Calm Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 (edited) I think I have provided enough references for Robert's comment I quote above that they can judge for themselves who the directive applies to as a commandment and to whom it is requested , I will not respond to any more of 'not my real name' until something more than just "because I say so" is offered. Edited March 9, 2019 by Calm
JAHS Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Calm said: Possibly relevant is our (FairMormon, not this message board) experience: Quote Editor’s Note: In anticipation of comments and e-mails on the matter, it should be noted that the name ‘FairMormon’ has been licensed from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and we have sought direction from the Church about the appropriateness or need of changing it. We have so far been advised that as we are not a part of the Church and have a different purpose, it is not presently necessary or desirable to do so. We are however in the midst of changing some of our website content to better follow the prophet’s counsel, as we are fully supportive of him and the brethren. https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2018/11/15/a-mormon-by-any-other-name Nothing in regards to the bolded sentence or the rest of the statement has changed since the blog was written. There are many other church related websites and online businesses that use the word Mormon or LDS in their names and/or urls. Are they expected to make changes as well to conform to this request from the Church? It could put them out of business if they tried to do that.
Robert F. Smith Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 1 hour ago, not_my_real_name said: My claim was that the directive lacked the qualifications that you inferred. You are asserting presence; I am asserting absence. How can I prove absence using quotations? Do you want me to copy the entire text (Press releases and General Conference talks) here with a lack of highlights of qualifying statements? Is that really necessary when you can read the material yourself and show the presence of such statements? Let’s dispense with the deflections. Instead, support your inferences. We have fully discussed this entire issue on this board long before you came to visit, quotations and all. You made a series of false claims about Pres Nelson's comments which I have not seen in his actual comments or press release. If such comments as you claim are there, please cite them. If not, admit that you are wrong. You should be able to support your claims with a very few key quotations -- if they exist. Perhaps I overlooked them. Perhaps you could set me straight.
Calm Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, JAHS said: There are many other church related websites and online businesses that use the word Mormon or LDS in their names and/or urls. Are they expected to make changes as well to conform to this request from the Church? It could put them out of business if they tried to do that. I would assume the vast majority of them would receive the same counsel as we**** do if they asked (assuming they licensed the use as we**** did, if not there might be some concern there) especially as most are probably more distant from the purpose of the Church then we are (if they are into selling things, for example). ****"we" meaning here not "humanity", but "FairMormon members", "we" being context dependent I assume most understand this, but for the one who may not... Edited March 9, 2019 by Calm
not_my_real_name Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 48 minutes ago, Stargazer said: I wonder if you consider the Word of Wisdom to apply as a commandment to everyone in the whole world? Like "Thou shalt not kill"? 45 minutes ago, Calm said: Temple endowed are commanded to abide by temple covenants, including wearing of certain clothing in appropriate activities. Circumcision was commanded of the ancient Israelites. Do you believe these commandments apply to all? If not, you appear to accept some commandments are limited to certain groups. You have yet to demonstrate in any way the directive of the name is a commandment for the world. Pres. Nelson has phrased it as directed (commanded) to members and requested of media. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/president-nelson-stresses-importance-of-jesus-christ-church-name But this is like saying “good manners are only required of those who want to eat, so if you don’t want to eat, you’re under no obligation to have good manners.” This is a useless view, and smells of uninspired legalism. Let’s not forget the purpose of commandments: they are to bless and to lead all to a state of joy which Heavenly Father enjoys. God gives commandments to bless all of His children, not just a select few. All are commanded to obey God; all are commanded to make covenants, and if He gives a commandment it is to bless His children. To say that such and such a commandment doesn’t apply because covenants haven’t been made is such a myopic view of the Plan of Salvation, and cheapens the power of God-given counsel.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Calm said: But the best way needs to make sense in the context...I don't see how any of the variations yet provided really make sense. A message can be worded in such a way that it does make sense even as it conforms to the repeated directives from the president of the Church. It may take a bit of linguistic effort to do so, but I’m confident it is not beyond the ability of a reasonably competent writer or speaker. Edited March 9, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 3 hours ago, Stargazer said: I understand that he was speaking as his younger, pre-baptism self, when he had all kinds of thoughts about those odd Mormons. He was channeling himself as he used to think. I hope that’s true. But “it’s got to change” strikes me as very much present tense.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Calm said: Doesn't work in a list like "Protestantism, Catholicism, and other Christian religious traditions including Mormonism, etc." 