RevTestament Posted October 8, 2018 Author Posted October 8, 2018 19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Which sects are you referring to that “call themselves Mormon”? Not the Community of Christ, surely, and not the Restorationist break-off groups from that body. And I don’t know that the polygamist or fundamentalist groups do either, for that matter. The FLDS sometimes will call themselves Mormon, and certainly other Christians do. I have heard Church leaders differentiate the Church from that sect, and any use of the name Mormon for it. There is a small, early splinter Church which gets referred to as Mormon still, but I think most of the anti-polygamist branches have tried to distance themselves from the name because of the public's association of polygamy with it.
Popular Post rongo Posted October 8, 2018 Popular Post Posted October 8, 2018 39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If bynthr above you mean you want there to be a more sectarian or Protestant-like flavor in what is taught, that ain’t gonna happen. 1) "bynthr" is Welsh for "hangnail." I don't think it quite works in the above. 2) "ain't" isn't proper English. The correct word is "isn't" 3) "gonna" isn't proper English. The correct phrase is "going to." Sorry Scott! Couldn't resist! 6
Gray Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Jesus pervades everything that is taught in the Church. If bynthr above you mean you want there to be a more sectarian or Protestant-like flavor in what is taught, that ain’t gonna happen. The name of Jesus is certainly spoken frequently, yes. Under this new directive, the name will be spoken more frequently. But does that really accomplish anything?
Scott Lloyd Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 9 minutes ago, rongo said: 1) "bynthr" is Welsh for "hangnail." I don't think it quite works in the above. 2) "ain't" isn't proper English. The correct word is "isn't" 3) "gonna" isn't proper English. The correct phrase is "going to." Sorry Scott! Couldn't resist! As for “bynthr,” it’s due to fat fingers. (I was going to blame it on auto-correct, but my device doesn’t know Welsh.) The “ain’t gonna” was for effect, as I’m sure you recognize.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Gray said: The name of Jesus is certainly spoken frequently, yes. Under this new directive, the name will be spoken more frequently. But does that really accomplish anything? It’s more than just a matter of His name being spoken frequently. The doctrines and teachings of the Restoration are His doctrines and teachings even if you don’t acknowledge them as such. Edited October 8, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
rongo Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: As for “bynthr,” it’s due to fat fingers. (I was going to blame it on auto-correct, but my device doesn’t know Welsh.) The “ain’t gonna” was for effect, as I’m sure you recognize. Of course. I was just kidding you. As for "bynthr," I don't think it is anything. It just looks "Welsh," to me.
Gray Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It’s more than just a matter of His name being spoken frequently. The doctrines and teachings are His doctrines and teachings even if you don’t acknowledge them as such. If that's the case, then surely calling it the "Mormon church" is equivalent to saying The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Mormon Church is the TCOJCOLDS, even if you don't acknowledge it as such. But seriously, if you think a talk on having babies or doing food storage is the same thing as an emphasis on Jesus, then you win this year's Olympic gold mental gymnastics medal.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 8 minutes ago, rongo said: Of course. I was just kidding you. As for "bynthr," I don't think it is anything. It just looks "Welsh," to me. Looks Welsh to me too. I wouldn’t know any better despite my Welsh ancestry (Lloyd is Welsh).
Scott Lloyd Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Gray said: If that's the case, then surely calling it the "Mormon church" is equivalent to saying The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The Mormon Church is the TCOJCOLDS, even if you don't acknowledge it as such. But seriously, if you think a talk on having babies or doing food storage is the same thing as an emphasis on Jesus, then you win this year's Olympic gold mental gymnastics medal. I don’t know what “a talk on having babies” means, but self-reliance and personal and family preparedness, along with other welfare principles, are revealed from Christ through anointed prophets. Our Lord is concerned for our temporal well-being as well as our spiritual. In fact, He has said all things to Him are speritual. Edited October 8, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Gray Posted October 8, 2018 Posted October 8, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I don’t know what “a talk on having babies” means, but self-reliance and personal and family preparedness, along with other welfare principles, are revealed from Christ through anointed prophets. And that's "an emphasis on Jesus," is it? As opposed to a talk about Jesus, his mission, his ministry, his atonement and so forth?
