Views on Name Correction vs. Wrong Name Continuance

[JulieM]

6 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).

Thank you for the addition information.  Very interesting to read!

[JulieM]

57 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’ve never made that claim. You are wrong.

You can mince words but here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71706-views-on-name-correction-vs-wrong-name-continuance/?do=findComment&comment=1209896024

And again, Hamba sums it up nicely with his response to you:

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

 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 4/3/2019 at 1:33 PM, JulieM said:

You can mince words but here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71706-views-on-name-correction-vs-wrong-name-continuance/?do=findComment&comment=1209896024

And again, Hamba sums it up nicely with his response to you:

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

 

I’m aware of what I said (and meant) and what Hanba said. And what I said in clarification. 

I’m also aware that you apparently don’t have the integrity to admit when you’re wrong. You failed the test. 

Be nice.

Edited to add: I think for the most part, I've been more than patient with JulieM.

Edited November 8, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m aware of what I said (and meant) and what Hanba said. And what I said in clarification. 

I’m also aware that you apparently don’t have the integrity to admit when you’re wrong. You failed the test. 

 You crack me up, Scott!  “The test”?

I have no problem apologizing when I’m wrong, but I’ve read this entire thread and your comments and don’t see that I am wrong.  You want to mince words now, and I’ll believe you about what you “meant”.

 

Edited April 3, 2019 by JulieM

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m aware of what I said (and meant) and what Hanba said. And what I said in clarification. 

I’m also aware that you apparently don’t have the integrity to admit when you’re wrong. You failed the test. 

that is a pretty sad accusations, Scott, all things in this thread considered.  As I see it there is nothing in Julie's behavior that warrants such an accusation.  As it is many have challenged your claims in this thread.  Many of the challenges, if not all, have proven your claims empty.  

[Stargazer]

On 4/2/2019 at 2:11 PM, rockpond said:

Non sequitir

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?

Not sure her point isn't just a troll.  

I don't care if Joseph Smith called it the Latter Methodist Church.  Do we really have to continue doing something just because Joseph Smith did it or said it?  Never heard of continuing revelation?

Edited April 3, 2019 by Stargazer

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

that is a pretty sad accusations, Scott, all things in this thread considered.  As I see it there is nothing in Julie's behavior that warrants such an accusation.  As it is many have challenged your claims in this thread.  Many of the challenges, if not all, have proven your claims empty.  

Thanks Stem.  I agree.  

 

[CMZ]

On 3/29/2019 at 3:24 PM, Teancum said:

This really is quite humorous.  It is pretty clear this has been a pet peeve of Nelson's for some time. Now he has the power, he can mandate it as a revelation.  Yet all his predecessors apparently were not in tune enough with God to fix it.

Of all the issues in the world now this is the one thing the God of the universe has decided to emphasize to his current so called prophet? Really?  This just makes it clear an LDS Prophet really isn't all that valuable in navigating the challenges the 7 billion humans in the world have to deal with.

Thank you President Nelson for showing the world that you really don't have much to offer.

We do all have the agency to view things in a faithless way if we so choose. President Nelson seems to see this course as one that will lead to bigger things if obeyed:
 

Quote

 

My dear brothers and sisters, I promise you that if we will do our best to restore the correct name of the Lord’s Church, He whose Church this is will pour down His power and blessings upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints, the likes of which we have never seen.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng#p36

 

Perhaps the onus is not on HIM to prove to YOU that he is a prophet. It's more likely that the onus is on the membership to be faithful in small things so that they can then move on to bigger things.

Also, President Hinckley always recognized the full name of the Church and simply said we needn't be ashamed of being called "Mormons." He dedicated a lot of temples and none of them said "Mormon Temple" on the outside of them. Rather their signs all say "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Edited April 4, 2019 by CMZ

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m aware of what I said (and meant) and what Hanba said. And what I said in clarification. 

I’m also aware that you apparently don’t have the integrity to admit when you’re wrong. You failed the test. 

Scott:

You obviously attempted to rewrite a history that all know and now claim Julie M fails some test when called out.  Quit deflecting, quit being petulant, and just admit already that the leaders pushed, marketed, and promoted "mormon" just a short time ago.  Pres. Nelson then changed it by claiming satan gets victories when "mormon" is used.

I thought change was a hallmark of "modern revelation?"  Why not just defend using "modern revelation?"  Pres. Nelson is the head guy now.

What's the name of this site by the way?  Are you contributing to victories for the adversary by frequenting this site?

Edited April 3, 2019 by Exiled

[Hamba Tuhan]

I remember creating a mormon.org profile and having it automatically conclude with, 'and I'm a Mormon'. That felt weird to me, and I didn't like it. I've always tried to follow the Church's style guide and the direction of the prophets when it comes to how I refer to the Church, to myself and to other Saints. At the time, I thought, well, this won't last long.

