Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Elder Oaks


Recommended Posts

Posted
On 10/6/2018 at 2:52 PM, ksfisher said:

So are you saying we should reject the words of the Lord’s prophets and apostles on this issue and pay more attention to what society teaches?

I would say to pray about teachings that you have questions about. While I agree with what Elder Oak's said, there have been other things that I have not agreed with and have a bad feeling about. I think I am in the right to seek personal revelation about certain things since there is a history of church leaders expressing personal opinion as doctrine, which the church later had to disavow.

And to be fair, the church itself changes policies to adhere to societal norms. They gave up the temporal practice of polygamy because of outside pressure and allowed black people to have the priesthood because of the civil rights movement zeroing in on the church. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see women holding the priesthood in the next 30 years or so when the church faces huge pressure from the feminist movement.

Posted
3 minutes ago, 10THAmendment said:

I would say to pray about teachings that you have questions about. While I agree with what Elder Oak's said, there have been other things that I have not agreed with and have a bad feeling about. I think I am in the right to seek personal revelation about certain things since there is a history of church leaders expressing personal opinion as doctrine, which the church later had to disavow.

And to be fair, the church itself changes policies to adhere to societal norms. They gave up the temporal practice of polygamy because of outside pressure and allowed black people to have the priesthood because of the civil rights movement zeroing in on the church. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see women holding the priesthood in the next 30 years or so when the church faces huge pressure from the feminist movement.

I agree with all of this.

Posted (edited)
On 10/6/2018 at 11:42 AM, kllindley said:

I am loving Elder Oaks's talk, but I keep hearing bits that I predict the discontented are going to attack. Viciously. 

 

Because it is needed. Believe me when I say it is going to get even worse, since the huge suicide problem in the Utah/Idaho area has been skyrocketing. And from what I've heard, several suicides since even Oaks' talk. Time to get rid of the policies that cause death, men aren't Gods and they aren't getting the message of love for these individuals, they are making it far worse. I know with all of my heart, God isn't happy at all about this. Listened to this podcast this morning...this man had the love of his ward throughout, but the guantlet is probably going to come down hard on him since his disciplinary hearing is coming up on the 16th. https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/dusty-johns/

Edited by Tacenda
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Stargazer said:

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.

By that logic, we can also refer to ourselves as Christians since that is the term used in the Book of Mormon in referring to members of the church.

If we are supposed to drop LDS and Mormon, Latter-day Saint is the next best way to refer ourselves and it’s kosher to use according to the  Church’s press release.  

Edited by Rivers
Posted (edited)

Referring to oneself as a saint is pretty off-putting in our culture today.  It's self-aggrandizing and has become taboo since saints are named after their death.  In that sense it's much better to refer to oneself as Mormon than a Latter-day Saint.  latter-day Saint is kind of a lame term.  People who hear it think, "Oh so you mean Mormon?"  Or "that sounds like an incredibly proud way to talk about oneself...but to each his own I suppose".   I"m guessing it's more off-putting and will have more of a negative effect than Mormon.  

Edited by stemelbow
Posted
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Referring to oneself as a saint is pretty off-putting in our culture today.  It's self-aggrandizing and has become taboo since saints are named after their death.  In that sense it's much better to refer to oneself as Mormon than a Latter-day Saint.  latter-day Saint is kind of a lame term.  People who hear it think, "Oh so you mean Mormon?"  Or "that sounds like an incredibly proud way to talk about oneself...but to each his own I suppose".   I"m guessing it's more off-putting and will have more of a negative effect than Mormon.  

Then people need to educated on the biblical use of the word “saint.”  

Posted
9 hours ago, Gray said:

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

 

ETA: Also, the term "Mormonism"

Yes. And therefore, what? 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Referring to oneself as a saint is pretty off-putting in our culture today.  It's self-aggrandizing and has become taboo since saints are named after their death.  In that sense it's much better to refer to oneself as Mormon than a Latter-day Saint.  latter-day Saint is kind of a lame term.  People who hear it think, "Oh so you mean Mormon?"  Or "that sounds like an incredibly proud way to talk about oneself...but to each his own I suppose".   I"m guessing it's more off-putting and will have more of a negative effect than Mormon.  

“Mormon” is not necessarily off- putting, just misleading as it pertains to the name of the Church. 

And if we possess the truth, why should we bind ourselves to sectarian or societal misconceptions about the meaning of “saints” or anything else. 

Didn’t your mother ever tell you not to do things just to follow the crowd?

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted
2 hours ago, Rivers said:

Then people need to educated on the biblical use of the word “saint.”  

I think people will get along just fine without considering the biblical use of the word.  There’s no need there.  

Posted
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“Mormon” is not necessarily off- putting, just misleading as it pertains to the name of the Church. 

And if we possess the truth, why should we bind ourselves to sectarian or societal misconceptions about the meaning of “saints” or anything else. 

Didn’t your mother ever tell you not to do things just to follow the crowd?

Mormon accurately describes members of the lds church.  It also very clearly describes the lds church.  I find Nelson’s reasoning lacking.  

Mormonism will live on

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I think people will get along just fine without considering the biblical use of the word.  There’s no need there.  

