rockpond Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 25 minutes ago, smac97 said: Actually yes, there is. I regularly refer readers on this board to an excellent article written by then-Elder Oaks in 1987, entitled "Criticism." In it Elder Oaks lays out multiple "right way{s}" to "bring up questions or concerns." I don't see a schism in our future. Possibly a large number of walkaways, though. Thanks, -Smac There already is a schism in our church. It may not be big enough yet to register, but it’s there.
HappyJackWagon Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 19 minutes ago, smac97 said: Actually yes, there is. I regularly refer readers on this board to an excellent article written by then-Elder Oaks in 1987, entitled "Criticism." In it Elder Oaks lays out multiple "right way{s}" to "bring up questions or concerns." I don't see a schism in our future. Possibly a large number of walkaways, though. Thanks, -Smac I think the schism is already underway. This is such a self-serving talk. The entire talk is about not criticizing church leaders, even if the criticism is correct. It is dangerous when our leaders teach that they are above criticism and offer no mechanism for addressing concerns with non-local church leaders. The remedies mentioned in the Oaks article... Quote The first—and most benign—of the procedures is to overlook the difference. A second option is to reserve judgment and postpone any action on the difference. The third procedure, which should be familiar to every student of the Bible, is to take up our differences privately with the leader involved. A fourth option is to communicate with the Church officer who has the power to correct or release the person thought to be in error or transgression. There is a fifth remedy. We can pray for the resolution of the problem. 1-2 Do nothing. That's the expectation, isn't it. 3- Take the difference privately to the leader. Outside of a local leader, how would this be accomplished? 4- How does one communicate with the church officer who has the power to correct the issue if a) members are counseled NOT to directly contact church authorities and b) we do not have personal access or ability to communicate with the church officer. How would this work for anything other than a dispute with local leaders? 5- Pray. So if I have an issue with something the First Presidency, Q12 or even Q70 say or do, how would that be remedied. This talk isn't helpful beyond suggesting that we do nothing tangible to address the issue.
rongo Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 24 minutes ago, pogi said: I agree, but if we want to stick with the prophet dictated system, then we will NOT remain "Mormon, through and through". I thought of that as I typed it. I'm sorry ---- "remaining 'Mormon' " conveys the meaning better and more efficiently than "remaining members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Especially when trying to say "members of the Restored Church of Jesus Christ" for successive mentions. It's not effective communication or use of language, it doesn't flow, and it seems wooden and mechanical --- not natural. It's going to be hard to replace that in Mormon culture --- I mean, culture of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 2
Avatar4321 Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 4 hours ago, Gray said: Are you trying to say President Oaks is the Messiah? No.
bluebell Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 1 hour ago, rockpond said: There already is a schism in our church. It may not be big enough yet to register, but it’s there. I actually agree. I think that protests on GC talks by active members of the church are one example of the evidence of such a schism.
Avatar4321 Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 2 hours ago, Navidad said: Oh my! Every member of the United Methodist Church has access to revelation from God! They don't have prophets and apostles because they have direct access through supplications and prayers to revelation from God, especially in the person of the Holy Spirit who indwells, leads and guides Christian Methodists. Then they should read the Book of Mormon. They would receive more revelation
pogi Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, rongo said: I thought of that as I typed it. I'm sorry ---- "remaining 'Mormon' " conveys the meaning better and more efficiently than "remaining members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Especially when trying to say "members of the Restored Church of Jesus Christ" for successive mentions. It's not effective communication or use of language, it doesn't flow, and it seems wooden and mechanical --- not natural. It's going to be hard to replace that in Mormon culture --- I mean, culture of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I was just giving you a hard time. I agree that it is a hard transition and can seem mechanical at times. I certainly am struggling. I have decided that “Latter-day Saint” instead of “member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” is the best replacement for “Mormon”. It is “Mormonism” that I find to be the hardest to replace. Latter-day Saintism? Because “the restored gospel of Jesus Christ” does not convey Mormonism adequately. Latter-day Saint, through and through flows the best in my mind. Edited October 10, 2018 by pogi 1
Avatar4321 Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Gray said: You've resculpted Avatar's point in an attempt to rehabilitate it, by introducing a new argument not contained in the original syntax ("conveying divine truth"). What Avatar wrote makes no sense outside of the assumption that Oaks, like Jesus, is actually divine/perfect despite some assuming that he is a mere fallible man. "Oaks is no Jesus. I'll just say that it's easier for me to put my trust in a perfect deity than a man." HappyJackWagon "I’m sure that’s what the Pharisees said about Christ." - Avatar The pharisees are said to have rejected the notion that Jesus was the divine "I Am" or Yahweh (according to John). Is Oaks actually Yahweh, or something similar? If not, this is a strange point to make. Does Avatar really think Oaks is divine? Of course not. But his argument unwittingly makes that point. No it doesn't. The Pharisees used the same argument to reject Christ. Scott understood it perfectly alright 1
rongo Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 11 minutes ago, pogi said: I was just giving you a hard time. I agree that it is a hard transition and can seem mechanical at times. I certainly am struggling. I have decided that “Latter-day Saint” instead of “member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” is the best replacement for “Mormon”. It is “Mormonism” that I find to be the hardest to replace. Latter-day Saintism? Because “the restored gospel of Jesus Christ” does not convey Mormonism adequately. Latter-day Saint, through and through flows the best in my mind. Except that we're not supposed to say "Latter-day Saint," either. It's just as bad as "Mormon" on principle (according to the explanation). Totally agree about "Mormonism." No suggested replacement terms are as good at conveying the body of belief within . . . Mormonism.
