained that to her simply, and she said, with enthusiasm, 'Yes! Why does nobody know this?' She's known of Latter-day Saints for much of her life but never understood what we have to offer. She's an older, retired woman, and she explained that she's believed things since her earliest memories but had never been able to find a church that taught them. She and her husband now attend a Presbyterian church, but they said it was more out of convenience and loyalty than any close theological connection. As we talked further, she was excited that everything her heart has always believed and hoped for was being said by me and the other members. They left with a copy of the Book of Mormon, and she said she'll ring after the holidays to set up a time for the Elders and me to come round to teach them more. Good stuff! So how do we get the message out better? i think that's where we come in. This is why I refer to myself as LDS Christian, and not "Mormon." I think it tends to hide our commitment to Christ. The term tends to bring up a "knee-jerk" reaction. Can a different PR program inform people better?
Hamba Tuhan Posted December 17, 2016 Posted December 17, 2016 6 hours ago, RevTestament said: Can a different PR program inform people better? I personally think the Church's PR is spot-on. Last month I quit my job at the university and accepted an offer to serve as senior adviser to a newly elected member of our local parliament. Late Wednesday evening I had occasion to be in the office of the leader of the opposition, and he brought up the Church's PR. It was the best he'd ever seen, he told me, and spoke of eagerly awaiting each new Mormon Message. 'I wish we could message half so well', he said with some envy. I think the 'different PR program' is back to us. What do we do with what we have? 3
Guest Posted December 17, 2016 Posted December 17, 2016 To the OP, we are all those things. We should teach disaffected that we know the truth about Christ, and the truth concerning our scripture, but n the BoM and the D&C. We should do so without apology or shame. We should do so boldly, in all we teach, and not be ashamed of Christ, that He is not ashamed of us. Also to show forth love no mater the choice they make.For I am not ashamed of Christ and will ever be so...and I will approach the throne of God boldly, as Paul teaches us to do.
Physics Guy Posted December 17, 2016 Posted December 17, 2016 On 12/16/2016 at 5:07 PM, RevTestament said: Can we do a better job at attracting those leaving liberal churches? One tough call: when to mention polygamy, including Joseph Smith's own. Leave it too late to mention this, and people who weren't brought up to revere Smith will not only be appalled at him, but may be angry at you, for not telling them earlier. Bring it up too early, though, and you'll scare people away. Realistically there are going to be a lot of people for whom there is not going to be any good time to mention polygamy. It will just be a deal-breaker for them, whenever they learn of it. (I'm not Mormon myself, and if I were ever interested in becoming Mormon, this is the biggest issue that would stop me. But I'm not being snide. I'm just saying that if you want to appeal to conservative non-Mormon Christians, there are some serious hurdles.)
The Nehor Posted December 17, 2016 Posted December 17, 2016 (edited) I think we need more hellfire and damnation talks in out Sacrament Meetings and in General Conference. Edited December 17, 2016 by The Nehor 2
JLHPROF Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 Does anyone else remember when choosing a religion was based on what was actually true, not what makes a person feel good? Nah...silly idea I know.
Physics Guy Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 Being sure they have the truth makes some people feel good. The actual truth is, that humans can't be sure we have the truth.
JLHPROF Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 3 hours ago, Physics Guy said: Being sure they have the truth makes some people feel good. The actual truth is, that humans can't be sure we have the truth. Don't agree. Humans cannot PROVE they have the truth. Different thing. 2
Foreigner Posted December 18, 2016 Posted December 18, 2016 On 17.12.2016 at 6:15 AM, RevTestament said: This is why I refer to myself as LDS Christian, and not "Mormon." I think it tends to hide our commitment to Christ. The term tends to bring up a "knee-jerk" reaction. Can a different PR program inform people better? And I was afraid to be the only LDS Christian here... Names carry the message. When "mormonism" was invented, it signified a new religion. Some may be proud of it. I see that as a point, when the church turned down. Whoever the church should attract, the program should focus on showing the way to Christ, not conversion to "mormonism".