Bernard Gui Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 7 hours ago, rongo said: 1) "bynthr" is Welsh for "hangnail." I don't think it quite works in the above. 2) "ain't" isn't proper English. The correct word is "isn't" 3) "gonna" isn't proper English. The correct phrase is "going to." Sorry Scott! Couldn't resist! He’s retired now, which means he can write whatever he darn well pleases.
MiserereNobis Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 18 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: He’s retired now, which means he can write whatever he darn well pleases. As long as he continues to use the Oxford comma... 1
RevTestament Posted October 9, 2018 Author Posted October 9, 2018 6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: As long as he continues to use the Oxford comma... Don't you mean the Johannine Coma? Sorry, couldn't resist... 1
Thinking Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 On 10/7/2018 at 12:18 PM, RevTestament said: If you are not an LDS Christian, what do you think of the new emphasis not to be labeled "a Mormon"? I think that President Nelson has been waiting for 28 years to take the Church in this direction. 1
RevTestament Posted October 9, 2018 Author Posted October 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, Thinking said: I think that President Nelson has been waiting for 28 years to take the Church in this direction. Really? What makes you think that? If true, i am more impressed with him than before. I really have to be honest. I haven't noticed his tendencies in this regard over the years.
Avatar4321 Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 15 hours ago, Gray said: The name of Jesus is certainly spoken frequently, yes. Under this new directive, the name will be spoken more frequently. But does that really accomplish anything? Does it accomplish anything? only one way to find out, isn’t there? obey the doctrine and you will know whether it comes from the Father 1
Gray Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 46 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: Does it accomplish anything? only one way to find out, isn’t there? obey the doctrine and you will know whether it comes from the Father I look forward to the immanent renaming of the Melchizadek Priesthood to the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. Is too frequent repetition of the name of deity a good or a bad thing? 1
HappyJackWagon Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 I can understand Pres. Nelson's long term disapproval with use of Mormon by the church. I think there are many reasons why the church using "Mormon" isn't ideal and he mentioned a few of them. Joseph Smith declared what the official name of the church should be. If the church itself uses the nickname to describe itself it makes sense to me that he would want to correct the way the church refers to the church. I've got no problem with that. That can be accomplished on his command. The organization can change it's domain names and it's literature. It can change MOTAB to TABCATS. What I don't get is the expectation that everyone else should also jettison use of the word Mormon. The news media; OK, nothing wrong with letting them know the church's preference but IMO they go to far when they expect news organizations to comply and insinuate that new organizations who don't follow are not "responsible". It's a bit heavy handed. I also don't get why members can't refer to themselves as Mormon. By doing so they haven't changed the name of the church. The name remains the same and it has remained the same since 1835. Utilizing a nickname hasn't changed the name of the church so I'm not sure why God would be offended. The name hasn't changed. I think it's hilarious that Pres. Nelson calls use of "Mormon" a victory for Satan. Obviously church leaders have been doing the work of Satan for many decades now. Apparently Pres. Nelson felt the church was in some level of apostasy that he needed to put a swift end to church leaders offending God and supporting Satan. 3
RevTestament Posted October 9, 2018 Author Posted October 9, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gray said: I look forward to the immanent renaming of the Melchizadek Priesthood to the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. Is too frequent repetition of the name of deity a good or a bad thing? I would look forward to receiving the Holy Priesthood again if I were not already a high priest It was a memorable experience for me, and would give me an opportunity to do some things better... I view the Aaronic Priesthood as a temporal priesthood...a way to learn what it will be like to hold the Holy Priesthood. It's a preparatory priesthood. I don't think of any of its offices as being eternal - hence it has a temporal name. I believe Melchisedek is really a title, King of Righteousness, so it is appropriate as well for the Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God, who is our Prince of Peace. Edited October 9, 2018 by RevTestament 1
stemelbow Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: The proper name of the Church is not only scriptural, it has been taught and emphasized for many years. I have no doubt that the high leaders of the Church are unified on it. I think the reason it id getting renewed emphasis now is that too many have been too determined for too long to ignore it. And I don’t believe “hisself” is a recognized pronoun in the English language. If it's so important, Scott, why is it not until now that it is so emphasized? Why did the Church seemingly get tricked by the devil or rather how did the devil get a victory, as Pres Nelson has put it, when pushing programs like mormonsandgays, Mormon helping hands and the I'm a Mormon campaign? None of those indicate the Church has been trying to get rid of "Mormon" for years, as you claim.
