Gray Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Exiled said: I predict that this will last as long as Pres. Nelson is alive. Then it will quietly be de-emphasized. The name is too long for the population at large to adopt and the new emphasis on the name is merely a call to the faithful like political leaders calls to rally around the flag. I would have predicted the same, but so much emphasis now is being made on Mormon being a Satanic name, the church would lose a lot of face to revert back again. Of course all the previous leaders have kind of been thrown under the bus here, too. So pick your poison, I guess. Edited October 8, 2018 by Gray 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) 30 minutes ago, rongo said: It does, often, for them, when a person is asking about Mormon beliefs. It's a term that both she and you know exactly what it's referring to (whereas, trying to implement the style-guide guidelines in real-time in "normal" conversation may very well not be a 1:1 match, or might need background-laying or explaining). It's not only the simplest (and some conversations don't have unlimited time), it's actually the most accurate for the questioner from where they're coming from. Again, I'm looking at it from an angle of best "translation" where gospel topics are frequent and frequently out-of-the-blue. Nothing wrong with doing a bit of background laying, and it need not take long to do so. I can quickly explain, for example, that I now try to avoid nicknames or abbreviations for the Church I belong to because we’ve been asked to do so by our president. If I’m asked why, well, there’s a good opportunity for a gospel discussion. And if an adjective is called for, “Latter-day Saint” works as well as LDS. Edited October 8, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Exiled said: I predict that this will last as long as Pres. Nelson is alive. Then it will quietly be de-emphasized. The name is too long for the population at large to adopt and the new emphasis on the name is merely a call to the faithful like political leaders calls to rally around the flag. I predict it will last as long as faithful Latter-day Saints are willing to hearken to prophetic counsel given as received under divine inspiration (“the Lord has impressed upon my mind”). Edited October 8, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 2
stemelbow Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 20 hours ago, RevTestament said: While it is one thing to issue a press release regarding the need for change, it is quite another to acknowledge in front of the whole Church that we need to change the ways we do things. As I look upon the frame of this 95 year old man, and observe his countenance and gently prompting words, I realize I have been waiting to hear what he is telling the Church for 20 years. I know our Savior is happy with the new emphasis to use His name when speaking of His Church. Although when speaking of myself I may still refer to myself as LDS Christian, I have made a renewed effort when speaking of the Church at large to use the Church of Jesus Christ in my posts. I for one will not be sad to see the day when Mormonism becomes a thing of the past. However, I acknowledge the bravery and hard work of those who have gone before and have preserved and spread the restored gospel, for my sake and the sake of my ancestors. May the restored gospel live for ever in the hearts of people everywhere, and if others wish to call me a restorationist, I will happily accept that label, and proclaim the restored gospel of our Savior, Jesus Christ! And if they wish to call me Yeshuan, I will gladly accept that brand of His name as well! How do you plan to follow Pres. Nelson's admonition? If you are not an LDS Christian, what do you think of the new emphasis not to be labeled "a Mormon"? I'd guess this push to move away from what people recognize the Church as will stick around in Church for a while, a couple years. But most others will have a hard time caring about the church without a name and it's admonishing ways. And the church will realize how silly it is to get worked up about the name. But perhaps in all of this the church will gain a better understanding and appreciation for what they call the scriptures.
rongo Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Nothing wrong with doing a bit of background laying, and it need not take long to do so. I can quickly explain, for example, that I now try to avoid nicknames or abbreviations for the Church I belong to because we’ve been asked to do so by our president. It sounds like you don't have gospel conversations with non-members very often, either . . . With high school students who just want answers about some things, it's better to just . . . answer them, and not introduce or get pulled into the weeds on "we don't like nicknames, I know it's a common one and one you know, but anyway . . ." If I’m asked why, well, there’s a good opportunity for a gospel discussion. And if an adjective is called for, “Latter-day Saint” works as well as LDS. For many, "Mormon" is far better than LDS or Latter-day Saint (both of which violate the spirit and the letter of President Nelson's counsel, too). "Mormon" allows you to naturally flow with the conversation and be talking about the same thing, without confusion. LDS/Latter-day Saint/formal name would needlessly pull out into the weeds, in most cases on the ground for me and LDS students. It will be interesting to hear how students navigte this in their conversations.
