Views on Name Correction vs. Wrong Name Continuance

[Kenngo1969]

32 minutes ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Wow, Kenngo1969, I think that qualifies as the pot calling the kettle black or, more accurately, projection.

You made the claim/attack, Kenngo, I simply and reasonably asked you to justify it, but you won't even stand by it? You even try to claim I'm acting in poor faith? Wow...

What's happened to you Kenngo in the past four years? I remember you being much more reasonable, even congenial, than these two posts seem to represent.

Maybe it's an outlier. Hope things go better for our interactions in the future.

Don Bernardo, in the final post on page three, sums up my feelings on the matter perfectly.  I couldn't have said it better myself, and I really have nothing further to add.  If that makes me an "unreasonable," "uncongenial" "attack[er]," so be it.  One can tell a lot about a person by who his friends are, and, perhaps, can tell even more about him by who his detractors are.  If you are in the latter camp, so be it.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Kenngo1969

[Scott Lloyd]

20 hours ago, Teancum said:

I am fully aware of what past leaders have said about the name Mormon Church. I am also aware that President Hinckley gave subtle rebuttal of President Nelson's conference talks about the name of the church sometime in the early 1990's.  I am also aware the under President Monson we had the Meet the Mormons ad campaign which cost I am sure a lot of money.  We also had Mormon.org under President Monson. He certainly did not mind the name Mormon Church and did not think it a victory for Satan.

President Hinckley did not give rebuttal to President Nelson, subtle or otherwise. That is a mischaracterization on your part. And it was under the presidency of President Hinckley that the official statement came out expressing the desire that the name of the Savior not be dropped from the name of  His Church. 

And the “I’m a Mormon” campaigns and such pertained to what members were to be called, not what the Church itself is to be called. Your failure to recognize that distinction leads me to conclude that you are not nearly as aware of what has been said and done in the past as you let on. 

Edited March 31, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Joshua Valentine]

On 3/29/2019 at 4:13 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

In my opinion, what is offensive to God is past refusal or resistance to this divine directive given by God through the instrumentality of His anointed servants, as well as the fact that such refusal has played into the adversary's hands by facilitating the de facto severance of the name of the Church from the name of Him Who founded it. I view the recent re-emphasis by President Nelson as an earnest effort to correct that past errancy on the part of many of the membership at large..

 

On 3/29/2019 at 11:11 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

I think in recent years, the Brethren have been united in trying to get the membership to use the full and proper name of the Savior’s Church. I believe it is members who have refused to comply who have played into the adversary’s hands and, to the extent they continue to refuse, continue to do so. 

 

23 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Having trouble with breaking up a quote. Sorry.

-True, the preference has been indicated for quite some time. However, it is this addition of God´s displeasure and indication that such was the case ever since God made his church´s name clear in revelation that is new and seemingly full of dangerous and unnecessary implications.

-I follow you statements in your opinion - however it does not treat with the issue of Leadership controlled names - Mormon Tabernacle Choir, official websites, etc. These are certainly not the fault of the membership not heeding the leadership, rather it sounds like Nelson is claiming God was offended by the lack of followthrough by previous presidents, by this very dimension (official usage).

-Thanks for letting me know how you have dealt with the change, Scott Lloyd.

-As to you question of me: I am mainly just genuinely interested in how the membership are referring to themselves/each other - this seems to be the most difficult part of the pronouncement that I immediately wondered upon hearing of it.

 

23 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you either are ignorant of or are ignoring what has gone on before with regard to official expressions from the Church and it’s leaders urging the use of the full and proper name of the Church and avoiding appellations such as “Mormon Church” and “LDS Church.” 

 

22 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Only part of the issue Scott Lloyd - the leadership controlled usage of the name is still an issue for your points (see my reply to you above - 6th from top of page 3)

 

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And the “I’m a Mormon” campaigns and such pertained to what members were to be called, not what the Church itself is to be called. Your failure to recognize that distinction leads me to conclude that you are not nearly as aware of what has been said and done in the past as you let on. 