changed Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 3 hours ago, Maestrophil said: Did you listen to all of conference? There were specifically talks that talked about those things. Could it be that in isolating President Oaks' talk as a stand-alone message, people might get the wrong idea? I tend to view the entire conference as a message for my life. When all the 'pieces' are connected, the message is beautiful and inspiring to me, even when individual talks may fall flat for me. That said, I did not hear anything that personally bothered me in Pres. Oaks' comments, but I did recognize that anytime someone takes a hard line on gender identity, there will be those who dislike the message. I don't know that there is much the church can do to accommodate people who desire a more lax approach to gender and sexuality aside from completely abandoning a sense of any expectation when it comes to sexuality. I have relatives who are LGBT and are not LDS. I have been able to talk through the issues with them without offending anyone. I let them know that I believed Christianity was a religion of sacrifice - based on the greatest sacrifice of all, the atonement. I believe within our lives everyone is called at one point or another to make an incredibly big sacrifice, and that sacrifice is different for each person. Catholic nuns and priests give up being married at all - a huge sacrifice. For others, it is giving up a career to have kids or otherwise take care of family members. I will not judge another, their sacrifice is between them and God. I trust God enough to believe He has individual plans for everyone. 2
rongo Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 18 minutes ago, bluebell said: I actually agree. I think that protests on GC talks by active members of the church are one example of the evidence of such a schism. I also agree with the earlier statement (forget by whom) that it is when people begin causes that they are squarely on the apostate path. Disagreeing, even publicly --- especially in a discussion --- is one thing. When one starts petitions, hunger strikes, press conferences, marches, etc., . . . one is now sliding down the slope.
Okrahomer Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 1 minute ago, rongo said: Except that we're not supposed to say "Latter-day Saint," either. It's just as bad as "Mormon" on principle (according to the explanation). Are you sure? The Style Guide indicates the following: "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." 4
rongo Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 1 minute ago, Okrahomer said: Are you sure? The Style Guide indicates the following: "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." It equally doesn't have the name of Christ, and using the same arguments in favor of the emphasis, is just as confusing about our "Christ-ism" as "Mormon." I think the idea is actually, whether you want to use rebranding or not, to abolish the term Mormon over time. That's the ideal behind it. 1
SouthernMo Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Some, to their own condemnation, reject divinely called messengers as instruments by which divine truth is conveyed, ignoring or forgetting that the good Lord very often uses this means of conveying it. If one is too stiff-necked to receive the message from a humble servant of God, one is likely not open to the still, small manifestation of the Holy Spirit. Be more direct with me, Scott. 1
Okrahomer Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, rongo said: It equally doesn't have the name of Christ, and using the same arguments in favor of the emphasis, is just as confusing about our "Christ-ism" as "Mormon." I think the idea is actually, whether you want to use rebranding or not, to abolish the term Mormon over time. That's the ideal behind it. Nevertheless, I don't think we've been asked to stop using the term "Latter-day Saints" have we? 2
pogi Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 6 minutes ago, rongo said: Except that we're not supposed to say "Latter-day Saint," either. It's just as bad as "Mormon" on principle (according to the explanation). Totally agree about "Mormonism." No suggested replacement terms are as good at conveying the body of belief within . . . Mormonism. I thought the same thing but that is actually not accurate. We are not supposed to use "Latter-day Saint" in reference to the Church. As in "LDS Church" or "Church of Latter-day Saints." However, when referencing a member of the Church, and not the Church itself, we are encouraged to use "Latter-day Saint". This is from the style guide: Quote While the term "Mormon Church" has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use. Thus, please avoid using the abbreviation "LDS" or the nickname "Mormon" as substitutes for the name of the Church, as in "Mormon Church," "LDS Church," or "Church of the Latter-day Saints." 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. Hope that helps the transition a little. I am now wondering if we can use "LDS" to refer to members as long as we don't use it as a shorthand reference for the Church itself. If we are encouraged to use "Latter-day Saints" to refer to members, can we simply say "I am LDS" to replace "I am a Mormon"? 1