Consequently, I was uncomfortable with this:

And I've found Pres Nelson's counsel very much to my liking.

At the same time, I have zero issue with how past prophets have tried to navigate this difficult issue of common name recognition. Nor do I have any trouble belonging to a church whose prophets engage in the same processes that I do to obtain revelation. My assumption all along has been that very slick marketing guys pitched to the apostles that the above would work. It's possible that when they (the apostles) sought inspiration, the response was -- as it so often has been for me -- 'Try it and see what happens'.

I suspect the data are quite clear at this point.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I remember creating a mormon.org profile and having it automatically conclude with, 'and I'm a Mormon'. That felt weird to me, and I didn't like it. I've always tried to follow the Church's style guide and the direction of the prophets when it comes to how I refer to the Church, to myself and to other Saints. At the time, I thought, well, this won't last long.

Consequently, I was uncomfortable with this:

And I've found Pres Nelson's counsel very much to my liking.

At the same time, I have zero issue with how past prophets have tried to navigate this difficult issue of common name recognition. Nor do I have any trouble belonging to a church whose prophets engage in the same processes that I do to obtain revelation. My assumption all along has been that very slick marketing guys pitched to the apostles that the above would work. It's possible that when they (the apostles) sought inspiration, the response was -- as it so often has been for me -- 'Try it and see what happens'.

I suspect the data is quite clear at this point.

Could be.  No seer stones these days!

So they tried it.  What happened?

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No seer stones these days!

I personally doubt that. But we have evidence from the D&C that 'try it and see what happens' is not an uncommon response from a loving Father who is more interested in inducting His children into the family business than He is in satisfying those who need prophets to be robots and God to be an intergalactic vending machine.

Edited April 4, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

43 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I personally doubt that. But we have evidence from the D&C that 'try it and see what happens' is not an uncommon response from a loving Father who is more interested in inducting His children into the family business than He is in satisfying those who need prophets to be robots and God to be an intergalactic vending machine.

I love that.  It's a great perspective!

But I was interested in your thoughts on what happened when they tried it? (The "Mormon" campaign)  If the answer was try it and see what happens, what do you think happened?

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, JulieM said:

Thanks Stem.  I agree.  

 

I also agree.

[Stargazer]

20 hours 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.

What I don't understand is why so many people think that President Nelson is under any obligation to have the same "urgency" that past leaders had.  As I have pointed out before, I remember clearly that there has been a de-emphasis on using "Mormon" as a name for the church going back quite a long time.  My late wife took that de-emphasis very seriously years and years ago.  She would never refer to herself as a "Mormon" when talking to non-members, except as an aside in order to remove possible confusion -- in fact, and I recall this with some bemusement, she would frequently omit "of Latter-day Saints" when naming the Church.  Since she passed away four years ago, this was well before President Nelson said bleep about the issue.

20 hours ago, 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.

I think President Nelson has other concerns besides the "name issue".  The "name issue" just stands out more than others, I think.

I'm pretty ambivalent about being a "Mormon".  It's not a dishonorable name by any means, but even though I've been a member for 53 years (convert since 1966), I've always found "Mormon" to be a bit cringeworthy.  I don't know why, exactly.  

This church is becoming more international as time goes on, and because "Mormon" doesn't actually mean anything in any extant language, I think it is very important to start losing it as a primary identifier.  And high time the primary identifier be associated with the name of the Savior.  There is no way this can be accomplished by being low-key about it.  Low-key has been tried, and it is evident that it isn't sufficient.  The fact that so many members are resisting the effort is strong evidence for the necessity of it.

[Stargazer]

On 4/2/2019 at 2:11 PM, rockpond said:

Non sequitir

I tend to agree with you to a certain degree about "The Church of Joseph Smith" being a bit of a non-sequitur, but I'm not sure that some members don't harbor a little of this in their hearts, making it a matter of "If it was good enough for Brother Joseph..."

On 4/2/2019 at 2:11 PM, rockpond said:

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. 

My response had to do with "So what?"  

Joseph used the term "Mormon".  So what?  If it was good enough for Brother Joseph, it should be good enough for us?  No subsequent leader of the church should discourage its use?  Malarkey. 

And if you don't like stickpulling...

Joseph hardly ever referred to the text of the Book of Mormon in his teachings.  Is this something that we should avoid also?  When Ezra Taft Benson made it a particular feature of his presidency to emphasize the Book of Mormon, including using it in teaching, was he wrong to do so, because Joseph never did so?

Joseph practiced plural marriage.  Must we do so, also?  Was the subsequent termination of the practice against the will of God, and must we reintroduce it, even practice it independently of the church?