Scott Lloyd, you never got back to me on my reply so I´ve collected your statements here which:

1) solely focus on the membership for violating this name preference/command

       - This is despite my reply that pointed out that there are Leadership controlled names - like the official websites, the Choir, books, and campaigns, that you never replied to.

2) repeatedly mention the issue only in regards to the name of the church

      - thus still avoiding Leadership controlled names and seems to concede that the Leadership has previously not emphasized any change to names of membership

 

The leadership are obviously responsible for some ¨mormon¨ names, so why continuously and conspicuously ignore this facet of the issue?

1) The focus by leadership on the name of the church while (as far as I know, I may be wrong) ignoring the terms for members would seem to be a glaring indication that the leadership was ignorant of God´s issue with this.

2) Surely, if God was offended by both (which according to today´s president he was and is) then when he led them to correct the church name usage in years and years past he would have also brought up the member name usage.

3) And there´s still the question of why these leaders would simultaneously teach the preference for the name and still use incorrect (even offensive) versions for the websites, choir, and other names they chose or authorized themselves.

 

[Joshua Valentine]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Using last names only may indicate a lack of respect. I usually use titles simply out of respect; however, I do not respect the folks on your list in the same way I respect President Nelson. I would not refer to him with only his last name. It implies a familiarity that I have not earned and displays a casualness that is unseemly.   Perhaps it’s a generational thing.

 

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Don Bernardo, in the final post on page three, sums up my feelings on the matter perfectly.  I couldn't have said it better myself, and I really have nothing further to add.  If that makes me an "unreasonable," "uncongenial" "attack[er]," so be it.  One can tell a lot about a person by who his friends are, and, perhaps, can tell even more about him by who his detractors are.  If you are in the latter camp, so be it.

I liked Bernard Gui´s comment and I agree with you Kenngo1969 - you could have said it just as well as BG did, yet you specifically decided to go with your comment instead.  That´s what makes me wonder. That was your choice. It had nothing to do with me.

And you are still going so far as to set our future relationship in concrete simply on this point?  I wonder what you would have done if I had meant disrespect by using just his first name or, worse, nicknames or epithets. Such would seem to justify your hasty, prickly, and hard line actions, not what I did.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

 

 

 

 

 

Scott Lloyd, you never got back to me on my reply so I´ve collected your statements here which:

1) solely focus on the membership for violating this name preference/command

       - This is despite my reply that pointed out that there are Leadership controlled names - like the official websites, the Choir, books, and campaigns, that you never replied to.

2) repeatedly mention the issue only in regards to the name of the church

      - thus still avoiding Leadership controlled names and seems to concede that the Leadership has previously not emphasized any change to names of membership

 

The leadership are obviously responsible for some ¨mormon¨ names, so why continuously and conspicuously ignore this facet of the issue?

1) The focus by leadership on the name of the church while (as far as I know, I may be wrong) ignoring the terms for members would seem to be a glaring indication that the leadership was ignorant of God´s issue with this.

2) Surely, if God was offended by both (which according to today´s president he was and is) then when he led them to correct the church name usage in years and years past he would have also brought up the member name usage.

3) And there´s still the question of why these leaders would simultaneously teach the preference for the name and still use incorrect (even offensive) versions for the websites, choir, and other names they chose or authorized themselves.

 

At least you recognize (or seem to) the distinction between the issue of what the Church is called and what the members are called. Teancum and others seem unable to do that. 

Re-reading just now the October 2018 general conference address by President Nelson, I can only surmise that with a prophet’s perception and understanding, he has determined at this point in time that a discontinuance of “Mormons” and “LDS” as identifiers for Church members is a necessary part of the course correction he has felt impressed to make. I don’t believe that disparages in any way those who have gone before him. Circumstances and conditions change; that’s the beauty of the principle of ongoing revelation. At any given time, prophetic direction can respond or adapt to such changing conditions and circumstances. 