That’s up to them, but I don’t need to be bound by their choice — or yours, for that matter. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Mormon accurately describes members of the lds church.  It also very clearly describes the lds church.  I find Nelson’s reasoning lacking.  

Mormonism will live on

The Church of Jesus Christ does not self-identify as “the Mormon Church,” and you have no authority to insist that it does. 

Posted
4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Mormon accurately describes members of the lds church.  It also very clearly describes the lds church.  I find Nelson’s reasoning lacking.  

Mormonism will live on

I would think that the term mormon is the  name most used to dentify the church.  I agree that the name will live on.  LDS leaders have no authority to insist the general public comply with their wishes.

Posted
8 hours ago, Rivers said:

By that logic, we can also refer to ourselves as Christians since that is the term used in the Book of Mormon in referring to members of the church.

Of course!  It's perfectly logical.  

8 hours ago, Rivers said:

If we are supposed to drop LDS and Mormon, Latter-day Saint is the next best way to refer ourselves and it’s kosher to use according to the  Church’s press release.  

No argument here.

Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

I would think that the term mormon is the  name most used to dentify the church.  I agree that the name will live on.  LDS leaders have no authority to insist the general public comply with their wishes.

The general public will suit themselves; all we can do is request.  But I do believe we are obliged as covenant-bound members of the Church to give heed to instructions from the prophet and president of the Church as he receives them by revelation. That’s in the scriptures. 

And how can we expect outsiders to honor the expressed preference of the Church regarding its name when members themselves won’t do it? 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

I would think that the term mormon is the  name most used to dentify the church.  I agree that the name will live on.  LDS leaders have no authority to insist the general public comply with their wishes.

The name of the Church was never, "The Mormon Church." The recent emphasis is not about insisting that the general public comply with their wishes; it is more about members using the correct name so that non-members don't use the incorrect name on the basis of members using the incorrect name. I've seen people wrongly go online and tell members, "We're offended that you call us Mormons!" But that represents a misunderstanding of the issue. Fortunately, President Nelson said, "We will want to be courteous and patient in our efforts to correct these errors."

A footnote in that talk by President Nelson states:

Quote

While we have no control over what other people may call us, we are in complete control over how we refer to ourselves. How can we expect others to honor the correct name of the Church if we as its members fail to do so?

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng#note14

 

Edited by CMZ
Posted
12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church of Jesus Christ does not self-identify as “the Mormon Church,” and you have no authority to insist that it does. 

I didn’t insist anything.  I merely pointed out the obvious—Mormon quite accurately refers to the lds church.  Nelson’s reasoning is lacking and his initiative in time will be defeated.  I imagine even the most letter by the law members, like you, Will, in time, come back around.  It’s been a bit of a silly distraction.   

Posted
8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I would think that the term mormon is the  name most used to dentify the church.  I agree that the name will live on.  LDS leaders have no authority to insist the general public comply with their wishes.

Yep.  

Posted
15 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Mormon accurately describes members of the lds church.  It also very clearly describes the lds church.  I find Nelson’s reasoning lacking.  

Mormonism will live on

But it doesn’t clearly describe the Church of Jesus Christ.

which I believe was President Nelson’s point

Posted
1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

But it doesn’t clearly describe the Church of Jesus Christ.

which I believe was President Nelson’s point

Sure it does.  Everytime anyone says Mormon church you know exactly what they are talking about.  You can’t honestly say otherwise.  

Posted

This whole thing kind of reminds me of the PC crowd insisting we have to use certain terminology for everything.  And I hate the policing of language.  So I’m not exactly having a party with it.  But I will do my best to comply with the prophet’s wishes.  🎶I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ....🎶

Posted
19 hours ago, 2BizE said:

How do you know gender is eternal?

And this gets to the crux of the entire discussion.  I suppose that I, of myself,do not know that it is.  BUT - When a prophet of God (or several prophets in this case) says it is, and the spirit testifies to my soul that their words are true, then that is how I know... your mileage may vary.  🙂

That is what is so tiresome for us all on both sides of the belief fence with these discussions IMO - it all comes down to having a testimony of living prophets or not.  

Posted
19 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

And this gets to the crux of the entire discussion.  I suppose that I, of myself,do not know that it is.  BUT - When a prophet of God (or several prophets in this case) says it is, and the spirit testifies to my soul that their words are true, then that is how I know... your mileage may vary.  🙂

That is what is so tiresome for us all on both sides of the belief fence with these discussions IMO - it all comes down to having a testimony of living prophets or not.  

I think, rather, it comes down to how the Spirit testifies to each of us.  

I have a testimony of living prophets but included in the testimony is the understanding that they can be mistaken.  They can, at times, take us down incorrect courses.  We saw that very clearly at this last conference. 

Posted
22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think, rather, it comes down to how the Spirit testifies to each of us.  

I have a testimony of living prophets but included in the testimony is the understanding that they can be mistaken.  They can, at times, take us down incorrect courses.  We saw that very clearly at this last conference. 

Then prudence suggests we obtain a testimony of the specific principles they are teaching.

that is one of the things I love about the restored Church of Jesus Christ, we can obtain testimonies not only of the calling of prophets and authorities over us, but of the principles they teach us

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...