Elder Oaks

[rongo]

14 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.

Not for many years. Many, many years. Apostles are in meetings all week, and then fly to stake conferences and mission tours on the weekends. When they meet with non-members, it is dignitaries and the press. They aren't having "normal people" conversations with non-members they work with, live with, and do things with. 

Even Sami Hanna was high-profile, and President Nelson spoke about him in multiple conference talks. Even that was when he was an apostle, and he was introduced to Hanna. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by rongo

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Be more direct with me, Scott. 

He won't.  The generic nature of Scott's insult protects him from board censure.

 

Edited October 10, 2018 by rockpond

[Tacenda]

2 hours 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." 

That's what I was thinking, it appears to be that the word "Mormon" is a big no-no, but maybe I'm wrong. And originally the church was "Church of Christ" and then changed to "Church of the Latter Day Saints", something like that, so no Jesus in there. I've never really called myself a Mormon, always the nick-name LDS. So that won't be difficult. 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Tacenda

[Calm]

3 hours 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." 

People often link "Saint" to "Christian" so it makes sense to me why that is allowed while "Mormon" is discouraged.

[Gray]

4 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

No it doesn't. 

The Pharisees used the same argument to reject Christ.

Scott understood it perfectly alright

Scott's version of your argument certainly makes more sense. I could only respond to what you wrote, which didn't make sense. The pharisees didn't reject Jesus' teachings because he was a fallible mortal. That would be nonsensical.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Gray

[carbon dioxide]

I am not taking the word "Mormon" out of my vocabulary.  I agree with Nelson that it is not the name of the Church and in press and official publications, the official church name should be used.  If someone asks me if I am a Mormon, I am not going to get into a discussion on why that word is wrong and what they should call me.  That is a waste of my time.  I will just say yes and move on in whatever discussion that comes next.  I understand the rational behind what Pres Nelson is getting at and agree with him on much of it but at the same time I still ask myself is this really an issue that the average member really needs to worry about.  We have many problems and I have many problems.  This issue is far down on the list I need to work on.   Whether I use Mormon, LDS Church, LDS, or in my regular vocab in conversations with friends,  I don't see the importance of it.  Especially when members converse among themselves on issues.  We all know what the official name of the Church is.  Repeating the official name over and over again in our conversations really is not going to bring much benefit among ourselves.

Edited October 10, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[Avatar4321]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

Scott's version of your argument certainly makes more sense. I could only respond to what you wrote, which didn't make sense. The pharisees didn't reject Jesus' teachings because he was a fallible mortal. That would be nonsensical.

They thought he was

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

They thought he was

Okay, let's start over. You're saying the pharisees rejected Jesus because they thought he was a fallible mortal. How does that relate to a modern person disagreeing with Pres. Oaks?

Edited October 10, 2018 by Gray

[Stargazer]

On 10/8/2018 at 3:53 PM, Gray said:

Let's say the odds of God's will aligning so precisely with the American far right on so many issues is slim. Further responsible exegesis of scripture can of course entirely refute the notion that poking transgender people in the eye has anything to do with the will of God.

I have a feeling that both the left and the right would have to go some distance before aligning precisely with God.

And do you really think the far right wants to poke transgenders in the eye?  Odd notion.

What about the lefties that drive public figures of the right out of public accommodations like restaurants?  Is that aligned with God's purposes do you think?

[SouthernMo]

5 hours 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

There seems to be some grey area here. The published style guide from the Mormon Newsroom clearly indicates that referring to members of the church (formerly known as Mormons) the term Latter-day Saint is acceptable.

But, when I listen to President Nelson’s words starting at 7:50 in his Sunday talk, he seems to communicate that we need to take HIS name upon us.

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

People often link "Saint" to "Christian" so it makes sense to me why that is allowed while "Mormon" is discouraged.

I think what pops into most people's minds when they hear "Saint" is stained glass pictures, halos over heads, and other trappings of Catholic Saints. I don't think "Saint" is any more clear than "Mormon" is to the average person who doesn't know Mormonism, Mormons, or Christianity at large all that well. To such people, "Latter-day Saint" doesn't suddenly clear everything up, especially with regards to our belief in Christ. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours 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." 

Latter-day Saints is part of the name of the Church given by revelation from Jesus Christ; Mormon is not. 

In fact, Christ explicitly commanded that His Church not be called “after the name of a man,” be it Mormon or someone else. 

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think what pops into most people's minds when they hear "Saint" is stained glass pictures, halos over heads, and other trappings of Catholic Saints. I don't think "Saint" is any more clear than "Mormon" is to the average person who doesn't know Mormonism, Mormons, or Christianity at large all that well. To such people, "Latter-day Saint" doesn't suddenly clear everything up, especially with regards to our belief in Christ. 