blueglass Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) 20 hours ago, bluebell said: I'm not sure. You might be able to watch it sometime today but I think the written version takes a bit longer. His remarks focus on our belief that Christ specifically told JS what the name of the church should be (and also specified at that time that any church called by a man's name is that man's church and not His), and that to call it by any other name, even a nickname, is disobedience to His command. It's great to see how a living prophet after so many years since his talk in April 1990, is now in a position to do something about it and push through the change. His recent talk reveals more on the power dynamics within the quorum of 12 and first presidency. Hinckley's talk was a great talk embracing "mormon" as more good, and more of tolerance, and mutual respect, and helpfulness. President Nelson's talk completely destroys Hinckley's ideas as a massive distraction which offended the Lord for decades. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1990/10/mormon-should-mean-more-good?lang=eng The baton was then carried to President Monson's daughter Ann Dibb, "“I’m a Mormon. Are you?” "I Know It. I Live It. I Love It." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/i-know-it-i-live-it-i-love-it?lang=eng This talk by Ann Dibb became our stake missionary work theme for 5 years. Edited October 8, 2018 by blueglass 2
stemelbow Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I predict it will last as long as faithful Latter-day Saints are willing to hearken to prophetic counsel given as received under divine inspiration (“the Lord has impressed upon my mind”). The Church is kind of goofy on this front, judging by history. Sometimes cute little things like this get elevated to taboo status and sometimes they just die out. I think it'll die out, and as it does people will realize, "oh this has nothing to do with prophetic counsel. it has everything to do with Pres Neslon's preferences". And one day the new prophet will shrug his shoulders and perhaps, hopefully, concern hisself with more important matters.
Gray Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 3 minutes ago, blueglass said: It's great to see how a living prophet after so many years since his talk in April 1990, is now in a position to do something about it and push through the change. His recent talk reveals more on the power dynamics within the quorum of 12 and first presidency. Hinckley's talk was a great talk embracing "mormon" as more good, and more of tolerance, and mutual respect, and helpfulness. President Nelson's talk completely destroys Hinckley's ideas as a massive distraction which offended the Lord for decades. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1990/10/mormon-should-mean-more-good?lang=eng The baton was then carried to President Monson's daughter Ann Dibbs, "“I’m a Mormon. Are you?” "I Know It. I Live It. I Love It." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/i-know-it-i-live-it-i-love-it?lang=eng This talk by Ann Dibbs became our stake missionary work theme for 5 years. I suppose we have our official acknowledgement now of specific mistakes made by past leaders? 2
bluebell Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 9 minutes ago, blueglass said: It's great to see how a living prophet after so many years since his talk in April 1990, is now in a position to do something about it and push through the change. His recent talk reveals more on the power dynamics within the quorum of 12 and first presidency. Hinckley's talk was a great talk embracing "mormon" as more good, and more of tolerance, and mutual respect, and helpfulness. President Nelson's talk completely destroys Hinckley's ideas as a massive distraction which offended the Lord for decades. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1990/10/mormon-should-mean-more-good?lang=eng The baton was then carried to President Monson's daughter Ann Dibbs, "“I’m a Mormon. Are you?” "I Know It. I Live It. I Love It." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/i-know-it-i-live-it-i-love-it?lang=eng This talk by Ann Dibbs became our stake missionary work theme for 5 years. I think this just falls under "When we know better, we do better" and "further light and knowledge." I don't see that it has to be any more angsty than that. 2
bluebell Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 57 minutes ago, rongo said: It does, often, for them, when a person is asking about Mormon beliefs. It's a term that both she and you know exactly what it's referring to (whereas, trying to implement the style-guide guidelines in real-time in "normal" conversation may very well not be a 1:1 match, or might need background-laying or explaining). It's not only the simplest (and some conversations don't have unlimited time), it's actually the most accurate for the questioner from where they're coming from. Again, I'm looking at it from an angle of best "translation" where gospel topics are frequent and frequently out-of-the-blue. Yes, I agree everyone knows exactly what's being referred to, but one person in the conversation doesn't actually understand what is being referred to accurately. It only takes about 5 extra seconds to use the full name. I don't see how anyone is having so many gospel conversations that they can't spare 5 extra seconds to help someone understand what a mormon really is. If where a questioner is coming from is wanting to understand our beliefs better then I disagree that it's more accurate for the questioner to use the term mormon.
ksfisher Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 9 minutes ago, bluebell said: I think this just falls under "When we know better, we do better" and "further light and knowledge." I don't see that it has to be any more angsty than that. For me it's just a matter of what counsel and direction I'm being given now. Nothing before that was necessarily wrong for it's time, but now I'm being asked to do something different. I'm grateful that we have prophets and apostles who are willing to act on the instructions they receive. I hope I can always do the same even if those things seem small, inconsequential, or even inconvenient. 1
blueglass Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 5 minutes ago, Gray said: I suppose we have our official acknowledgement now of specific mistakes made by past leaders? It's good to see President Nelson active and alive in his office, and I wonder what else he's been working on the last 30 years?