[Stargazer]

On 3/30/2019 at 6:31 AM, Joshua Valentine said:

Your example here does not work, because, at least to my knowledge, none of those developments were given with claims of God´s displeasure nor are any of those developments ones, that I know of, that were declared by God but delayed by leadership or members.

Stargazer, you might come up with better comparisons before all the ¨insistence¨ (never insisted - gave many qualifiers to uncertainty), calling ¨into question¨ my beliefs, and ¨assuming¨ anything about my being a Christian talk.

Haven't been following your contributions here.  Don't know who you are.  Assumption is for "the sake of argument" -- if you're not what was assumed, then oh well, whatever.  

Perhaps I don't know you well enough to comment.  So ignore me.

Do what's right.  Fear God and keep His commandments.  That's what He asks for.  I'd say that if we know what His commandments are and we're not keeping them, then He's offended.  It's not all that complicated.

And what President Nelson says about not acknowledging our unpayable debt to Jesus Christ is absolutely a fact.  

--- By the way, I'm in the midst of a raging upper respiratory infection of some kind that is kicking my behind.  I'm not feeling very cogent, and perhaps for that reason I should just let things go by without comment.  Have a nice day, sir.

Edited March 31, 2019 by Stargazer

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

President Hinckley did not give rebuttal to President Nelson, subtle or otherwise. That is a mischaracterization on your part. And it was under the presidency of President Hinckley that the official statement came out expressing the desire that the name of the Savior not be dropped from the name of  His Church. 

And the “I’m a Mormon” campaigns and such pertained to what members were to be called, not what the Church itself is to be called. Your failure to recognize that distinction leads me to conclude that you are not nearly as aware of what has been said and done in the past as you let on. 

Scott I am aware of all of this. But if it helps you to say I am not I am good with that.  😉😉

[rockpond]

I’m old enough to remember the last time we went through this (although it didn’t include an references to victories by Satan).  And we’re all old enough to remember the Brethren vigorously  marketing the Church under the Mormon name. 

Our reliance on the Mormon name backfired somewhat as many capitalized on it to market their own materials that were/are detrimental to the Church. 

So, what President Nelson is doing now makes sense and I don’t have a problem with him directing that we must return to following the Lord’s directive of using the proper name of the church.  Did the Lord actually tell him that He was offended?  I don’t know.  Might be metaphor. 

Personally, I identify first and foremost as a Christian.  And secondarily as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which I still need to follow up with a confirmation that it is, indeed, the Mormon church. 

 

[RevTestament]

On 3/31/2019 at 8:58 AM, Stargazer said:

--- By the way, I'm in the midst of a raging upper respiratory infection of some kind that is kicking my behind.  I'm not feeling very cogent, and perhaps for that reason I should just let things go by without comment.  Have a nice day, sir.

Besides seeing a doctor, I would try consuming large amounts of coconut oil and using some diluted "oregano oil" (ie hyssop oil - not the spice Greek oregano). This might promote some coughing. I would give that mix a few days. This is not medical advice.

[Buffy]

I gave a talk in church last week and quoted Joseph Smith.  He used the word "Mormon."  Please tell me how to proceed.  Should I change the quote?  Correct the Prophet of the Restoration?  Make a joke ("Joseph didn't get the memo.")?  Read it as is?   

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, Buffy said:

I gave a talk in church last week and quoted Joseph Smith.  He used the word "Mormon."  Please tell me how to proceed.  Should I change the quote?  Correct the Prophet of the Restoration?  Make a joke ("Joseph didn't get the memo.")?  Read it as is?   

If you are going to quote him, you have to read it as is.  I don't think the prophet expects us to sanitize our history from use of the word "Mormon", but simply to make a concerted effort from this point on to avoid using the term in reference to the church or it's people.   

Edited April 1, 2019 by pogi

[Exiled]

Mormon, mormon, mormon ..... hahahahahaha

👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹👹

Sorry, I was momentarily not myself .... I don't know what happened ... I think I was overcome by something .....