Do you at least see my point, even if you disagree with me?

 

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

What I don't understand is why so many people think that President Nelson is under any obligation to have the same "urgency" that past leaders had. 

Who here has made that claim?  I've seen most recognize that this has been an issue for Pres. Nelson for many years and also recognize that he felt there was an urgency to make this change once he became the Prophet.

What members here seem to be disagreeing with are claims that the terms of Mormon or Mormons was never vigorously promoted or marketed by past leaders.  When in fact, they were and up until quite recently.

Edited April 4, 2019 by ALarson

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I tend to agree with you to a certain degree about "The Church of Joseph Smith" being a bit of a non-sequitur, but I'm not sure that some members don't harbor a little of this in their hearts, making it a matter of "If it was good enough for Brother Joseph..."

My response had to do with "So what?"  

Joseph used the term "Mormon".  So what?  If it was good enough for Brother Joseph, it should be good enough for us?  No subsequent leader of the church should discourage its use?  Malarkey. 

And if you don't like stickpulling...

Joseph hardly ever referred to the text of the Book of Mormon in his teachings.  Is this something that we should avoid also?  When Ezra Taft Benson made it a particular feature of his presidency to emphasize the Book of Mormon, including using it in teaching, was he wrong to do so, because Joseph never did so?

Joseph practiced plural marriage.  Must we do so, also?  Was the subsequent termination of the practice against the will of God, and must we reintroduce it, even practice it independently of the church?

Do you at least see my point, even if you disagree with me?

 

I don't take issue with the current prophet changing the teachings or moving us forward to a position that is more in line with the will of God.  

But if using the name Mormon is an offense to the Lord and a victory for Satan, I don't find it inappropriate for the question to be asked as to why Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of this dispensation, seemed okay with it.

[Joshua Valentine]

The LGBTQ ¨policy¨ change included an interesting reference while addressing ¨short time¨ policies:

And to help early members distinguish themselves from other Christians, Church leaders changed the name of the Church to “the Church of the Latter Day Saints” on May 3, 1834. Four years later, Joseph Smith received revelation regarding the name of the Church: “For thus shall my Church be called … even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” (Doctrine and Covenants 115:4).

1) This ignores the BoM verses that made it clear that the 1834 change should never have happened.

2) This says that the 1834 change was to help ¨members distinguish themselves¨ - interesting wording, in light of Nelson´s name proclamation.

3) The inclusion of this statement is simply generally interesting/problematic given the recent initiation of Nelson´s name proclamation.

[Stargazer]

On 4/4/2019 at 6:58 PM, rockpond said:

I don't take issue with the current prophet changing the teachings or moving us forward to a position that is more in line with the will of God.  

But if using the name Mormon is an offense to the Lord and a victory for Satan, I don't find it inappropriate for the question to be asked as to why Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of this dispensation, seemed okay with it.

I don't doubt that some practices in the early church were offenses to the Lord and victory for Satan.  Practices that are no longer followed, and thus are no longer offenses.  Line upon line, precept upon precept.  The Church will never be perfect.  And thus will never be perfectly pleasing to the Lord.  We move along in fits and starts it seems.  No real surprise.

[LAB]

On 4/1/2019 at 9:09 PM, Exiled said:

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.

Stop giving Satan victories and offending God!!!!

[sjdawg]

On 3/29/2019 at 9:38 AM, hope_for_things said:

I think President Nelson is addressing one of his personal pet peeves.  The arguments he's making for why this is important seem shallow when compared to challenging issues facing our world and the church in general.  He may personally feel inspired and motivated about this topic, and perhaps there is some good that can come from his efforts, but it seems to me that if we're prioritizing and looking at good, better, best, type criteria this particular issue is way low on the totem poll from my vantage point.  

Isn't it great when God's will coincides with your personal pet peeves?  It must be one of the greatest perks of being the leader of the mormon church

[hope_for_things]

35 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

Isn't it great when God's will coincides with your personal pet peeves?  It must be one of the greatest perks of being the leader of the mormon church

Its great when God's will coincides with pet peeves, right up until one person's belief about God's will conflicts with another person's belief.  

Until we have an objective method for determining God's will, its essentially the same thing as saying my opinion differs from your opinion.  Its all subjective.  

[rockpond]

49 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

Isn't it great when God's will coincides with your personal pet peeves?  It must be one of the greatest perks of being the leader of the mormon church

Sister Wendy Nelson in Oct 2018, speaking of the Prophet: "It is as though he's been unleashed... he's free to follow through with things he's been concerned about but could never do. Now that he's president of [the Church], he can do those things.”

[sjdawg]

On 4/1/2019 at 10:18 PM, 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. 

I guess we remember differently

 

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-ads-new-york-city