Popular Post phaedrus ut Posted August 26, 2019 Popular Post Posted August 26, 2019 (edited) On the recent thread DeseretNews: Focusing on the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there was a lively discussion regarding the use of the term Mormon, whether is was really a victory for Satan and whether the new policy was a permanent change or a temporary. I predicted it was more like New Coke but others strongly disagreed and said it was revelation reinforced by scripture. Well it looks like Handbook 2 has been updated and the softening has begun. It looks like everyone can go back to being Mormons again. Phaedrus Edited August 26, 2019 by phaedrus ut 11
ALarson Posted August 26, 2019 Posted August 26, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said: On the recent thread DeseretNews: Focusing on the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there was a lively discussion regarding the use of the term Mormon, whether is was really a victory for Satan and whether the new policy was a permanent change or a temporary. I predicted it was more like New Coke but others strongly disagreed and said it was revelation reinforced by scripture. Well it looks like Handbook 2 has been updated and the softening has begun. It looks like everyone can go back to being Mormons again. Phaedrus Thanks for posting all of this.....I haven't had a chance to read that in the handbook yet. It's good to know that we can still refer to Church members as "Mormons". The ones I still hear most often when referring to the church are "the Mormon church" and "LDS church" (not as common though). Also, I still hear most members say "he's a Mormon" or "they are members of the church" or "she's LDS". I honestly rarely hear the entire name used in just normal conversations (especially among the youth but with adults as well). (We do make an effort as leaders to use the full name when conducting or in writing for the wards members and we're doing better at remembering.) Edited August 26, 2019 by ALarson 2
JulieM Posted August 26, 2019 Posted August 26, 2019 1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said: On the recent thread DeseretNews: Focusing on the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there was a lively discussion regarding the use of the term Mormon, whether is was really a victory for Satan and whether the new policy was a permanent change or a temporary. I predicted it was more like New Coke but others strongly disagreed and said it was revelation reinforced by scripture. Well it looks like Handbook 2 has been updated and the softening has begun. It looks like everyone can go back to being Mormons again. Interesting. This is not what was originally announced, right? (Or am I remembering wrong?) 1
CA Steve Posted August 26, 2019 Posted August 26, 2019 This is really disappointing. I was thinking that I might be able to pick up some Mormon.org domain names for cheap for resale when they came back in vogue with the next prophet. 😉 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 26, 2019 Posted August 26, 2019 1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said: On the recent thread DeseretNews: Focusing on the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there was a lively discussion regarding the use of the term Mormon, whether is was really a victory for Satan and whether the new policy was a permanent change or a temporary. I predicted it was more like New Coke but others strongly disagreed and said it was revelation reinforced by scripture. Well it looks like Handbook 2 has been updated and the softening has begun. It looks like everyone can go back to being Mormons again. Phaedrus I think you may be looking at outdated content.
CV75 Posted August 26, 2019 Posted August 26, 2019 1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said: On the recent thread DeseretNews: Focusing on the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there was a lively discussion regarding the use of the term Mormon, whether is was really a victory for Satan and whether the new policy was a permanent change or a temporary. I predicted it was more like New Coke but others strongly disagreed and said it was revelation reinforced by scripture. Well it looks like Handbook 2 has been updated and the softening has begun. I have 2 words to say about this: "Good, better and best." "Policy is not command." 1
Nacho2dope Posted August 26, 2019 Posted August 26, 2019 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Edited August 27, 2019 by Nacho2dope
phaedrus ut Posted August 27, 2019 Author Posted August 27, 2019 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think you may be looking at outdated content. I saw it on Kate Kelly's Twitter that this change was made yesterday to Handbook 2. I looked up the section in the handbook and posted the screenshot from what I found. Phaedrus
Scott Lloyd Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 2 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said: I saw it on Kate Kelly's Twitter that this change was made yesterday to Handbook 2. I looked up the section in the handbook and posted the screenshot from what I found. Phaedrus Well, if Kate Kelly said it, it must be true. 😝 2
blueglass Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 2 hours ago, phaedrus ut said: On the recent thread DeseretNews: Focusing on the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there was a lively discussion regarding the use of the term Mormon, whether is was really a victory for Satan and whether the new policy was a permanent change or a temporary. I predicted it was more like New Coke but others strongly disagreed and said it was revelation reinforced by scripture. Well it looks like Handbook 2 has been updated and the softening has begun. It looks like everyone can go back to being Mormons again. Phaedrus Someone at the church office building accounting sent the bill for reprinting 100,000 yellow t shirts for service projects and balked. Depreciation on those was about as high as boy scout uniforms in Utah right now. 1
