The Name of the Church

[california boy]

Had dinner with my son a couple of days ago.  He used the word Mormon and my partner teased him that he couldn't use that word any longer.  He just laughed and was kind of surprised that my partner knew about the change.  I asked my son what he thought about the whole name change thing.  His response was interesting.  I should note that he is also in advertising and a millennial and a very faithful member of the church.  He said "That has been a President Nelson thing for some time not.  But lets get real.  He probably won't be around long enough to actually make the change happen.  Even though President Nelson is in good health, he is doesn't have that many years.  I am not going to worry about it much."

I have noticed on this board very few members making a change to always using the full name of the Church.  And knowing how long and how much focus something like this would take, I thought it was a pretty interesting observation.  

[Navidad]

I agree wholeheartedly with Jim - theplains who is able to separate water and dry land. That is good enough for me!

 

 

[Guest]

On August 16, 2018 at 4:20 PM, rpn said:

Everything he is doing is to bring us to Christ.   Referring to us as Mormons doesn't do that.   This isn't about branding.  It is about claiming divine heritage.

Everything since the moment I was given a Book of Mormon, in January 1979, the book, the name Mormon and all it it encompasses, has led me deeper understanding of Jesus Christ. I have feasted upon the scriptures I grew up with, and have as well as upon the Book of  Mormon, the D&C, each, each day always bringing me closer to God. So for my 39+ years, and seeing the billions spent to exalt and life the name" "Mormon". In Church books, movies, pamphlets, etc. this practice of doing so for almost 200 years, has never led us away to Jesus Christ, but instead brought millions unto Christ. 

[RevTestament]

15 hours ago, theplains said:

I don't know what credentials the people who attended the Nicene Council were.

Maybe you should learn more about it since that is where doctrines such as the trinity stem from which most EVs follow...

Quote

According to the writer of Hebrews (7:13-17) Jesus is considered a priest in the order of Melchizedek because, like
Melchizedek, Jesus was not a descendant of Aaron, and thus would not qualify for the Jewish priesthood under the
Law of Moses. 

In the Old Testament there was only one high priest at a time.  Only he was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies once
a year.  In the New Testament, all believers are priests (temples of the living God).

This is why I believe it is incorrect for a church today to have multiple (and fallible) high priests in existence at the
same time.  Jesus is our High Priest and we have no need for High Priests Quorums.

Jim

Yes, Yeshua is a high priest and according to Hebrews so is Melchizedek. I've shown you scripture that  Yeshua is not the only High Priest. Scripture for your assertion that Yeshua did away with the office of High Priest? It seems it is just made up stuff for the convenience of your beliefs...

[Navidad]

"Made up stuff for the convenience of your beliefs....." Is that really where you want to go? I truly don't understand in such serious discussion as beliefs - whether LDS or evangelical or Orthodox or Jewish that we need such sarcasm. It really doesn't get us anywhere and turns discourse into debate and debacle. Because you either don't agree with it, or understand it doesn't make it "made up stuff." OK?

 

[Gray]

On 8/16/2018 at 3:20 PM, rpn said:

Everything he is doing is to bring us to Christ.   Referring to us as Mormons doesn't do that.   This isn't about branding.  It is about claiming divine heritage.

We won't succeed at shedding the word Mormon. We just won't.

But we can still fulfill the objective of the church by putting most of the focus of what we PREACH on Christ.

[mfbukowski]

On 8/27/2018 at 12:49 PM, theplains said:

Let's agree to disagree maybe.

The high priests in the Old Testament were for those in the OT.  Hebrews 5:1 is talking about the OT.  We have only
one high priest in the New Testament.

Hebrews 7:23-27. "And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 
But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them
to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high
priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Who
needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this
he did once, when he offered up himself."

The priesthood of the New Testament is the royal priesthood of believers (including women) which Peter taught. 
But I know from history that the Roman Catholic Church set up its priesthood with confessionals, etc.

Thanks,
Jim

Sorry but that's faulty logic.

The scripture says that it took one priest to save mankind, a priest with an unchangeable priesthood, who was himself perfect, to so he could sacrifice himself to save us all.

Nowhere does it say that that eliminates the need for other priest.

Yes there was only one who could perform the atonement.

That says nothing about others having authority to minister to people.

The fact that there is only one Eiffel Tower does not imply that there are no other Towers. It simply shows that the Eiffel Tower is a unique Tower onto itself,, with characteristics that no other Tower can have.