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I admit it might not be the easiest or most convenient way to express it. But the easiest way is not always the best way. For a faithful Church member, the motive here might be a desire to conform to a divine directive given through a prophet. For a non-member, it might be to show courtesy and good will by complying with a group’s expressed preference. 3 hours ago, Calm said: But the best way needs to make sense in the context...I don't see how any of the variations yet provided really make sense. For your above hypothetical example, I might recast it as follows: “Protestantism, Catholicism, and other Christian religious traditions including that of the Latter-day Saints.” A bit longer in phrasing, but I wouldn’t agree it doesn’t make sense. Afterthought: What would you do if you wanted to include in your list a “religious tradition” for which there is no convenient “-ism” appellation, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Seventh Day Adventists? I presume you would find a way to do it notwithstanding. Edited March 9, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
mfbukowski Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: At this point I don’t know what it is you want. You disparage s beloved hymn that honors the Prophet Joseph Smith and his divinely mandated role in the restoration of the gospel, the gathering of Israel and the events of the last days, declaring, “It’s got to change,” and then insist you are not calling for a de-emphasis of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Oh my gosh. Great. If you want people's first impression of the church to be Joseph mingling with gods then good for you. If you think that is good PR then who am I to complain. Just know that I almost did not join the church because of that, and I know of any others who feel the same way. Or better yet, perhaps we could emphasize his polygamy more to make people today really honor him. the first line of the missionary discussions could be Hey do you know how many wives Joseph had? I'm sure we could honor him that way.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 1 minute ago, mfbukowski said: Oh my gosh. Great. If you want people's first impression of the church to be Joseph mingling with gods then good for you. If you think that is good PR then who am I to complain. Just know that I almost did not join the church because of that, and I know of any others who feel the same way. Or better yet, perhaps we could emphasize his polygamy more to make people today really honor him. the first line of the missionary discussions could be Hey do you know how many wives Joseph had? I'm sure we could honor him that way. “Praise to the Man” says nothing about polygamy. And I believe Joseph is indeed mingling with Gods, as will others who valiantly fulfill their respective missions in mortality. To me, it is a very sublime thought.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 (edited) A point of curiosity: just wondering why the app on my iPod touch is still titled “LDS Music.” I thought the change was to be effective immediately. And the apps on my device ordinarily update automatically. Edited March 9, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
mfbukowski Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: “Praise to the Man” says nothing about polygamy. And I believe Joseph is indeed mingling with Gods, as will others who valiantly fulfill their respective missions in mortality. To me, it is a very sublime thought. First I never said that praise to the man said anything about polygamy And of course exaltation for all Latter-Day saints is a very sacred and sublime belief. I feel you have no comprehension of this issue whatsoever. Let's just drop it. 1
mfbukowski Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: A point of curiosity: just wondering why the app on my iPod touch is still titled “LDS Music.” I thought the change was to be effectively immediately. And the apps on my device ordinarily update automatically. Imperfect apps? Clearly worth a letter to the first presidency. That has to be a testimony smasher. Actual fallibility in action. Oh my!
mfbukowski Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 11 hours ago, not_my_real_name said: In my recent study of “Come Follow Me” and the related New Testament passages, I can’t say that I found many teachings about preserving one’s reputation. To the contrary, I seem to recall several instances of the Savior teaching that one should not do things to be seen of others and that one should do things in secret. It’s as if He understands that the natural man’s need to preserve his reputation places a barrier between the man and the Divine. But perhaps you could inform everyone of how He got it wrong. Perhaps you’ve read ahead and could give us some insight. And if you really believe that using one’s real name is an adequate safeguard against speaking nonsense and silliness, then allow me to be the first to welcome you to your first week of using the internet. As you continue to use this miraculous technology you will likely find that many of your beliefs about human nature are quite naive. Lol. You're a funny guy. It's pretty hilarious being called naive on this board. Keep a digging! 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Imperfect apps? Clearly worth a letter to the first presidency. That has to be a testimony smasher. Actual fallibility in action. Oh my! I’m not complaining, just curious. You need to calm down.
mfbukowski Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I’m not complaining, just curious. You need to calm down. 🤣
Scott Lloyd Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: First I never said that praise to the man said anything about polygamy And of course exaltation for all Latter-Day saints is a very sacred and sublime belief. I feel you have no comprehension of this issue whatsoever. Let's just drop it. The essential role of the Prophet Joseph Smith in God’s divine plan is also a sublime belief. I believe I do comprehend this issue. I just disagree with you. But I’m all for just dropping it, if that’s what you want.