Anyway, feel free to ignore what just happened.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/31/2019 at 4:18 PM, rockpond said:

I’m old enough to remember the last time we went through this (although it didn’t include an references to victories by Satan).  And we’re all old enough to remember the Brethren vigorously  marketing the Church under the Mormon name. 

Our reliance on the Mormon name backfired somewhat as many capitalized on it to market their own materials that were/are detrimental to the Church. 

So, what President Nelson is doing now makes sense and I don’t have a problem with him directing that we must return to following the Lord’s directive of using the proper name of the church.  Did the Lord actually tell him that He was offended?  I don’t know.  Might be metaphor. 

Personally, I identify first and foremost as a Christian.  And secondarily as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which I still need to follow up with a confirmation that it is, indeed, the Mormon church. 

 

I don’t remember the Brethren “vigorously marketing the Church under the Mormon name” — unless that is your snide characterization of what they were actually doing. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t remember the Brethren “vigorously marketing the Church under the Mormon name” ...

I actually think that's a pretty apt description of the 'I'm a Mormon' campaign.

[Joshua Valentine]

On 3/31/2019 at 5:18 PM, rockpond said:

I’m old enough to remember the last time we went through this (although it didn’t include an references to victories by Satan).  And we’re all old enough to remember the Brethren vigorously  marketing the Church under the Mormon name. 

Our reliance on the Mormon name backfired somewhat as many capitalized on it to market their own materials that were/are detrimental to the Church. 

So, what President Nelson is doing now makes sense and I don’t have a problem with him directing that we must return to following the Lord’s directive of using the proper name of the church.  Did the Lord actually tell him that He was offended?  I don’t know.  Might be metaphor. 

Personally, I identify first and foremost as a Christian.  And secondarily as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which I still need to follow up with a confirmation that it is, indeed, the Mormon church. 

 

Did you see my Church Announces Member Name Change post?  I think your input would be interesting.

[sunstoned]

9 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I actually think that's a pretty apt description of the 'I'm a Mormon' campaign.

Let's not forget "meet the mormons" movie: https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/meet-the-mormons-movie and the  "Meet the mormons" book:  https://www.amazon.com/Meet-Mormons-pictorial-introduction-Latter-day/dp/B0007DNK4I

 

[Joshua Valentine]

On 3/31/2019 at 5:18 PM, rockpond said:

I’m old enough to remember the last time we went through this (although it didn’t include an references to victories by Satan).  And we’re all old enough to remember the Brethren vigorously  marketing the Church under the Mormon name. 

Our reliance on the Mormon name backfired somewhat as many capitalized on it to market their own materials that were/are detrimental to the Church. 

So, what President Nelson is doing now makes sense and I don’t have a problem with him directing that we must return to following the Lord’s directive of using the proper name of the church.  Did the Lord actually tell him that He was offended?  I don’t know.  Might be metaphor. 

Personally, I identify first and foremost as a Christian.  And secondarily as a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which I still need to follow up with a confirmation that it is, indeed, the Mormon church. 

 

 

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t remember the Brethren “vigorously marketing the Church under the Mormon name” — unless that is your snide characterization of what they were actually doing. 

 

34 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I actually think that's a pretty apt description of the 'I'm a Mormon' campaign.

 

12 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Let's not forget "meet the mormons" movie: https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/meet-the-mormons-movie and the  "Meet the mormons" book:  https://www.amazon.com/Meet-Mormons-pictorial-introduction-Latter-day/dp/B0007DNK4I

 

Scott Lloyd, what is your response to this evidence? If you still think the Brethren did not ¨vigorously [market] the Church under the Mormon name¨, please tell us how these listed instances do not match that description. If you no longer deny that the Brethren did such, then could you take back the ¨snide¨ accusation you made against rockpond?  Thank you for replying to these responses.

[rockpond]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t remember the Brethren “vigorously marketing the Church under the Mormon name” — unless that is your snide characterization of what they were actually doing. 