Popular Post Bill “Papa” Lee Posted August 27, 2019 Popular Post Posted August 27, 2019 You mean those of us who are older, and find change difficult, not because we can’t change, but have been using the other term “Mormon” for much of our lives. We can once again be proud (not in a sinful way) Mormons, and cut through the confusion of trying to explain to others who we are. So very often, non-members, or people who knock on our door,s, who ask who we are, as the conversations go something like this... Visitor: What Church do you attend? Member: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Visitor: What Church? Member: I am a Latter-day Saint. Vistor: A Latter-day what? Member: I am LDS. Vistor: Excuse me, I can’t make out what you are saying, or implying. Member: I am a Mormon. Vistor: Oh, OK...why didn’t you say that to begin with? This is ndeed a sample of conversations I have had, with Baptist’s, Seventh Day Adventist’s, and Jehovah Witnesses. My house and my neighborhood seems to be a very common place for those of different Faith’s to minister, or proselyte. Also when I am not at home, I have a lot of material placed in my door, or on my porch. Simply put, many, or most, only know us as Mormon, and get easily confused by our recent change in seeking to define ourselves. 7
JulieM Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 4 hours ago, phaedrus ut said: I saw it on Kate Kelly's Twitter that this change was made yesterday to Handbook 2. I looked up the section in the handbook and posted the screenshot from what I found. Phaedrus Was it published on LDS.org?
JLHPROF Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 Seriously, who the heck cares. The amount of breath and thought discussing this is ridiculous. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Do the pearly gates swing inward or outward? The fact that the current prophet's preference has wasted so much of our time is the real cause for concern. 1
let’s roll Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 2 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Seriously, who the heck cares. The amount of breath and thought discussing this is ridiculous. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Do the pearly gates swing inward or outward? The fact that the current prophet's preference has wasted so much of our time is the real cause for concern. Or perhaps the real cause of concern is that we are so prone to bristle at the invitation to always remember Him, to have His name continually on our lips, and so apt to spend more time and attention on church administration than discipleship and communion. The bristling and second guessing are certainly wasted time. Heeding an invitation to remember whose we are and at what price we were bought is central to the purpose of mortality...hardly wasted time. That Prophetic invitation is all I heard, the rest is just noise. 3
JulieM Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, let’s roll said: Or perhaps the real cause of concern is that we are so prone to bristle at the invitation to always remember Him, to have His name continually on our lips, and so apt to spend more time and attention on church administration than discipleship and communion. No, I don’t believe that (at least I know it doesn’t apply to me.). Even if we stated the full name of the church every single time the identity is to be used, Christ’s name wouldn’t be “continually on our lips” and I honestly don’t need to do that to “always remember Him”. Or to always strive to live his teachings and know that I am a follower of Christ. When I say “Mormon”, I am reminded of that too. I am making an effort to honor Pres. Nelson’s request and do my best to remember. But I also believe it’s good if they’ve softened the stance a bit. That’s my opinion and belief. Edited August 27, 2019 by JulieM 2
CV75 Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 9 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Seriously, who the heck cares. The amount of breath and thought discussing this is ridiculous. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Do the pearly gates swing inward or outward? The fact that the current prophet's preference has wasted so much of our time is the real cause for concern. This was not my take when I first heard him talk about and explain it. Prophetic utterances can inform policy as well as personal commitment, but policy is a very superficial application and reference in comparison to the impressions left upon the soul. "Mormons is acceptable" has to be taken very much in context such as historical use, ignorance, no need for a leader to to correct someone using it on the stand,or to scrub it from quotes from a bygone era, etc.
stemelbow Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 9 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Seriously, who the heck cares. The amount of breath and thought discussing this is ridiculous. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Do the pearly gates swing inward or outward? The fact that the current prophet's preference has wasted so much of our time is the real cause for concern. yes wasted time, but even bigger still, I would suggest, is the notion that God is offended, and Satan get's all giddy and feels empowered because someone says Mormon. And that notion was suggested by the prophet. It's not like the prophet can say whatever he wants and the people just accept it, or is it? Who really thought the nickname was a win for the devil, or that God was so easily offended?