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, theplains said:

I don't know what credentials the people who attended the Nicene Council were.

According to the writer of Hebrews (7:13-17) Jesus is considered a priest in the order of Melchizedek because, like
Melchizedek, Jesus was not a descendant of Aaron, and thus would not qualify for the Jewish priesthood under the
Law of Moses. 

In the Old Testament there was only one high priest at a time.  Only he was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies once
a year.  In the New Testament, all believers are priests (temples of the living God).

This is why I believe it is incorrect for a church today to have multiple (and fallible) high priests in existence at the
same time.  Jesus is our High Priest and we have no need for High Priests Quorums.

Jim

And yet of course there are many things in the Old Testament that we no longer practice, so that argument doesn't work either.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, california boy said:

Had dinner with my son a couple of days ago.  He used the word Mormon and my partner teased him that he couldn't use that word any longer.  He just laughed and was kind of surprised that my partner knew about the change.  I asked my son what he thought about the whole name change thing.  His response was interesting.  I should note that he is also in advertising and a millennial and a very faithful member of the church.  He said "That has been a President Nelson thing for some time not.  But lets get real.  He probably won't be around long enough to actually make the change happen.  Even though President Nelson is in good health, he is doesn't have that many years.  I am not going to worry about it much."

I have noticed on this board very few members making a change to always using the full name of the Church.  And knowing how long and how much focus something like this would take, I thought it was a pretty interesting observation.  

Even some faithful members of the Church have need to repent in this matter. Hence, the clear and unequivocal direction from the prophet of God.

[Rain]

My experience shows me there is hope for calling the church by its full name.  I fully admit that I should have been more mentally involved in my prayer the other day, but it will show you that we should have faith that it will happen, after I ended my prayer with, "in the name of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." I was just glad it was a personal prayer and not a group one!

[Okrahomer]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

My experience shows me there is hope for calling the church by its full name.  I fully admit that I should have been more mentally involved in my prayer the other day, but it will show you that we should have faith that it will happen, after I ended my prayer with, "in the name of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." I was just glad it was a personal prayer and not a group one!

😂

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Even some faithful members of the Church have need to repent in this matter. Hence, the clear and unequivocal direction from the prophet of God.

Does the church's statement say anything about average church members following the media style guide? It seems to me the "Mormon" Newsroom statement is talking about how the institutional church refers to itself and how it would like the media to refer to the church. I don't see any instruction to members about how they should speak or refer to the church or its members. Has something more been said/written about expectations for the average member?

[california boy]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Even some faithful members of the Church have need to repent in this matter. Hence, the clear and unequivocal direction from the prophet of God.

When the church changes all of it's references and tags that use the name Mormon except in reference to the Book of Mormon and Mormon the prophet, then I predict he will follow the church directive.  

Edited August 28, 2018 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Does the church's statement say anything about average church members following the media style guide? It seems to me the "Mormon" Newsroom statement is talking about how the institutional church refers to itself and how it would like the media to refer to the church. I don't see any instruction to members about how they should speak or refer to the church or its members. Has something more been said/written about expectations for the average member?

I think I responded to this question from you before.

There have been repeated admonitions over the years from Church leaders directly to the membership -- in general conference, the Church Handbook, and, I dare say, other venues, to not remove the name of Christ from the name of the Church when referring to the Church. It hardly seems likely that the there would be a sea change now in that regard.

Furthermore, a link to President Nelson's "official statement" appeared for several days as the most prominent element on the home page of lds.org, which is used primarily by Latter-day Saints.

I don't buy it that the newly emphasized directive is intended for outsiders and not for Church  members themselves.

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

19 hours ago, california boy said:

Had dinner with my son a couple of days ago.  He used the word Mormon and my partner teased him that he couldn't use that word any longer.  He just laughed and was kind of surprised that my partner knew about the change.  I asked my son what he thought about the whole name change thing.  His response was interesting.  I should note that he is also in advertising and a millennial and a very faithful member of the church.  He said "That has been a President Nelson thing for some time not.  But lets get real.  He probably won't be around long enough to actually make the change happen.  Even though President Nelson is in good health, he is doesn't have that many years.  I am not going to worry about it much."

I have noticed on this board very few members making a change to always using the full name of the Church.  And knowing how long and how much focus something like this would take, I thought it was a pretty interesting observation.  