RevTestament Posted October 9, 2018 Author Posted October 9, 2018 3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I can understand Pres. Nelson's long term disapproval with use of Mormon by the church. I think there are many reasons why the church using "Mormon" isn't ideal and he mentioned a few of them. Joseph Smith declared what the official name of the church should be. If the church itself uses the nickname to describe itself it makes sense to me that he would want to correct the way the church refers to the church. I've got no problem with that. That can be accomplished on his command. The organization can change it's domain names and it's literature. It can change MOTAB to TABCATS. What I don't get is the expectation that everyone else should also jettison use of the word Mormon. The news media; OK, nothing wrong with letting them know the church's preference but IMO they go to far when they expect news organizations to comply and insinuate that new organizations who don't follow are not "responsible". It's a bit heavy handed. I also don't get why members can't refer to themselves as Mormon. By doing so they haven't changed the name of the church. The name remains the same and it has remained the same since 1835. Utilizing a nickname hasn't changed the name of the church so I'm not sure why God would be offended. The name hasn't changed. Do you really believe that if the official recorded legal name of the Church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but that the whole Church and everyone else is calling us The Mormon Church, that we are following the direction of our Lord to call the Church after His name rather than the name of a man? It seems to me that is the very thing we are doing - calling the Church after the name of the man, Mormon. It's 180 degrees from His instruction. 3 Nephi 27: 7 Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake. 8 And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel. Hence, Pres. Nelson's promise that if we would humble ourselves to make this effort, that the Father would bless the Church for our Savior's sake. He is making that promise, because our Lord said so. i believe the Church is in need of blessing. The growth rate has fallen to paltry levels. There is some mumbling and discontentment. Rather than being able to attract those leaving other sects, we are spinning our wheels so to speak. Falling back on the excuse that all Christian sects are dropping in numbers is excusing ourselves for missing a great opportunity to attract the disgruntled to receive more truth. Until a very recent internal turmoil the SDA Church has been growing at a high pace, and has actually surpassed the LDS Church in membership numbers. It seems they have been able to use the exodus from other Churches to attract members to its version of the gospel. If they can do it with Ellen White, who was obviously more plagiarist than prophet, I see no reason we cannot if the Lord is on our side. Perhaps it is time we humble ourselves and try to follow His instruction more carefully. 1
stemelbow Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 8 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Do you really believe that if the official recorded legal name of the Church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but that the whole Church and everyone else is calling us The Mormon Church, that we are following the direction of our Lord to call the Church after His name rather than the name of a man? It seems to me that is the very thing we are doing - calling the Church after the name of the man, Mormon. I wonder if God is equally offended that his priesthood is named after a man all because they felt it more respectful to not invoke deity's name so frequently. Now we are completely flipping that respect stuff because God is apparently offended we don't say his name enough when it comes to his church. In one sense God is offended people keep saying his name...in another He's offended because people don't say his name enough.
