phaedrus ut Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 I was just thinking how the requested name change are going to not affect just the institutions of the church but many many other business and groups. One example that comes to mind are the many Mormon Studies academic programs. Examples are: Utah State University, Program of Religious Studies, including the Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture Claremont Graduate University, School of Religion, including the Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies Utah Valley University, Comparative Mormon Studies program University of Utah, Tanner Humanities Center's Mormon Studies Initiative and the Simmons Professor of Mormon Studies University of Virginia, Graduate Program in Religious Studies, including the Richard Lyman Bushman Chair of Mormon Studies University of Wyoming, Mormon Studies Initiative University of Southern California, School of Religion, including the John A. Widtsoe Chair of Mormon Studies Graduate Theological Union, Director of Mormon Studies Also affected is the Mormon History Association, Association for Mormon Letters, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Studies, Mormon Studies Review, Juanita Brooks Prize in Mormon Studies, University of Utah Mormon Studies Fellowship. Is the expectation that all these organizations change their name to match the church? Phaedrus 3
ksfisher Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 Just now, phaedrus ut said: Is the expectation that all these organizations change their name to match the church? I imagine that each of those organizations would need to make their own decision on what they feel is best for them. 4
The Nehor Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 Yes, they should all change. Otherwise they are filthy regressive Mormons. 1
phaedrus ut Posted October 9, 2018 Author Posted October 9, 2018 1 hour ago, ksfisher said: I imagine that each of those organizations would need to make their own decision on what they feel is best for them. President Nelson said "Members offend God and please the Devil when they use the term Mormon" . Most people in these organizations are members of the church. Wouldn't they literally be choosing to offend God to continue to use the name? Phaedrus 1
mfbukowski Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 18 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said: President Nelson said "Members offend God and please the Devil when they use the term Mormon" . Most people in these organizations are members of the church. Wouldn't they literally be choosing to offend God to continue to use the name? Phaedrus This is the kind of stupid stereotypical question that makes anti-mormons look like stereotypical anti mormons. 1
Rivers Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 President Nelson did acknowledge that this whole thing will be difficult. 1
stemelbow Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 Waging this great battle against satan and his minions is not an easy one for sure. No one said it'd be easy. Then again educated elites are synonymous with satan, practically. maybe leaving them to it is exactly what God needs, in drawing the line between good and evil.
phaedrus ut Posted October 9, 2018 Author Posted October 9, 2018 36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: This is the kind of stupid stereotypical question that makes anti-mormons look like stereotypical anti mormons. There has been a discussion on this very board about whether there should be a name change since the conference announcement. Are you saying that discussion is also stupid and stereotypical? If it's a concern on a internet message board shouldn't it be a concern to a serious academic institution? Phaedrus
rpn Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 Garbage. Pres. Nelson was talking about ourselves. When church members are leaders of secular org, they act in the best interests of those secular organization, which will be to not change one thing about those labels (which over time might change, but frankly includes all book of mornmon believers and break offs, not just The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. (BTW, this should relieve the concerns church leaders had over warren jeff's group being also called mormons.) 1
mfbukowski Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said: There has been a discussion on this very board about whether there should be a name change since the conference announcement. Are you saying that discussion is also stupid and stereotypical? If it's a concern on a internet message board shouldn't it be a concern to a serious academic institution? Phaedrus How did you get this conclusion? 3 hours ago, phaedrus ut said: President Nelson said "Members offend God and please the Devil when they use the term Mormon" . Most people in these organizations are members of the church. Wouldn't they literally be choosing to offend God to continue to use the name? Phaedrus The question at hand was about whether or not an organization chooses to "offend God and please the Devil " by keeping the word "Mormon" in their title. It was not about whether or not it was possible, desirable, a good idea etc to change the name OF THIS BOARD in the context of what this board is. His statement was about the behavior of MEMBERS and you made it about God and ORGANIZATIONS tearing the context to shreds. Surely you must see the difference between a question of the practicality of changing the name of THIS BOARD and making a comment which makes God to be authoritarian, petty, and vengeful. Your question was about the nature of God and assumes that it is possible that the Mormon view of a vengeful includes that God would actually be so demanding and authoritarian as to be OFFENDED by by some organization, for their own reasons, being OFFENDED by retaining their present name. There is a difference between whether or not it is practical to change the name of a long-standing institution and ridiculing the alleged Mormon conception of a God so vengeful that He would be "offended" if the organization did not change its name and that it would "please the devil". The context when President Nelson said that was quite different. Your statement ridicules his beliefs in a God who cares about what we do, even in minor areas of our lives, and makes his belief sound rigid, authoritarian and vengeful In other words, it drags something out of context and sets it up for ridicule, which is precisely what anti-mormons love to do. Edited October 9, 2018 by mfbukowski 1
Walden Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: This is the kind of stupid stereotypical question that makes anti-mormons look like stereotypical anti mormons. You mean anti-Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not anti-mormon, right?
