Views on Name Correction vs. Wrong Name Continuance

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

My goodness.  I posted a link to an official Church publication where it says Mormon Church is a term used to describe the Church.  

As I said, earlier, this is all a very fascinating saga and will remain as much, particularly as long as members feel the need to contradict themselves and the Church.  

You've gotten support for the claims I made.  Church leaders don't allow publications put out without approval from them.  I leave what I've linked as evidence for what I said.  I didn't use the term endorse or approve.  I showed that the Church did exactly the opposite of what you claimed the Church has done.  It certainly did not, on the site, say, in anyway, the use of the term Mormon Church is not acceptable.  I was merely posting it to counter your point.  

Scott seems to just be blind to all the history, documention, links provided and so on, showing that past leaders did not have any “urgency” to do what President Nelson has done here.  I’m not sure why he’s so opposed to just acknowledging that this was something that very much bothered President Nelson over the years and he’s now acting on it that he’s the Prophet.  There’s nothing wrong with that.

These are men who are leading the church and yet, some seem offended when they simply act like men.  I support President Nelson as the Prophet, but I also don’t feel as strongly as he does over this name issue.  However, using the full name when possible is a good thing.  But calling myself a Mormon is still something I’m proud of.

Edited April 3, 2019 by JulieM

[rockpond]

Just now, JulieM said:

These are men who are leading the church and yet, some seem offended when they simply act like men.  I support President Nelson as the Prophet, but I also don’t feel as strongly as he does over this name issue.  However, using the full name when possible is a good thing.  But calling myself a Mormon is still something I’m proud of.

Well said.  I agree.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, rockpond said:

You are correct... the answer to @Scott Lloyd's request is in the actions of the Brethren.  I don't know if they've ever specifically said:   It's okay to call the Church the Mormon Church and to not use the name of Christ.  I doubt it and I figure that's why Scott is insisting on that level of specificity.  However, for decades the Brethren have used the Church's resources and funds to promote and broaden recognition of the name Mormon for both the Church and its members.

I’ve never denied that the name “Mormon” has been used in publicity campaigns. I don’t agree with you, though, that the intent has been “to promote and broaden recognition” of the name Mormon. Rather, I believe it is because the name is already widely used among the public in reference to the Church and it’s members and the Church was merely making use of that already widely used identifier to promote its messages. 

. I’ve held all along that for many years, in reference to the Church as an institution, the leaders have asked members and others to use the formal name of the Church, which includes the name of Christ, this because of the scriptural mandate to do so. 

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You are correct... the answer to @Scott Lloyd's request is in the actions of the Brethren.  I don't know if they've ever specifically said:   It's okay to call the Church the Mormon Church and to not use the name of Christ.  I doubt it and I figure that's why Scott is insisting on that level of specificity.  However, for decades the Brethren have used the Church's resources and funds to promote and broaden recognition of the name Mormon for both the Church and its members.

Yeah, this is becoming silly.   

I’m not sure why Scott is so adamant about making claims that aren’t supported by actions of past leaders. 

There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging that it can be both a pet peeve of President Nelson over the years and also be a good thing to remember the full name of the church.

But for sure, past leaders haven’t felt an “urgency” over this as Scott claims.

 

 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You did indeed say “endorse”. Go back and look at your post ( unless you’ve changed it since). 

Fine.  That's beside the point and I shouldn't have said I didn't say that word, well, because it doesn't matter.

The fact is the Church officially has on it's site the claim that "Mormon Church" is a term used to describe Christ's restored Church.  You said, "it was not promoted as a substitute name for the Church".  This link shows that is not entirely true at all.  Indeed, one can take this link and say, "ok, it is ok, in the Church's view, to refer to the Church by the term "Mormon Church".  It says so right here.  

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Scott seems to just be blind to all the history, documention, links provided and so on, showing that past leaders did not have any “urgency” to do what President Nelson has done here.  I’m not sure why he’s so opposed to just acknowledging that this was something that very much bothered President Nelson over the years and he’s now acting on it that he’s the Prophet.  There’s nothing wrong with that.

These are men who are leading the church and yet, some seem offended when they simply act like men.  I support President Nelson as the Prophet, but I also don’t feel as strongly as he does over this name issue.  However, using the full name when possible is a good thing.  But calling myself a Mormon is still something I’m proud of.

You are wrong to say or imply that President Nelson is the only one to have had an issue over not using the name of Christ in the name of the Church. As I said, President Ballard, for one, has spoken repeatedly about it in general conference. President Oaks, for another, has spoken in public about it. The Church has made formal statements about it, and it has been an institutional policy in the Church for many years. 