HappyJackWagon Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Do you really believe that if the official recorded legal name of the Church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but that the whole Church and everyone else is calling us The Mormon Church, that we are following the direction of our Lord to call the Church after His name rather than the name of a man? It seems to me that is the very thing we are doing - calling the Church after the name of the man, Mormon. It's 180 degrees from His instruction. 3 Nephi 27: 7 Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake. 8 And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel. Hence, Pres. Nelson's promise that if we would humble ourselves to make this effort, that the Father would bless the Church for our Savior's sake. He is making that promise, because our Lord said so. i believe the Church is in need of blessing. The growth rate has fallen to paltry levels. There is some mumbling and discontentment. Rather than being able to attract those leaving other sects, we are spinning our wheels so to speak. Falling back on the excuse that all Christian sects are dropping in numbers is excusing ourselves for missing a great opportunity to attract the disgruntled to receive more truth. Until a very recent internal turmoil the SDA Church has been growing at a high pace, and has actually surpassed the LDS Church in membership numbers. It seems they have been able to use the exodus from other Churches to attract members to its version of the gospel. If they can do it with Ellen White, who was obviously more plagiarist than prophet, I see no reason we cannot if the Lord is on our side. Perhaps it is time we humble ourselves and try to follow His instruction more carefully. Yes, the official name of the church is as it appears in D&C. That has not changed. The church uses the full name in many, many ways. Members also use the full name in many ways and instances. The direction in the D&C was given to the institutional church. Like I stated, I can see why Nelson may not think the church is doing everything it can in that regard so I've got no problem with him trying to correct the church's usage of the name. But most uses of "Mormon" have nothing to do with calling it "the Mormon Church". Sure, media refer to it that way but I don't know how common it is for the church or its members to refer to the "Mormon Church" without further explanation. Personally, I turn off when I hear a man make promises for God. IMO that is a textbook definition of taking the name of God in vain. Now this promise is very vague so I don't have as big of an issue with it as I have had with other promises, such as "If you read the book of Mormon every day as a family you will never have a child fall away from the church". Those kinds of things drive me nuts. I agree that the church is spinning its wheels. The church isn't attractive to others which is indicated by the "paltry" growth rates. But focusing on a name correction isn't going to help those growth rates. Do you think that by members dropping Mormon that everyone is going to forget we are Mormon? I don't think so. It seems more likely that they will think we are embarrassed by our church, and as such we're trying to rebrand. I know Pres. Nelson said this isn't a rebranding, but that's what it looks like and I suspect that's what many/most people will believe. It's not going to help growth rates. For years the church has sent mixed messages about "Mormon". Now the church is trying to get it's act together. That's cool. If it succeeds I think many will follow, but claiming it's a Satanic victory when people occasionally use Mormon is a little bit funny. It sounds like fear mongering to me.
Avatar4321 Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 19 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Do you really believe that if the official recorded legal name of the Church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but that the whole Church and everyone else is calling us The Mormon Church, that we are following the direction of our Lord to call the Church after His name rather than the name of a man? It seems to me that is the very thing we are doing - calling the Church after the name of the man, Mormon. It's 180 degrees from His instruction. 3 Nephi 27: 7 Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake. 8 And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel. Hence, Pres. Nelson's promise that if we would humble ourselves to make this effort, that the Father would bless the Church for our Savior's sake. He is making that promise, because our Lord said so. i believe the Church is in need of blessing. The growth rate has fallen to paltry levels. There is some mumbling and discontentment. Rather than being able to attract those leaving other sects, we are spinning our wheels so to speak. Falling back on the excuse that all Christian sects are dropping in numbers is excusing ourselves for missing a great opportunity to attract the disgruntled to receive more truth. Until a very recent internal turmoil the SDA Church has been growing at a high pace, and has actually surpassed the LDS Church in membership numbers. It seems they have been able to use the exodus from other Churches to attract members to its version of the gospel. If they can do it with Ellen White, who was obviously more plagiarist than prophet, I see no reason we cannot if the Lord is on our side. Perhaps it is time we humble ourselves and try to follow His instruction more carefully. Humility is vital but also very difficult. ive been trying to humble myself for years and yet I continue to see how my pride impedes me 1
Avatar4321 Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 8 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I wonder if God is equally offended that his priesthood is named after a man all because they felt it more respectful to not invoke deity's name so frequently. Now we are completely flipping that respect stuff because God is apparently offended we don't say his name enough when it comes to his church. In one sense God is offended people keep saying his name...in another He's offended because people don't say his name enough. Except as pointed out earlier, melchesidek is a title that can refer to Jesus Christ
Recommended Posts