mfbukowski Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 22 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Does anyone else remember when choosing a religion was based on what was actually true, not what makes a person feel good? Nah...silly idea I know. Everyone thinks they have the truth even Mormons. That's exactly the problem. Of course only we are right. We just need to set these people straight! That should work! I have always loved it when people I don't know come up to me and tell me I am wrong. It warms the cockles of my heart. I hate cold cockles, don't you? 1
mfbukowski Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, Physics Guy said: The actual truth is, that humans can't be sure we have the truth. Just a tad self-contradictory but true anyway. Quote According to the deflationary theory of truth, to assert that a statement is true is just to assert the statement itself. For example, to say that ‘snow is white’ is true, or that it is true that snow is white, is equivalent to saying simply that snow is white, and this, according to the deflationary theory, is all that can be said significantly about the truth of ‘snow is white’. There are many implications of a theory of this sort for philosophical debate about the nature of truth. Philosophers often make suggestions like the following: truth consists in correspondence to the facts; truth consists in coherence with a set of beliefs or propositions; truth is the ideal outcome of rational inquiry. According to the deflationist, however, such suggestions are mistaken, and, moreover, they all share a common mistake. The common mistake is to assume that truth has a nature of the kind that philosophers might find out about and develop theories of. For the deflationist, truth has no nature beyond what is captured in ordinary claims such as that ‘snow is white’ is true just in case snow is white. Philosophers looking for the nature of truth are bound to be frustrated, the deflationist says, because they are looking for something that isn't there. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/ Edited December 19, 2016 by mfbukowski
JLHPROF Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Everyone thinks they have the truth even Mormons. That's exactly the problem. Of course only we are right. We just need to set these people straight! That should work! I have always loved it when people I don't know come up to me and tell me I am wrong. It warms the cockles of my heart. I hate cold cockles, don't you? Not really my point. My point is that religion used to be about the journey to discover eternal truths (even if we don't agree on what they are) even if it was a painful journey. Nowadays religion seems to be about the beliefs and congregations that make us feel best about ourselves. There has been a definite shift in what we want from a religion, from discovering truth to making ourselves feel happy. 2
mfbukowski Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 9 hours ago, Foreigner said: And I was afraid to be the only LDS Christian here... Names carry the message. When "mormonism" was invented, it signified a new religion. Some may be proud of it. I see that as a point, when the church turned down. Whoever the church should attract, the program should focus on showing the way to Christ, not conversion to "mormonism". The only problem with that is that the word "Christian" has been taken over by the Evangelicals. To call oneself a Christian now implies one is an Evangelical. Catholics call themselves Catholics, and Orthodox call themselves "____ Orthodox" depending on what liturgy they follow Swedenborgians call themselves the "New Church", so that is taken also. Moravians are Moravians, Amish are Amish, Friends are Friends and Mennonites are Mennonites. So to me, I think we are stuck with "Mormons". I don't like it either but "Christian Mormon" sounds like a new denomination to me, and so does "Mormon Christian". THAT seems to imply something else- like there are NON-Christian Mormons. It sounds like a "Christian Jew" or Jewish Christian to me. It's definitely a problem.
mfbukowski Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 (edited) 23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Not really my point. My point is that religion used to be about the journey to discover eternal truths (even if we don't agree on what they are) even if it was a painful journey. Nowadays religion seems to be about the beliefs and congregations that make us feel best about ourselves. There has been a definite shift in what we want from a religion, from discovering truth to making ourselves feel happy. What good are truths we don't agree on? How can we call those true at all? Alma 32 says that making ourselves feel happy IS the truth. So does Moroni 10:4-5 and James 1:5, essentially D&C 58:2-4 says you cannot see God's designs with our natural eyes Since all those are not objective- IE: that we cannot agree on what that kind of "truth" is, then how do we "discover truth"? I know! Just ask me and take my word for it!!! Or should we just put you in charge of defining truth? Which do you prefer? So what is it- truths we cannot agree on or truths that make us happy? What is "eternal truth" if no one agrees on it? Edited December 19, 2016 by mfbukowski 1
JLHPROF Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: What good are truths we don't agree on? How can we call those true at all? Alma 32 says that making ourselves feel happy IS the truth. So does Moroni 10:4-5 and James 1:5, essentially D&C 58:2-4 says you cannot see God's designs with our natural eyes Since all those are not objective- IE: that we cannot agree on what that kind of "truth" is, then how do we "discover truth"? I know! Just ask me and take my word for it!!! Or should we just put you in charge of defining truth? Which do you prefer? So what is it- truths we cannot agree on or truths that make us happy? What is "eternal truth" if no one agrees on it? Perhaps it's all about the journey to find truth. We will never have it all. But the point remains that people seem less willing to suffer to find truth. They want to feel comfortable more.
mfbukowski Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 (edited) 18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Perhaps it's all about the journey to find truth. We will never have it all. But the point remains that people seem less willing to suffer to find truth. They want to feel comfortable more. But you make the point that no one agrees on eternal truth. Maybe they just got tired of thinking it was there to be discovered and so they quit banging their heads against the wall. It's kind of silly to keep suffering for what is not there to be discovered. It seems obvious to me. It's like looking for the Holy Grail and you figure out that it doesn't exist- do you stop looking or do you just endure for the sake of enduring pain? I have discovered that pain hurts. I kind of like eternal truth that makes us happy, like the Golden Rule. If everybody followed it - everyone would be happy, and it works in all human societies. Aren't we here to have joy? Edited December 19, 2016 by mfbukowski
Foreigner Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 14 hours ago, mfbukowski said: The only problem with that is that the word "Christian" has been taken over by the Evangelicals. To call oneself a Christian now implies one is an Evangelical. Catholics call themselves Catholics, and Orthodox call themselves "____ Orthodox" depending on what liturgy they follow Swedenborgians call themselves the "New Church", so that is taken also. Moravians are Moravians, Amish are Amish, Friends are Friends and Mennonites are Mennonites. So to me, I think we are stuck with "Mormons". I don't like it either but "Christian Mormon" sounds like a new denomination to me, and so does "Mormon Christian". THAT seems to imply something else- like there are NON-Christian Mormons. It sounds like a "Christian Jew" or Jewish Christian to me. It's definitely a problem. Quite insightful. But what to do with an Evangelical who accepts BoM and more, yet rejects much of Mormon culture and tradition? Could such a creature be called "Evangelical Mormon" or "Mormon Evangelical"? That looks really odd! So, "LDS Christian" looks better, although limited to English language. Names should carry the message. "LDS Christian" indicates someone, for whom the Bible is really the first Testament, contrary to Mormon practice. And Bible confirms the name "Christian": Acts11:26, Acts 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16. One cannot allow to be deprived of that name.