rongo Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, Okrahomer said: Nevertheless, I don't think we've been asked to stop using the term "Latter-day Saints" have we? That was my understanding, but I guess I didn't read the Style Guide closely enough. If "Mormon" is out, but "Latter-day Saint" is still in, given the rationale and explanations, that makes it look like it really is all about eliminating terms like "Mormon," "Mormonism," etc. That makes me even less of a fan of the effort, because "Latter-day Saint" is on an equal footing with "Mormon." It should be just as much a part of the effort as memory-holing "Mormon." 3
rongo Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, pogi said: I am now wondering if we can use "LDS" to refer to members as long as we don't use it as a shorthand reference for the Church itself. If we are encouraged to use "Latter-day Saints" to refer to members, can we simply say "I am LDS" to replace "I am a Mormon"? Not under President Nelson's rationale. He did his best and explained where he is coming from well, but it breaks down. Like I said, it smacks of not having experience talking to non-members who aren't dignitaries or the press (normal, everyday people). It isn't workable in real life, and it doesn't foster clear, parsimonous communication.
pogi Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, rongo said: That was my understanding, but I guess I didn't read the Style Guide closely enough. If "Mormon" is out, but "Latter-day Saint" is still in, given the rationale and explanations, that makes it look like it really is all about eliminating terms like "Mormon," "Mormonism," etc. That makes me even less of a fan of the effort, because "Latter-day Saint" is on an equal footing with "Mormon." It should be just as much a part of the effort as memory-holing "Mormon." I think it still fits the rationale. The prophet wants us to use the revealed name of the church (which includes Christ) in reference to the church - as it is His Church. However, members of the Church, are referred to as "Latter-day Saints" in the revealed title of the Church. Latter-day Saint is really our revealed title as members and proper use. Edited October 10, 2018 by pogi 3
rongo Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, pogi said: I think it still fits the rationale. The prophet wants us to use the revealed name of the church (which includes Christ) in reference to the church - as it is His Church. However, members of the Church, are referred to as "Latter-day Saints" in the revealed title of the Church. Latter-day Saint is really our revealed title as members and proper use. So I can still use the joke: What do you get when you cross LDS with LSD? A high priest. Oh, wait! LDS is on the outs. 4
HappyJackWagon Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, ksfisher said: Where does revelation to a prophet fit in with all this? Revelation fits in at every level. Every individual who participates seeks personal revelation. It's about uniting personal revelations and being a prophetic people more than relying solely on the revelation of one person, or perhaps a small group. ETA- And maybe the Mormon version of a "democratic" process in the church would have a feature in which the prophet makes the final decision after being presented with the ideas and votes of the people. If the people choose to do something he adamantly opposes and is revealed to him to be in error, he can still implement what he believes is God's will. But the difference would be that the people will have had a role in participating in the process, even if they don't get everything they want. I would also expect that if the Prophet went a direction different than the will of the majority of the members he would feel the need to explain his thought process and/or provide a revelation to be canonized that could then be accepted by common consent. IMO The church was never intended to be an oligarchy. I believe the organization was designed to seek the participation of the people and seek consensus through longsuffering, persuasion etc. I think it's been a cultural shift over time that leads many to think that's how it should be. Edited October 10, 2018 by HappyJackWagon
ksfisher Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 6 minutes ago, rongo said: it smacks of not having experience talking to non-members who aren't dignitaries or the press (normal, everyday people) I'm not sure how you can say this. President Nelson grew up in an inactive family, served in the army, and spent almost 30 years as a surgeon. I think he had plenty of interaction with normal, everyday people. 1
Avatar4321 Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 29 minutes ago, Okrahomer said: Nevertheless, I don't think we've been asked to stop using the term "Latter-day Saints" have we? We have not been asked to stop using it. we have been asked to stop referring to the Church as the LDS Church 1
HappyJackWagon Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I'm not sure how you can say this. President Nelson grew up in an inactive family, served in the army, and spent almost 30 years as a surgeon. I think he had plenty of interaction with normal, everyday people. But that was 40 years ago, right? I wonder how much interaction he's had with normal, everyday people in the last 40 years.
Okrahomer Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: We have not been asked to stop using it. we have been asked to stop referring to the Church as the LDS Church Yes...that's what I thought. Good to confirm my understanding.
Recommended Posts