Maybe God will extend his life until the directive gets followed.  He could live another 20:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_living_people

That'd be interesting if in 20 years we're still hearing from President Nelson about not saying the word Mormon.  

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think I responded to this question from you before.

There have been repeated admonitions over the years from Church leaders directly to the membership -- in general conference, the Church Handbook, and, I dare say, other venues, to not remove the name of Christ from the name of the Church when referring to the Church. It hardly seems likely that the there would be a sea change now in that regard.

Furthermore, a link to President Nelson's "the official statement" appeared for several days as the most prominent element on the home page of lds.org, which is used primarily by Latter-day Saints.

I don't buy it that the newly emphasized directive is intended for outsiders and not for Church  members themselves.

 

Yeah but "Mormons" are a faith community and people who criticize can't be considered Mormon, right?

Quote

When referring to Church members, the terms "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or "Latter-day Saints" are preferred. We ask that the term "Mormons" not be used.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think I responded to this question from you before.

There have been repeated admonitions over the years from Church leaders directly to the membership -- in general conference, the Church Handbook, and, I dare say, other venues, to not remove the name of Christ from the name of the Church when referring to the Church. It hardly seems likely that the there would be a sea change now in that regard.

Furthermore, a link to President Nelson's "the official statement" appeared for several days as the most prominent element on the home page of lds.org, which is used primarily by Latter-day Saints.

I don't buy it that the newly emphasized directive is intended for outsiders and not for Church  members themselves.

 

If you responded before, I didn't see it.

Why not? Who was it addressed to? The media. Other comments stated that the Church would also make adjustments to fall in line with what they were asking from the media. I think Pres. Nelson said that explicitly in one of the videos. So this new request is aimed directly at media (hence the 'style guide') with additional statements being made about the church's own usage. Members are never mentioned. You seem to be referring to old statements (some going back to the 80's) to justify why people should take a hard line now. But that doesn't really make sense.

If the church takes a hard line stance about the name in the 80's - 90's but then disregards those rules itself, then wouldn't it be logical to think those earlier statements no longer applied? Why would they if the church didn't even follow them. Now we have a new statement aimed at the media but you want to revert back to statements from the 80's and 90's which the church didn't follow. How does that make sense? I suppose if leaders want this name initiative to apply to the general membership they will have ample opportunity to say so.

[JAHS]

What will they call the Blue Mormon butterfly now?

[rongo]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If you responded before, I didn't see it.

Why not? Who was it addressed to? The media. Other comments stated that the Church would also make adjustments to fall in line with what they were asking from the media. I think Pres. Nelson said that explicitly in one of the videos. So this new request is aimed directly at media (hence the 'style guide') with additional statements being made about the church's own usage. Members are never mentioned. You seem to be referring to old statements (some going back to the 80's) to justify why people should take a hard line now. But that doesn't really make sense.

If the church takes a hard line stance about the name in the 80's - 90's but then disregards those rules itself, then wouldn't it be logical to think those earlier statements no longer applied? Why would they if the church didn't even follow them. Now we have a new statement aimed at the media but you want to revert back to statements from the 80's and 90's which the church didn't follow. How does that make sense? I suppose if leaders want this name initiative to apply to the general membership they will have ample opportunity to say so.

My sense, going primarily off of the public statement, is that when this is fully flushed out, it will indeed be a call to members. In other words, I don't think this was solely directed at the media and outsiders. His statement that we need to repent and get in alignment points to that. 

I am at peace with it. I am going to continue to try to use the full name wherever possible, but will remain comfortable referring to "Mormon" or "Mormonism" wherever that is best for the situation. Where humanly possible, I will use the preferred terms. 

[Navidad]

I am intrigued by the continual use of the word "outsider" in many posts in this forum. I would think the o,u,t,s,i,d,e, and r keys must be well worn on your respective keyboards. Calling folks such monikers is a time-honored way of creating an in-group and an out-group. Outsiders' opinions are of no validity, outsiders are to be marginalized, outsiders have no thoughts that matter. After all they are not members of the in-group, those who have it right. This trend is a part of LDS-exceptionalism. I think it is the great blind spot of the Saints - oh wait a minute, I am an "outsider." What I think doesn't matter! Isn't there a better term to come up for those who have a deep and abiding interest and respect for the LDS faith, but who are not members?