mfbukowski Posted October 9, 2018 Posted October 9, 2018 7 minutes ago, Walden said: You mean anti-Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not anti-mormon, right? Well now suddenly that becomes a provocative question doesn't it ? But yes I would suppose that still means "anti-mormon" because the comments of critics usually apply to "mormonism" and not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which has been re-restored yet again with Elder Oaks definition of truth as contextual and not absolute, but that is the thread that got hijacked and never got to that point because of people worrying about hermaphrodites Science and history no longer apply to spiritual truth- it is now "doctrine". Historical evidence has nothing to do with spiritual truth, therefore it doesn't matter what Joseph did as long as you have a testimony that the church is "true". (what I have been saying forever) In my little brain a switch suddenly went off where the word "mormon" now applies to the cultural stereotypes of Mormons as stereotypically attacked by critics of mormonism and don't really apply to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And since no one is a "mormon" anymore it is no longer a proper noun and thus need not be captialized unless of course, as I did above, refer to actual humans in the past who were Mormons. Might as well have some fun with this. 😜 2
Royce Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 9 hours ago, phaedrus ut said: I was just thinking how the requested name change are going to not affect just the institutions of the church but many many other business and groups. One example that comes to mind are the many Mormon Studies academic programs. Examples are: Utah State University, Program of Religious Studies, including the Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture Claremont Graduate University, School of Religion, including the Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies Utah Valley University, Comparative Mormon Studies program University of Utah, Tanner Humanities Center's Mormon Studies Initiative and the Simmons Professor of Mormon Studies University of Virginia, Graduate Program in Religious Studies, including the Richard Lyman Bushman Chair of Mormon Studies University of Wyoming, Mormon Studies Initiative University of Southern California, School of Religion, including the John A. Widtsoe Chair of Mormon Studies Graduate Theological Union, Director of Mormon Studies Also affected is the Mormon History Association, Association for Mormon Letters, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Studies, Mormon Studies Review, Juanita Brooks Prize in Mormon Studies, University of Utah Mormon Studies Fellowship. Is the expectation that all these organizations change their name to match the church? Phaedrus All victories for Satan, and Satanically inspired plots to remove the name of Christ from His true church.
phaedrus ut Posted October 10, 2018 Author Posted October 10, 2018 15 hours ago, rpn said: Garbage. Pres. Nelson was talking about ourselves. When church members are leaders of secular org, they act in the best interests of those secular organization, which will be to not change one thing about those labels (which over time might change, but frankly includes all book of mornmon believers and break offs, not just The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. (BTW, this should relieve the concerns church leaders had over warren jeff's group being also called mormons.) The church issued a press release asking everyone, not just members, to stop using the name Mormon. Quote In the first reference, the full name of the Church is preferred: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." When a shortened reference is needed, the terms "the Church" or the "Church of Jesus Christ" are encouraged. The "restored Church of Jesus Christ" is also accurate and encouraged. 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. "Mormon" is correctly used in proper names such as the Book of Mormon or when used as an adjective in such historical expressions as "Mormon Trail." The term "Mormonism" is inaccurate and should not be used. When describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" is accurate and preferred. When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, it should be stated that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not affiliated with polygamous groups. The request wasn't just for church members but for everyone. Phaedrus
Gray Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 Mormonism is bigger than one church leader, or even one denomination. It's a perfectly cromulent term to use in an academic setting.