bluebell Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 5 minutes ago, Foreigner said: Names should carry the message. "LDS Christian" indicates someone, for whom the Bible is really the first Testament, contrary to Mormon practice. And Bible confirms the name "Christian": Acts11:26, Acts 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16. One cannot allow to be deprived of that name. I think part of the problem is that most of the time, we don't really know why people label themselves like they do. For example, i have often called myself LDS Christian but it had nothing to do with my views on the bile as being the first testament. That the label should or could mean such a thing didn't even cross my mind until your post. I used the term to differentiate between members (such as myself) and non-LDS Christians. 1
Foreigner Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 2 hours ago, bluebell said: I think part of the problem is that most of the time, we don't really know why people label themselves like they do. For example, i have often called myself LDS Christian but it had nothing to do with my views on the bile as being the first testament. That the label should or could mean such a thing didn't even cross my mind until your post. I used the term to differentiate between members (such as myself) and non-LDS Christians. Thanks for relevant comment. It is not easy to manage the labels. Anyway, regarding the opening post, I think that the message portrayed to attract others to the Curch, should emphasize the name of Christ, not Mormon.
bluebell Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 28 minutes ago, Foreigner said: Thanks for relevant comment. It is not easy to manage the labels. Anyway, regarding the opening post, I think that the message portrayed to attract others to the Curch, should emphasize the name of Christ, not Mormon. I agree.
mfbukowski Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 3 hours ago, Foreigner said: Quite insightful. But what to do with an Evangelical who accepts BoM and more, yet rejects much of Mormon culture and tradition? Could such a creature be called "Evangelical Mormon" or "Mormon Evangelical"? That looks really odd! So, "LDS Christian" looks better, although limited to English language. Names should carry the message. "LDS Christian" indicates someone, for whom the Bible is really the first Testament, contrary to Mormon practice. And Bible confirms the name "Christian": Acts11:26, Acts 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16. One cannot allow to be deprived of that name. In order to be a member of the church one undergoes an interview which asks among other things, if one has a testimony of the Book of Mormon. If one does not have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, one should not be a member. The entire point of the Book of Mormon is that it RESTORES truths not found in the bible. That means it "takes precedence" over the Bible. The articles of faith say we accept the bible "insofar it is translated correctly". I reject all of Mormon tradition and culture- but I accept all the doctrine totally. I agree that we need to do better in letting people know that Christ is the cornerstone of our church. Suppose someone called themselves a "Amish Christian"- wouldn't that imply that there were Amish who were NOT Christians? I used that group because many do not know anything more about the Amish than that they drive around in carriages with horses. All I knew about Mormons was that they had some "saints who were Indians" before I joined the church. Hearing "LDS Christian" would not let me know that Mormons were Christians at all. I would have no clue "LDS" had anything to do with "Mormons". If you live in the Eastern US it is highly likely that you have no clue what "LDS" stands for, hard as it is for Utahns to believe. You also have probably heard of Mormons due to the recent broadway play, and you probably think they should be made fun of, whatever their stupid beliefs are. Calling yourself an "LDS Christian" does nothing to correct that, it just confuses people. I suppose there is no point in arguing it farther, but I will not be following your suggestions to call myself an "LDS Christian".
mfbukowski Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I agree. And I agree as well, but how about "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints instead of "LDS" OR "Mormon" or "LDS Christian" ??? A strange notion, I know but that's the way I am. Edited December 19, 2016 by mfbukowski 2
mfbukowski Posted December 19, 2016 Posted December 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Foreigner said: Thanks for relevant comment. It is not easy to manage the labels. Anyway, regarding the opening post, I think that the message portrayed to attract others to the Curch, should emphasize the name of Christ, not Mormon. Uh, if we just use the name of the church, that "problem" is solved. 3
Foreigner Posted December 20, 2016 Posted December 20, 2016 17 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Uh, if we just use the name of the church, that "problem" is solved. Not at all. You have lost the point. The official name is simply too long for practical purposes. Various denominations have long proper names. But each one needs any short, useful version, one word or two max. The problem is to compress the message to only one word.
Recommended Posts