We use the proper scriptural definition of saint and should not feel bound by sectarian definitions of the term. 

[Gray]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I have a feeling that both the left and the right would have to go some distance before aligning precisely with God.

And do you really think the far right wants to poke transgenders in the eye?  Odd notion.

I have observed them doing it repeatedly.

 

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

What about the lefties that drive public figures of the right out of public accommodations like restaurants?  Is that aligned with God's purposes do you think?

I wouldn't attribute that kind of behavior to God, no.

[Stargazer]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

I have observed them doing it repeatedly.

I'm sure you mean this figuratively.  Or?

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

I wouldn't attribute that kind of behavior to God, no.

I'm glad about that.

[Gray]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I'm sure you mean this figuratively.  Or?

 

Yes, definitely figurative.

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Latter-day Saints is part of the name of the Church given by revelation from Jesus Christ; Mormon is not. 

In fact, Christ explicitly commanded that His Church not be called “after the name of a man,” be it Mormon or someone else. 

The Church of... Latter-day Saints is also "part of the name of the church given by revelation from Jesus. Yet it isn't acceptable.

It must be exhausting trying to defend this silliness.

[Avatar4321]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The Church of... Latter-day Saints is also "part of the name of the church given by revelation from Jesus. Yet it isn't acceptable.

It must be exhausting trying to defend this silliness.

Not as silly as it is to justify fighting against it

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The Church of... Latter-day Saints is also "part of the name of the church given by revelation from Jesus. Yet it isn't acceptable.

The only thing wrong with that is leaving out the name of Jesus Christ. 

[california boy]

On 10/10/2018 at 8:36 PM, changed said:

 

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.  

In the end, the answer to many prayers and fasting was the sacrifice God asks of me is to give up the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  God helped show me that church leaders don't always speak for Him, even when they sometimes say they do.  I trust God as well, and in the end, I trusted the direction he impressed on me to take.  And yes, I do feel it was a huge sacrifice.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The only thing wrong with that is leaving out the name of Jesus Christ. 

So does "latter day saints"

So your argument "Latter day Saints" is an acceptable way to refer to a person formerly known as "Mormon" doesn't hold up, because it leaves out the name of Jesus.

[blueglass]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So does "latter day saints"

So your argument "Latter day Saints" is an acceptable way to refer to a person formerly known as "Mormon" doesn't hold up, because it leaves out the name of Jesus.

Interesting that Joseph Smith also leaves out Jesus Christ in responding to the enemies use of the words Mormon and Mormonism in this letter from Liberty, MO

"In the first place, I have stated above [p. 53] that Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter Day Saints, is truth; for the name Mormon, and Mormonism, was given to us by our enemies, but Latter Day Saints was the real name by which the church was organized."
JS, Letter, Liberty, MO, to Isaac Galland, 22 Mar. 1839; Times and Seasons, Feb. 1840, pp. 51–56.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-isaac-galland-22-march-1839/4#source-note

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So does "latter day saints"

So your argument "Latter day Saints" is an acceptable way to refer to a person formerly known as "Mormon" doesn't hold up, because it leaves out the name of Jesus.

Whether his argument holds up or not, "latter-day saints" ought to be perfectly acceptable. Paul used "saints" many times to refer to members of the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 10/11/2018 at 2:06 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

So does "latter day saints"

So your argument "Latter day Saints" is an acceptable way to refer to a person formerly known as "Mormon" doesn't hold up, because it leaves out the name of Jesus.

 

On 10/11/2018 at 6:10 PM, blueglass said:

Interesting that Joseph Smith also leaves out Jesus Christ in responding to the enemies use of the words Mormon and Mormonism in this letter from Liberty, MO

"In the first place, I have stated above [p. 53] that Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter Day Saints, is truth; for the name Mormon, and Mormonism, was given to us by our enemies, but Latter Day Saints was the real name by which the church was organized."
JS, Letter, Liberty, MO, to Isaac Galland, 22 Mar. 1839; Times and Seasons, Feb. 1840, pp. 51–56.

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-isaac-galland-22-march-1839/4#source-note

Lattrr-day Saints is a perfectly acceptable identifier for the members of the Church. President Nelson never said otherwise. The objection is to calling the Church itself by some other name than the name of Christ when He Himself commanded otherwise. 

Edited October 13, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Lattrr-day Saints is a perfectly acceptable identifier for the members of the Church. President Melson never said otherwise. The objection is to calling the Church itself by some other name than the name of Christ when He Himself commanded otherwise. 

The objection is also to calling members of the Church Mormons. Or even shorting Latter-day Saints to LDS.

 

ETA: Also, the term "Mormonism"

Edited October 12, 2018 by Gray