phaedrus ut Posted October 10, 2018 Author Posted October 10, 2018 15 hours ago, mfbukowski said: The question at hand was about whether or not an organization chooses to "offend God and please the Devil " by keeping the word "Mormon" in their title. It was not about whether or not it was possible, desirable, a good idea etc to change the name OF THIS BOARD in the context of what this board is. His statement was about the behavior of MEMBERS and you made it about God and ORGANIZATIONS tearing the context to shreds. Surely you must see the difference between a question of the practicality of changing the name of THIS BOARD and making a comment which makes God to be authoritarian, petty, and vengeful. Your question was about the nature of God and assumes that it is possible that the Mormon view of a vengeful includes that God would actually be so demanding and authoritarian as to be OFFENDED by by some organization, for their own reasons, being OFFENDED by retaining their present name. Nearly all these organizations are closely aligned with the church, run by members, or endowed/funded by members. Considering the request was for everyone to change what names they use for the church with a special request to members. It wasn't just said once that using "Mormon Church" will "offend God and please the Devil". He also said “When the savior clearly states what the name of his church should be, and even precedes his declaration with, ‘Thus shall my church be called,' he is serious. And if we allow nicknames to be used and adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, he is offended.” and that using common nicknames like "LDS Church" is a "major victory for Satan". Wouldn't a Latter-day Saint who runs one of these organizations be adopting or sponsoring the nickname?" 15 hours ago, mfbukowski said: There is a difference between whether or not it is practical to change the name of a long-standing institution and ridiculing the alleged Mormon conception of a God so vengeful that He would be "offended" if the organization did not change its name and that it would "please the devil". The context when President Nelson said that was quite different. Your statement ridicules his beliefs in a God who cares about what we do, even in minor areas of our lives, and makes his belief sound rigid, authoritarian and vengeful In other words, it drags something out of context and sets it up for ridicule, which is precisely what anti-mormons love to do. Listen to his talk again. He said multiple times that God and/or Jesus are offended and that Satan/the Devil is pleased. Between the conference talk and the press release I think the context is pretty clear. Phaedrus
Walden Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 15 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Well now suddenly that becomes a provocative question doesn't it ? But yes I would suppose that still means "anti-mormon" because the comments of critics usually apply to "mormonism" and not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which has been re-restored yet again with Elder Oaks definition of truth as contextual and not absolute, but that is the thread that got hijacked and never got to that point because of people worrying about hermaphrodites Science and history no longer apply to spiritual truth- it is now "doctrine". Historical evidence has nothing to do with spiritual truth, therefore it doesn't matter what Joseph did as long as you have a testimony that the church is "true". (what I have been saying forever) In my little brain a switch suddenly went off where the word "mormon" now applies to the cultural stereotypes of Mormons as stereotypically attacked by critics of mormonism and don't really apply to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And since no one is a "mormon" anymore it is no longer a proper noun and thus need not be captialized unless of course, as I did above, refer to actual humans in the past who were Mormons. Might as well have some fun with this. 😜 Well this is not much different than before...when I was a Mormon, I had difficulty with some of the scientific and historical truth claims in the Book of Mormon that could easily be disproved by scientific evidence and/or historical fact, only to be led back around again by believing members who could not necessarily defend those claims with scientific or historical fact, but instead would try to lead me back to the resulting question of, "but how does it (the faith, the Book of Mormon, the temple, etc.) make you feel?" If there is not absolute truth, as you state, and truth is contextual and relative, then how might anyone argue that the good feelings one feels when adhering to the teachings of the Buddha or the Koran, which speak a certain truth to that follower, are any less truthful than the teachings of Joseph Smith? If truth is not absolute (which I believe, by the way), then it all comes down to feelings. Certainly you would admit that not everyone who has read and prayed about the Book of Mormon has gained a testimony that the LDS church is true, no? If there is no absolute truth, then their feelings and beliefs are no less true than yours after reading that book and gaining a testimony, no?
mfbukowski Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Walden said: Well this is not much different than before...when I was a Mormon, I had difficulty with some of the scientific and historical truth claims in the Book of Mormon that could easily be disproved by scientific evidence and/or historical fact, only to be led back around again by believing members who could not necessarily defend those claims with scientific or historical fact, but instead would try to lead me back to the resulting question of, "but how does it (the faith, the Book of Mormon, the temple, etc.) make you feel?" If there is not absolute truth, as you state, and truth is contextual and relative, then how might anyone argue that the good feelings one feels when adhering to the teachings of the Buddha or the Koran, which speak a certain truth to that follower, are any less truthful than the teachings of Joseph Smith? If truth is not absolute (which I believe, by the way), then it all comes down to feelings. Certainly you would admit that not everyone who has read and prayed about the Book of Mormon has gained a testimony that the LDS church is true, no? If there is no absolute truth, then