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are wrong to say or imply that President Nelson is the only one to have had an issue over not using the name of Christ in the name of the Church. As I said, President Ballard, for one, has spoken repeatedly about it in general conference. President Oaks, for another, has spoken in public about it. The Church has made formal statements about it, and it has been an institutional policy in the Church for many years. 

And yet, they kept approving church funds be spent promoting the name Mormon and Mormons.  Go figure?

How do you explain how their actions show no urgency to stop using those terms?

I think the saying that actions speak louder than words applies here.

What message would “Meet the Catholics” or “I’m a Catholic” send?

Edited April 3, 2019 by JulieM

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

But for sure, past leaders haven’t felt an “urgency” over this as Scott claims.

Yep.  He is taking the present prophetic teachings and painting over the past with them.  It smooths the doctrinal wrinkles.

This is a theological dilemma that we deal with in the church:  When a current prophet teaches or reveals something new that either contradicts or causes discord with that which was taught previously, there seems to be an inherent desire to inject into the past and homogenize it all.  Personally, I think we need to fight the urge to do that.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are wrong to say or imply that President Nelson is the only one to have had an issue over not using the name of Christ in the name of the Church. As I said, President Ballard, for one, has spoken repeatedly about it in general conference. President Oaks, for another, has spoken in public about it. The Church has made formal statements about it, and it has been an institutional policy in the Church for many years. 

And yet they are all still stuck endorsing the term Mormon Church on their website.

I get your take on this.  I'm glad you went the rounds a bit.  It certainly adds to the saga that this little weird episode has caused.  

[rockpond]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve never denied that the name “Mormon” has been used in publicity campaigns. I don’t agree with you, though, that the intent has been “to promote and broaden recognition” of the name Mormon. Rather, I believe it is because the name is already widely used among the public in reference to the Church and it’s members and the Church was merely making use of that already widely used identifier to promote its messages. 

. I’ve held all along that for many years, in reference to the Church as an institution, the leaders have asked members and others to use the formal name of the Church, which includes the name of Christ, this because of the scriptural mandate to do so. 

"making use of that widely used identifier to promote its messages" ... in other words:  marketing.  And are we to believe that they didn't realize those efforts would result in the even more common usage of the term Mormon as the name of the Church?  C'mon Scott.

While I agree that the Brethren wanted the full name of the Church used, it's laughable for you to assert that as a quorum they felt the urgency that you claim whilst promoting the Mormon brand.

[MiserereNobis]

9 minutes ago, JulieM said:

What message would “Meet the Catholics” or “I’m a Catholic” send?

That we're part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

There have been derogatory nicknames given to Catholics, such as papists, but these are clearly negative and so are not analogous to Mormon.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

And yet, they kept approving church funds be spent promoting the name Mormon and Mormons.  Go figure?

How do you explain how their actions show no urgency to stop using those terms?

I think the saying that actions speak louder than words applies here.

What message would “Meet the Catholics” or “I’m a Catholic” send?

It has only been recently that the we have been discouraged from using “Mormon” or “LDS” to refer to members. I’ve never denied that and have even acknowledged that. Yet you keep bringing this up as though I hadn’t. That’s what we call a straw man. 

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yep.  He is taking the present prophetic teachings and painting over the past with them.  It smooths the doctrinal wrinkles.

This is a theological dilemma that we deal with in the church:  When a current prophet teaches or reveals something new that either contradicts or causes discord with that which was taught previously, there seems to be an inherent desire to inject into the past and homogenize it all.  Personally, I think we need to fight the urge to do that.

It’s better to just own it and acknowledge our leaders are human and disagree at times (which is very normal).  It would be odd for a group of strong men to always 100% unanamously agree.  I believe they do try to support each other (especially the Prophet) even when they disagree or don’t feel strongly about some new change or policy. 

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

That we're part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

There have been derogatory nicknames given to Catholics, such as papists, but these are clearly negative and so are not analogous to Mormon.

Thanks for the info!  I’ve never heard the term papists (I should look that up maybe?).  I have many Catholic friends and they refer to themselves as Catholics, but don’t use the entire name of their church.

Edited April 3, 2019 by JulieM

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It has only been recently that the we have been discouraged from using “Mormon” or “LDS” to refer to members. 

Exactly.  Most specifically since President Nelson became Prophet (that’s only when it became “urgent” in using your terms).

The “Meet The Mormons” promotion was still being written about as recent as last year as a positive thing.