blueglass Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 23 minutes ago, bluebell said: I think this just falls under "When we know better, we do better" and "further light and knowledge." I don't see that it has to be any more angsty than that. Should we add 115:3-4 to scripture mastery for seminary students? I couldn't find it in this more recent list https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/10494_eng.pdf
rockpond Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 21 hours ago, RevTestament said: How do you plan to follow Pres. Nelson's admonition? It doesn't change things much for me. I generally identify myself, to non-members, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints anyway. And when further describing my beliefs I'll generally use terms like Christian, follower or Christ, or striving to be a disciple of Christ. 1
blueglass Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 21 minutes ago, rockpond said: It doesn't change things much for me. I generally identify myself, to non-members, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints anyway. And when further describing my beliefs I'll generally use terms like Christian, follower or Christ, or striving to be a disciple of Christ. I'm a Christian who believes Jesus traveled to Guatemala 1
rockpond Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 5 minutes ago, blueglass said: I'm a Christian who believes Jesus traveled to Guatemala I like it! 1
rongo Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 1 minute ago, blueglass said: I'm a Christian who believes Jesus traveled to Guatemala The quickest answer to "What is a Mormon?" or "What do Mormons believe?" or "What makes Mormons different?" I have found (especially when you don't know how much time you'll have to clarify or expound) is: We believe in Jesus and the Bible, but we aren't Catholic, and we aren't Protestant. We believe that God chooses prophets in our day, just like in ancient times. One of these prophets translated a record of God's dealings with prophets in the Americas, called The Book of Mormon. It records the visit of Jesus to his people on this side of the world, and the Bible records his ministry in Israel. Time-allowing, there are follow-up questions from there. But, at minimum the person knows 1) that we are Christians who accept the Bible, 2) that we are not another Catholic or Protestant church, 3) that we believe in modern prophets and scripture, 4) at a basic level what the Book of Mormon is. Most student questions have to do with policies and commandments, especially "why." But, they also ask all the time the simple "What is a Mormon" -type questions. Your "Jesus in Guatemala" answer reminded me of this. It's neat when a light goes on in people's heads, and they want to know more about Christ in America. Not always as "golden investigators," but interest in hearing about that ("I never heard/thought of that before."). 1
bluebell Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 1 hour ago, blueglass said: Should we add 115:3-4 to scripture mastery for seminary students? I couldn't find it in this more recent list https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/10494_eng.pdf Scripture mastery is way different now than it was when i was in seminary.
rongo Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 1 minute ago, bluebell said: Scripture mastery is way different now than it was when i was in seminary. Namely, they don't have it any more. They don't learn key passages and references. Kids just learn "doctrinal mastery" doctrines, but they don't have to know where in the scriptures they are. 2
Navidad Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) 18 hours ago, RevTestament said: If the Book of Mormon had been called the book of plates, I wonder if we would be called the Plates' Church? I think not. How did members refer to themselves before Protestants began calling us Mormons? I do not believe there is any historical evidence as to exactly when the Saints were first referred to as Mormons and that it was Protestants who began the practice. The best evidence is that it was the press; newspaper writers who began the practice very early on. Of course, if it was the press, the individuals using the term could have been Protestant, Jewish, Catholic, atheist . . . who knows? The Painesville Telegraph was very influential in this regard once the Saints moved to Kirtland. It is said Joseph Smith was a faithful reader of that newspaper. I have never researched of what affiliation, if any was the founder of that paper. It could have been as early as 1832 or 1833 in various newspapers around the country. I know of no evidence that Protestants began the use of the term nor that it was used to reflect a negative intent. That is the common perspective, but it may not be accurate. Edited October 8, 2018 by Navidad 1
The Nehor Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 On the bright side if this works and we are no longer tied to that name in the general consciousness then all our weirdo offshoots can have the name Mormon all to themselves. 2