their feelings and beliefs are no less true than yours after reading that book and gaining a testimony, no? Because the church is not the best immediate path to God for everyone. All these different doors eventually lead to one way back, Alma 32. You are confusing emotional needs with scientific truth. We all need to have a purpose life and know where we came from and where we're going. All paths are different paradigms that work for different people in different ways they find "sweet" Science itself is based on paradigms that continually change. You are assuming that the quest is for some kind of objective truth about God about how much he weighs and what color his eyes are. When you put it that way of course it sounds ridiculous. But that is exactly what your point about mormon truth claims is. I was an atheist and did graduate work in philosophy in secular universities and joined the church because I know the nature of truth in a philosophical sense, what truth is and is not. Everything I talk about as well founded and contemporary philosophy accepted even by atheists. Rorty is an atheist - The guy I quote extensively in my siggy- But he understands the function of religion in people's lives. If you want credibility you've got to update your views a little bit. I don't have much time right now to go into it but if you are intrested PM me. Edited October 10, 2018 by mfbukowski
Scott Lloyd Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 22 hours ago, phaedrus ut said: I was just thinking how the requested name change are going to not affect just the institutions of the church but many many other business and groups. One example that comes to mind are the many Mormon Studies academic programs. Examples are: Utah State University, Program of Religious Studies, including the Arrington Chair of Mormon History and Culture Claremont Graduate University, School of Religion, including the Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies Utah Valley University, Comparative Mormon Studies program University of Utah, Tanner Humanities Center's Mormon Studies Initiative and the Simmons Professor of Mormon Studies University of Virginia, Graduate Program in Religious Studies, including the Richard Lyman Bushman Chair of Mormon Studies University of Wyoming, Mormon Studies Initiative University of Southern California, School of Religion, including the John A. Widtsoe Chair of Mormon Studies Graduate Theological Union, Director of Mormon Studies Also affected is the Mormon History Association, Association for Mormon Letters, Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Studies, Mormon Studies Review, Juanita Brooks Prize in Mormon Studies, University of Utah Mormon Studies Fellowship. Is the expectation that all these organizations change their name to match the church? Phaedrus Daniel C. Peterson, who leads the Interpreter Foundation, has already indicated on his blog that his group is giving thought to how they can make adjustments to conform to President Nelson’s instruction. By the way, I think the current name is Interpreter: a Journal of Mormon Scripture, not Mormon Studies. Edited October 10, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
phaedrus ut Posted October 10, 2018 Author Posted October 10, 2018 32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Daniel C. Peterson, who leads the Interpreter Foundation, has already indicated on his blog that his group is giving thought to how they can make adjustments to conform to President Nelson’s instruction. By the way, I think the current name is Interpreter: a Journal of Mormon Scripture, not Mormon Studies. I expect the most closely affiliated and orthodox organizations to be the first to change. I didn't notice the name change, I'm guessing they didn't want any connection with "Mormon Studies" like happens at the Maxwell Institute. I don't think they can change to "A Journal of LDS Scripture" or "A Journal of Latter-Day Scripture". According to the style guide "When describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" is accurate and preferred." That may be the direction they will need to go. Phaedrus
cinepro Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 I wonder what they're going to call "Mormon Prom" next spring?
Scott Lloyd Posted October 10, 2018 Posted October 10, 2018 5 hours ago, phaedrus ut said: I expect the most closely affiliated and orthodox organizations to be the first to change. I didn't notice the name change, I'm guessing they didn't want any connection with "Mormon Studies" like happens at the Maxwell Institute. I don't think they can change to "A Journal of LDS Scripture" or "A Journal of Latter-Day Scripture". According to the style guide "When describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" is accurate and preferred." That may be the direction they will need to go. Phaedrus The name didn’t change. It was founded as Interpreter: a Journal of Mormon Scripture. You just got it wrong.
phaedrus ut Posted October 11, 2018 Author Posted October 11, 2018 14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: The name didn’t change. It was founded as Interpreter: a Journal of Mormon Scripture. You just got it wrong. Ah yes, I get Interpreter Journal of Mormon Scripture and International Journal of Mormon Studies mixed up. I do the same thing with Bill Pullman and Bill Paxton. Phaedrus
rpn Posted October 16, 2018 Posted October 16, 2018 On 10/10/2018 at 9:42 AM, phaedrus ut said: The church issued a press release asking everyone, not just members, to stop using the name Mormon. Yes, again in reference to the CHURCH, not anyone else.
Storm Rider Posted October 16, 2018 Posted October 16, 2018 My, we do swallow camels and choke on gnats when we want to, don't we? It seems rather simple and easy to understand that the prophet was speaking to an extremely large audience. He spoke to members and gave them reasons why they should not use the term Mormon any longer. He spoke to the media and requested that they begin referring to the Church in another way - without giving reasons. It was a simple request. He also spoke to the world with the same request. For some, it is fun to distort and appear to be befuddled by the simple words of a prophet. To torture his words so that they feel enabled to ridicule them. For others, it is as easy as listening to a request and accepting to follow it.
Recommended Posts