We've been through this before...

I'm a Mormon

Mormon.org

Meet the Mormons

Mormon Newsroom

"Mormon" used in social media work

Even going back to the old Homefront ads that ended with "The Mormons".

And though what I have said is not a "snide characterization", I expect your reaction to be similar to the last time you and I discussed this, I imagine you will dismiss all of the above marketing as something other than promoting the Church.  And, in so doing, you will be following the oft used pattern when new doctrine conflicts with the old.  Namely, recast the old as something other than what it was.

[rockpond]

43 minutes ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Did you see my Church Announces Member Name Change post?  I think your input would be interesting.

I saw it... isn't that an April Fool's joke? 

[Joshua Valentine]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I saw it... isn't that an April Fool's joke? 

Of course, but it´s an April Fool´s joke introducing a actual topic: Why not just call members Christians? When and if you need to specify, then LDS Christian. So if you have input on such questions, please comment there.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

We've been through this before...

I'm a Mormon

Mormon.org

Meet the Mormons

Mormon Newsroom

"Mormon" used in social media work

Even going back to the old Homefront ads that ended with "The Mormons".

And though what I have said is not a "snide characterization", I expect your reaction to be similar to the last time you and I discussed this, I imagine you will dismiss all of the above marketing as something other than promoting the Church.  And, in so doing, you will be following the oft used pattern when new doctrine conflicts with the old.  Namely, recast the old as something other than what it was.

It's maddening dealing with the obvious gas-lighting that goes on. Perhaps it could be avoided by just chalking the change up to acting as men in prior times or the beauty of modern revelation or my personal favorite of we just don't know God's mysteries .....

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, Buffy said:

I gave a talk in church last week and quoted Joseph Smith.  He used the word "Mormon."  Please tell me how to proceed.  Should I change the quote?  Correct the Prophet of the Restoration?  Make a joke ("Joseph didn't get the memo.")?  Read it as is?   

So, it's the Church of Joseph Smith is it?

We've strayed from the path, brothers and sisters.  Stick-pulling must be brought back to replace basketball.  If we catch our neighbor beating his wife, we need to thrash him for it.  Wells must be dug by hand.  If we have surgery no more anesthetic.  

Come on, get real.  

Edited April 2, 2019 by Stargazer

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

It's maddening dealing with the obvious gas-lighting that goes on. Perhaps it could be avoided by just chalking the change up to acting as men in prior times or the beauty of modern revelation or my personal favorite of we just don't know God's mysteries .....

Yes, brother Hinckley and other leaders spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world with brother Russell Nelson.  Just like in ten years from now, when this whole name change effort is abandoned and forgotten, it will be because even more light and knowledge has come into the world.   

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

So, it's the Church of Joseph Smith is it?

Non sequitir

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

We've strayed from the path, brothers and sisters.  Stick-pulling must be brought back to replace basketball.  If we catch our neighbor beating his wife, we need to thrash him for it.  Wells must be dug by hand.  If we have surgery no more anesthetic.  

Come on, get real.  

And all of these have nothing to do with Buffy’s point that the founding prophet of this dispensation (the one to whom the name of the church was revealed) use the term Mormon. 

Why not address Buffy’s actual point?

[JulieM]

9 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Let's not forget "meet the mormons" movie: https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/meet-the-mormons-movie and the  "Meet the mormons" book:  https://www.amazon.com/Meet-Mormons-pictorial-introduction-Latter-day/dp/B0007DNK4I

 

Scott should be very familiar with “Meet the Mormons” and the marketing of the name.  He wrote about it as recently as 2018:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/archive/2018-02-02/meet-the-mormons-franchise-culminates-with-latest-vignettes-33312

“An outside marketing firm suggested it be released in theaters. For two weeks in a row, it was in the top 10 films in the nation for per-theater average. Ultimately it placed among the top 35 documentaries of all time.”

Edited April 2, 2019 by JulieM