let’s roll Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 4 hours ago, Calm said: I think I have provided enough references for Robert's comment I quote above that they can judge for themselves who the directive applies to as a commandment and to whom it is requested , I will not respond to any more of 'not my real name' until something more than just "because I say so" is offered. I applaud your patience and persistence. I admit my reaction to all those post from NMRN lacked your patience and resolve. Instead it sent me, for the first time, in search of the block function.🤫 1
mfbukowski Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: The essential role of the Prophet Joseph Smith in God’s divine plan is also a sublime belief. I believe I do comprehend this issue. I just disagree with you. But I’m all for just dropping it, if that’s what you want. What is the suject of the discussion? The topic that we are discussing between us?
mfbukowski Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 🤣 13 hours ago, not_my_real_name said: And if you really believe that using one’s real name is an adequate safeguard against speaking nonsense and silliness, then allow me to be the first to welcome you to your first week of using the internet. As you continue to use this miraculous technology you will likely find that many of your beliefs about human nature are quite naive. I just had to quote that part again.🤣 😂😅 That's a real knee-slapper! 🤩
Scott Lloyd Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: What is the suject of the discussion? The topic that we are discussing between us? Um, that for some reason you are triggered by a line in “Praise to the Man,” the result of which being that you declare, “Something’s got to be done,” meaning, I suppose, that you want to get rid of the hymn.
Stargazer Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 4 hours ago, not_my_real_name said: But this is like saying “good manners are only required of those who want to eat, so if you don’t want to eat, you’re under no obligation to have good manners.” This is a useless view, and smells of uninspired legalism. Let’s not forget the purpose of commandments: they are to bless and to lead all to a state of joy which Heavenly Father enjoys. God gives commandments to bless all of His children, not just a select few. All are commanded to obey God; all are commanded to make covenants, and if He gives a commandment it is to bless His children. Here's the problem I have with your view. The WoW was given by the Lord specifically NOT as a commandment, but as more or less as advice. DC 89:2 says it is "[t]o be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint..." It's not a commandment -- for example, its violation is not subject to formal church discipline, which you can confirm if you have access to Handbook 1. You can't be disfellowshipped or excommunicated for failing to observe it. You can only be denied entrance to the Temple and be considered unworthy to hold certain callings in the Church. To whom is it directed? DC 89:3 says it's "[g]iven for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints." Now, obviously even those who are not "saints" can benefit by observing it! But its object was members of the Church, not the entire world. Even the Lord, when he was in mortality did not obey the Word of Wisdom in respect of "strong drink". This suggests quite strongly that the prohibition from alcohol is not an eternal commandment, but one that was given only for our time, and for a particular people: namely we LDS. 4 hours ago, not_my_real_name said: To say that such and such a commandment doesn’t apply because covenants haven’t been made is such a myopic view of the Plan of Salvation, and cheapens the power of God-given counsel. What covenant are you talking about? Some covenant that is not mentioned anywhere? That has no name? Are members of the Church obliged to observe the Word of Wisdom by covenant? No, they are not, because there has been no such covenant given. Observation of the Word of Wisdom is a voluntary act that the Church requires in order to be counted worthy to receive certain callings and enter the Temple. Again, the Word of Wisdom is a principle, not a commandment, or a covenant. Let's consider your statement in light of the covenants made in the Endowment. Must those covenants be kept by everyone, regardless of whether they made them? Obviously not. So how could a WoW covenant (which doesn't exist) be applicable to everyone regardless of whether they entered into it or not?
Stargazer Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 (edited) nvrmnd Edited March 9, 2019 by Stargazer
MiserereNobis Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 10 hours ago, Stargazer said: The WoW was given by the Lord specifically NOT as a commandment, but as more or less as advice. DC 89:2 says it is "[t]o be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint..." It's not a commandment -- for example, its violation is not subject to formal church discipline, which you can confirm if you have access to Handbook 1. You can't be disfellowshipped or excommunicated for failing to observe it. You can only be denied entrance to the Temple and be considered unworthy to hold certain callings in the Church. Tangent question: can someone receive LDS baptism and not follow the word of wisdom? Is it required for baptism? I ask because I didn't know it was exempt from church discipline.
Jane_Doe Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Tangent question: can someone receive LDS baptism and not follow the word of wisdom? Is it required for baptism? I ask because I didn't know it was exempt from church discipline. Part of the baptismal covenant is the promise to abide by the Word of Wisdom. If you openly have not desire to abide by the covenant you're going to make, then the Church won't allow you to make said covenant (such is just setting you up for lots of sin).
Recommended Posts