Even by you:

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

Edited April 3, 2019 by JulieM

[MustardSeed]

*For me*, seeing the prophet as a flawed human who is more connected to the Spirit than most people allows my testimony to stay strong.  

For me*, if I saw him as all knowing, my testimony would be weakened by the plethora of inconsistency. 

It works for me to understand that some of President Nelson’s actions are influenced by his own preferences, his wife’s input, church politics and humanness.  I also trust that he is a good man, and that I am better off following his leadership than by being rebellious.  I also give myself permission to think for myself. 

 

[JAHS]

58 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

That we're part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church

There have been derogatory nicknames given to Catholics, such as papists, but these are clearly negative and so are not analogous to Mormon.

Actually to some members of other latter-day saint church offshoots we are not Mormons; we are Brighamites. 

[JAHS]

40 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

*For me*, seeing the prophet as a flawed human who is more connected to the Spirit than most people allows my testimony to stay strong.  

For me*, if I saw him as all knowing, my testimony would be weakened by the plethora of inconsistency. 

It works for me to understand that some of President Nelson’s actions are influenced by his own preferences, his wife’s input, church politics and humanness.  I also trust that he is a good man, and that I am better off following his leadership than by being rebellious.  I also give myself permission to think for myself. 

 

I think God saves certain changes and revelations for specific prophets who would be the best ones to bring them out and for when the saints are ready to receive them.
"For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more"  (2 Nephi 28: 30)

[Scott Lloyd]

On 4/3/2019 at 10:05 AM, JulieM said:

Exactly.  Most specifically since President Nelson became Prophet (that’s only when it became “urgent” in using your terms).

The “Meet The Mormons” promotion was still being written about as recent as last year as a positive thing.

Even by you:

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

Why do you keep bringing up “Meet the Mormons” as though I had denied it? I haven’t. It’s as though you’re inventing stuff to argue about rather than engaging what I’m actually saying. Again, that’s straw man argumentation. 

Edited November 8, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[MustardSeed]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I think God saves certain changes and revelations for specific prophets who would be the best ones to bring them out and for when the saints are ready to receive them.
"For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more"  (2 Nephi 28: 30)

Sure. Why not. 

[JulieM]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why do you keep bringing up “Meet the Mormons” as though I had denied it? I haven’t. It’s as though you’re inventing stuff to argue about engaging what I’m actually saying? Again, that’s straw man argumentation. 

You’ve repeatedly claimed the leaders never paid for or supported campaigns or promotions for the usage of the terms Mormon or Mormons.  So, this is no straw man.

I think Humba’s response  to your claims sums it up:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71706-views-on-name-correction-vs-wrong-name-continuance/?do=findComment&comment=1209896025

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

But is appears you now agree with us too.

 

Edited April 3, 2019 by JulieM

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Thanks for the info!  I’ve never heard the term papists (I should look that up maybe?).  I have many Catholic friends and they refer to themselves as Catholics, but don’t use the entire name of their church.

In the Nicene Creed it says, "I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." I suppose you can say that's the "official official" name, but we just say Catholic, which means universal.

Papist comes from the papacy, so it refers to the followers of the pope. Another derogatory term is popish or popery, with the same reference to the pope.

Interestingly enough, the KKK was also against Catholics and used those terms. An older man in my parish lived in the south in the 1950s and the KKK burned a cross in his family's yard when he was a kid because they were Catholic (he's white).

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

Actually to some members of other latter-day saint church offshoots we are not Mormons; we are Brighamites. 

Yeah, I remember learning that from this site some time ago. The post Joseph Smith branches are interesting to think about.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

In the Nicene Creed it says, "I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." I suppose you can say that's the "official official" name, but we just say Catholic, which means universal.

Papist comes from the papacy, so it refers to the followers of the pope. Another derogatory term is popish or popery, with the same reference to the pope.

Interestingly enough, the KKK was also against Catholics and used those terms. An older man in my parish lived in the south in the 1950s and the KKK burned a cross in his family's yard when he was a kid because they were Catholic (he's white).

They were against Latter-day Saints as well. 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

You’ve repeatedly claimed the leaders never paid for or supported campaigns or promotions for the usage of the terms Mormon or Mormons.  So, this is no straw man.

I think Humba’s response  to your claims sums it up:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71706-views-on-name-correction-vs-wrong-name-continuance/?do=findComment&comment=1209896025

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

But is appears you now agree with us too.

 

I’ve never made that claim. You are wrong. Stop bearing false witness. 

As became clear in follow-up discussion, I did not go along with rockpond’s use of the term “marketing.” It was a disagreement over word usage, nothing more. 

I await your apology. 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Scott Lloyd