CV75 Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 15 hours ago, phaedrus ut said: On the recent thread DeseretNews: Focusing on the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there was a lively discussion regarding the use of the term Mormon, whether is was really a victory for Satan and whether the new policy was a permanent change or a temporary. I predicted it was more like New Coke but others strongly disagreed and said it was revelation reinforced by scripture. Well it looks like Handbook 2 has been updated and the softening has begun. It looks like everyone can go back to being Mormons again. Phaedrus I don't see the translation of a prophet's instructions into policy as a softening. The policy is merely an application for administrative purposes, not a commandment or inspired counsel. Inspired counsel may well come to someone by referring the policy, but the policy is not the final word and does not counter what President Nelson originally explained. "Mormons is acceptable" has to be taken very much in context such as historical use, ignorance, immediate circumstances, etc. No need for a leader to to correct someone using it on the stand, or to scrub it from quotes from a bygone era, etc. I think needing permission to use the term in the first place is pitiful, and this was never suggested by President Nelson's instructions or the policy.
ALarson Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, CV75 said: I think needing permission to use the term in the first place is pitiful, and this was never suggested by President Nelson's instructions or the policy. Maybe they saw how some over reacted or went too much "letter of the law" with the reminder to use the full name of the church more. I can't imagine they really wanted members to think of the word "Mormon" as being a dirty word, but I've heard that stated a few times since Pres. Nelson made his statement. And something being acceptable is good. Quote ac·cept·a·ble adjective 1.able to be agreed on; suitable. 28 minutes ago, CV75 said: "Mormons is acceptable" has to be taken very much in context such as historical use, ignorance, no need for a leader to to correct someone using it on the stand,or to scrub it from quotes from a bygone era, etc. The qualifiers you've added are you own (in bold above) and until I actually hear this "softening" explained (if it is), I will believe what it states: Quote As a shortened reference, 'Latter-Day Saint" is preferred, and "Mormons" is acceptable. Edited August 27, 2019 by ALarson
ALarson Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 (edited) 49 minutes ago, JulieM said: No, I don’t believe that (at least I know it doesn’t apply to me.). Even if we stated the full name of the church every single time the identity is to be used, Christ’s name wouldn’t be “continually on our lips” and I honestly don’t need to do that to “always remember Him”. Or to always strive to live his teachings and know that I am a follower of Christ. When I say “Mormon”, I am reminded of that too. I am making an effort to honor Pres. Nelson’s request and do my best to remember. But I also believe it’s good if they’ve softened the stance a bit. That’s my opinion and belief. I agree and I am really trying to remember to use the full name. And, I am proud of being a Mormon and every time that name is on my lips, it's a reminder to me that I am a member of Christ's church and a follower of His. Edited August 27, 2019 by ALarson 1
T-Shirt Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 I don't think this section has been updated yet, as is the case with several other sections. From the Style Guide on the Church's website, it says the following: When referring to Church members, the terms "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," "Latter-day Saints,” "members of the Church of Jesus Christ" and "members of the restored Church of Jesus Christ" are preferred. We ask that the term "Mormons" and "LDS" not be used. The page can be viewed here 1
Amulek Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 51 minutes ago, stemelbow said: yes wasted time, but even bigger still, I would suggest, is the notion that God is offended, and Satan get's all giddy and feels empowered because someone says Mormon. And that notion was suggested by the prophet. [...] Who really thought the nickname was a win for the devil, or that God was so easily offended? The war in heaven wasn't a war of swords and shields - it was a war of words and ideas. And I don't think it's silly to recognize that Satan uses words and language in an effort to affect the way people think and to accomplish his ends. As such, I thought it was healthy to push back on the notion that we are the "Mormon Church." We aren't. We are part of Christ's church - organized by His own hand - the only true and living church on the face of the earth. That being said, they really should have left MoTab's name intact. 1
let’s roll Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: yes wasted time, but even bigger still, I would suggest, is the notion that God is offended, and Satan get's all giddy and feels empowered because someone says Mormon. And that notion was suggested by the prophet. It's not like the prophet can say whatever he wants and the people just accept it, or is it? Who really thought the nickname was a win for the devil, or that God was so easily offended? I suspect the people in Noah’s time, as they were drowning, may have thought that perhaps the prophet wasn’t overreacting as much as they had believed when they failed to heed his warnings, and that God was too easily offended.
LoudmouthMormon Posted August 27, 2019 Posted August 27, 2019 15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think you may be looking at outdated content. I'm looking there right now - 'tis true. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies-and-guidelines/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#title_number2 I am challenged with this, after I put so much effort into telling everyone "I'm not a mormon any more". I am also challenged with the new stricter "prohibited" wording on the firearms issue. It's interesting to be challenged by my church leaders on such things. After a lifetime of only being challenged to increase personal discipleship and read scriptures more and stuff.
Recommended Posts