blueglass Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 57 minutes ago, rongo said: The quickest answer to "What is a Mormon?" or "What do Mormons believe?" or "What makes Mormons different?" I have found (especially when you don't know how much time you'll have to clarify or expound) is: We believe in Jesus and the Bible, but we aren't Catholic, and we aren't Protestant. We believe that God chooses prophets in our day, just like in ancient times. One of these prophets translated a record of God's dealings with prophets in the Americas, called The Book of Mormon. It records the visit of Jesus to his people on this side of the world, and the Bible records his ministry in Israel. Time-allowing, there are follow-up questions from there. But, at minimum the person knows 1) that we are Christians who accept the Bible, 2) that we are not another Catholic or Protestant church, 3) that we believe in modern prophets and scripture, 4) at a basic level what the Book of Mormon is. Most student questions have to do with policies and commandments, especially "why." But, they also ask all the time the simple "What is a Mormon" -type questions. Your "Jesus in Guatemala" answer reminded me of this. It's neat when a light goes on in people's heads, and they want to know more about Christ in America. Not always as "golden investigators," but interest in hearing about that ("I never heard/thought of that before."). new subtitle for the book of Mormon, "Jesus visits Guatemala" instead of "Another gospel of Jesus Christ" which most Christians spurn at and quote Galatians 1:8 and point to the angel on top of our temples. Galatians 1:6-9, 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel [testament]: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven [moroni], preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." On my mission we would quickly counter this rejection with a question, "What is the gospel of Jesus Christ?" Then we would read Christ's own definition from the book of mormon and see what they thought. Afterwards we could have a more fruitful discussion. 3Nephi27:13-14. 13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. 14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—
blueglass Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) 40 minutes ago, rongo said: Namely, they don't have it any more. They don't learn key passages and references. Kids just learn "doctrinal mastery" doctrines, but they don't have to know where in the scriptures they are. less bubbles in the plan of salvation of chart. https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-seminary-teacher-manual/lessons-1-5/lesson-2-the-plan-of-salvation?lang=eng The only problem with the new chart is that it doesn't show that Earth will become the celestial kingdom. "God has said if we will honor Him and keep His commandments—if we will observe His laws He will fight our battles and destroy the wicked, and when the time comes He will come down in heaven—not from heaven—but He will bring heaven with Him—and this earth upon which we dwell, will be the celestial kingdom” (George Albert Smith, in Conference Report, Oct. 1942, 49).https://www.lds.org/manual/presidents-of-the-church-student-manual/george-albert-smith-eighth-president-of-the-church?lang=eng “I remarked to my family and friends present, that when the earth was sanctified and became like a sea of glass, it would be one great urim and thummim, and the Saints could look in it and see as they are seen” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 5:279).https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-21?lang=eng “In that great change, or resurrection, which shall come to this earth, it shall be sanctified, celestialized and made a fit abode even for God the Father, who shall grace it with his presence. (D.C. 88:19.) Then shall the righteous, those who have become sanctified through the law of God, possess it for ever as their abode. This earth is destined to become the everlasting residence of its inhabitants who gain the glory of the celestial kingdom. It shall become in that day like the throne of God and shall shine forth with all the splendor and brightness of celestial glory in its eternal, sanctified and glorious state” (Smith, Way to Perfection, 351).https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-37-the-millennium-and-the-glorification-of-the-earth.p1?lang=eng Edited October 8, 2018 by blueglass
stemelbow Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 31 minutes ago, The Nehor said: On the bright side if this works and we are no longer tied to that name in the general consciousness then all our weirdo offshoots can have the name Mormon all to themselves. It has been a funny looking scene when LDS members get up set at the notion that weirdo offshoots are called Mormons. "that precious nickname refers to members of the COJCOLDS exclusively" was the refrain. NOw they'll have to be like, "well Jesus got really upset and apparently offended when we demanded we were Mormons and not members of the Churchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaints so now we can shed the nickname and you are free to use it for weirdo offshoots and not get up riled up."
mfbukowski Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 12 hours ago, jpv said: Sorry if this double posts, rewriting after posting awhile ago. I agree, that's exactly how I would for the Church or its members. I think there's no confusion there, well, except D&C 107:4, but nevertheless. However, the new style guide gives no replacements for the descriptive and adjective forms as in "traditional Mormon foods" or "various interpretations of spirit creation in Mormonism/Mormon thought" unlike the old style guide* quoted below: "The Pioneers that Arrived at Temple Square" perhaps? MoTab->TCats-ization doesn't really translate very well to most usages. Anyways, I think these forms are the most difficult to find replacements for as I try my best to follow the new counsel. It's also interesting that the new style guide also has removed this section: *https://web.archive.org/web/20180802044656/https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide I know. I can't figure out how it is supposed to work either. "Restored church" might work. "RCJC"? Restored Church of Jesus Christ? I dunno if that is even cool or not.
Recommended Posts