[RevTestament]

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

"Made up stuff for the convenience of your beliefs....." Is that really where you want to go? I truly don't understand in such serious discussion as beliefs - whether LDS or evangelical or Orthodox or Jewish that we need such sarcasm. It really doesn't get us anywhere and turns discourse into debate and debacle. Because you either don't agree with it, or understand it doesn't make it "made up stuff." OK?

You say that because you are looking at this conversation with a certain perspective. I like Jim, but he has thumbed his nose at my priesthood office. He said:
 

Quote

This is why I believe it is incorrect for a church today to have multiple (and fallible) high priests in existence at the
same time.  Jesus is our High Priest and we have no need for High Priests Quorums.

I do not take this lightly.  He is basically saying my priesthood office is fraudulent. He is definitely saying it is not "needed" and does so without an ounce of scriptural support despite showing him several scriptures contrary to his assertions. I do not think it is unreasonable for me to ask him to back up his comments with scripture. My high priest office is not made up. OK?

[Navidad]

Hi Rev - You are right, I don't know the background of the conversation. I do see that President Nelson has apparently changed the role of the high priest in the church and the Melchizedek priesthood quorum no longer exists in the same way it has in the past. I also know some of the men in our ward are less than happy with the changes; those are the men who feel very strongly about their high priesthood role. They are loyal; but a bit confused. Again, I don't want to speak for them; these are simply my observations, I may be wrong. I guess I will take a risk with you.......I don't take my priesthood lightly either. I have walked the past year with hearing regularly that my priesthood office as a Mennonite elder is fraudulent. So perhaps I know something of how you feel. I honor and respect your high priest office. I don't understand it; but I honor it. I believe very strongly in the priesthood of all believers; so I have no interest in diminishing yours because as I read your posts I have no doubt you are a believer and a good man. Phil

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi Rev - You are right, I don't know the background of the conversation. I do see that President Nelson has apparently changed the role of the high priest in the church and the Melchizedek priesthood quorum no longer exists in the same way it has in the past. I also know some of the men in our ward are less than happy with the changes; those are the men who feel very strongly about their high priesthood role. They are loyal; but a bit confused. Again, I don't want to speak for them; these are simply my observations, I may be wrong. I guess I will take a risk with you.......I don't take my priesthood lightly either. I have walked the past year with hearing regularly that my priesthood office as a Mennonite elder is fraudulent. So perhaps I know something of how you feel. I honor and respect your high priest office. I don't understand it; but I honor it. I believe very strongly in the priesthood of all believers; so I have no interest in diminishing yours because as I read your posts I have no doubt you are a believer and a good man. Phil

Thank you Phil. You definitely try to be respectful, and I appreciate that. I try to be as well, although sometimes I probably come across a bit terse. I don't know that Pres Nelson appreciably changed the role of the high priests. He just changed the meeting organization. I think there are probably several reasons for that, but I don't know that Pres Nelson ever voiced any reasons. I think one reason is to benefit the Elders of the Church. While the reorganization does effectively change the role of the high priests as a quorum, I believe otherwise we still have the same duties. I suspect some high priests did not care for the change, but tbh, I haven't seen too much practical difference, and I kind of like the new lesson format - I believe that was in need of change.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

My sense, going primarily off of the public statement, is that when this is fully flushed out, it will indeed be a call to members. In other words, I don't think this was solely directed at the media and outsiders. His statement that we need to repent and get in alignment points to that. 

I am at peace with it. I am going to continue to try to use the full name wherever possible, but will remain comfortable referring to "Mormon" or "Mormonism" wherever that is best for the situation. Where humanly possible, I will use the preferred terms. 

So based on what's been said to date, it is no intended for members. But you expect that will change. You may be right. But I think I'll wait to make changes or even think it applies to me until leadership says it applies to me. So far, it is only an assumption that when this is all flushed out it will apply to the average member. I can wait to see if that happens.

[theplains]

On 8/28/2018 at 10:57 AM, RevTestament said:

Yes, Yeshua is a high priest and according to Hebrews so is Melchizedek. I've shown you scripture that  Yeshua is not the only High Priest. Scripture for your assertion that Yeshua did away with the office of High Priest?

Apart from the one appearance of Melchizedek to Abraham and being called the priest of the Most High God, do you
believe he served as a High Priest to the Israelites in the Old Testament or to Christians in the New Testament?

Jim