Latter-Day Saints is preferred and "Mormons" is acceptable

[MustardSeed]

3 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

"I'm not a mormon any more".

Zealous position to take indeed.  Hard to come back from that.  

[phaedrus ut]

1 minute ago, let’s roll said:

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.

Wow that escalated quickly. I like how the people who drowned were the bad guys in your story not the person who killed them or the surviving the family that repopulated the earth with incest.  In my universe the good guys are the ones that don't do the killing or have incestuous relations with family members.  Of course I also don't think negativity surrounding the word Mormon peaked 6 months ago and the present "victory for Satan" stuff will be relegated to the dustbin of history. 

Phaedrus

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

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.

Wow.

Well, at least we know we won't be destroyed for calling ourselves Mormons since it is now "acceptable".   Whew 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies-and-guidelines/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#title_number2

Edited August 27, 2019 by ALarson

[CV75]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

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.

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:

 

“Acceptable” can also mean: tolerated or allowed; synonyms: bearable, tolerable, allowable, admissible, supportable, sustainable, justifiable, defensible, defendable… I see it (even “able to be agreed upon; suitable”) indicating an inferior place to “preferred”: like (one thing or person) better than another or others; tend to choose; synonyms:like better, would rather (have), would sooner (have), favor, be more partial to, lean/incline toward, think preferable; choose, select, pick, opt for, go for, vote for, plump for, single out, elect, wish, desire, want…

Yes, context and meaning are individually discerned, giving simple statements of policy their broader usefulness and adaptability (one hallmark of a good policy). The circumstances where “Mormon” is “acceptable” is contextual, as “preferred” and “preferable” also are. You might be expecting the policy to be, or applying it as, more restrictive, like a style guide.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The circumstances where “Mormon” is “acceptable” is contextual, as “preferred” and “preferable” also are. You might be expecting the policy to be, or applying it as, more restrictive, like a style guide.

No, I'm just reading what it states and not adding all the qualifiers that you added.  That's fine for you to follow, if you choose and I have no issue with that.

All I'm saying is that until we receive more instructions regarding this change (if we do), I'll just accept what is actually stated:

Quote

As a shortened reference, “Latter-day Saints” is preferred and “Mormons” is acceptable.

Of course, I will still use the actual name of the church whenever possible.  

[let’s roll]

49 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

Wow that escalated quickly. I like how the people who drowned were the bad guys in your story not the person who killed them or the surviving the family that repopulated the earth with incest.  In my universe the good guys are the ones that don't do the killing or have incestuous relations with family members.  Of course I also don't think negativity surrounding the word Mormon peaked 6 months ago and the present "victory for Satan" stuff will be relegated to the dustbin of history. 

Phaedrus

I didn’t characterize anyone as a bad guy.

There are plenty of folks today who self describe as drowning.  It’s too late for us to help those who drowned in Noah’s day, not too late to try to help those who feel like they’re drowning today.

[CV75]

42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, I'm just reading what it states and not adding all the qualifiers that you added.  That's fine for you to follow, if you choose and I have no issue with that.

All I'm saying is that until we receive more instructions regarding this change (if we do), I'll just accept what is actually stated:

Of course, I will still use the actual name of the church whenever possible.  

What can anyone do more than accept what is actually stated according to their subjective comprehension and interpretation? That is what I am also doing.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What can anyone do more than accept what is actually stated according to their subjective comprehension and interpretation? That is what I am also doing.

No, you added qualifiers to what was actually stated regarding the use of "Mormons" being acceptable as a shortened name or reference.  That's all that I was referring to.  

I have no issue with you choosing to only use the term "Mormons" at the times you described:

Quote

"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

But that's not stated in the policy that was published.  

[longview]

16 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

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. 

How about doing it in ONE step:

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the one that prints the Book of Mormon (would you like a copy?) . . .

[Teancum]

9 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. 

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.

I seem to recall a verse that says we don't call The Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son Of God just that because we aren't supposed to use the name of the Son of God to frequently?

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, longview said:

How about doing it in ONE step:

I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the one that prints the Book of Mormon (would you like a copy?) . . .

I like going the extra mile by inviting them inside while allowing them to think they might possibly have something to teach me that I don't already know.

I would rather have a nice relaxing conversation with them, rather than just give a quick blurb.  That way I can try to share what I know with them and maybe just maybe learn something about them that I don't already know.

[longview]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I like going the extra mile by inviting them inside while allowing them to think they might possibly have something to teach me that I don't already know.

I would rather have a nice relaxing conversation with them, rather than just give a quick blurb.  That way I can try to share what I know with them and maybe just maybe learn something about them that I don't already know.

Note the ellipses after the one liner . . .

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I seem to recall a verse that says we don't call The Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son Of God just that because we aren't supposed to use the name of the Son of God to frequently?

I wonder about that.  I wonder what the name of the holy priesthood actually is.  The Son of God is not a name, so calling it "the holy priesthood after the order of the Son of God" is not using the name of the Son of God.

So maybe, just maybe, the name of the holy priesthood is Jesus Christ, and the phrase "the holy priesthood after the order of..." is just a thing we say before giving that name of the priesthood.

Like instead of saying the Melchizedek priesthood, or the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, we should call it, whenever we call it by its true name, the Jesus Christ priesthood, or the Christ or Christian priesthood, or the priesthood after the order of Jesus Christ.

Anyway, just rambling now.  Just something I have wondered about.

[let’s roll]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I seem to recall a verse that says we don't call The Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son Of God just that because we aren't supposed to use the name of the Son of God to frequently?

If that troubles you, I trust with sufficient pondering and prayer you can receive an answer to any inconsistencies you might perceive between that verse and the numerous contexts in which we’re invited to use His name (e.g. every prayer, ordination, setting apart, talk, testimony, blessing etc.) and our covenant to always remember him.

[rockpond]

I guess Satan is probably in need of a few victories.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

No, you added qualifiers to what was actually stated regarding the use of "Mormons" being acceptable as a shortened name or reference.  That's all that I was referring to.  

I have no issue with you choosing to only use the term "Mormons" at the times you described:

But that's not stated in the policy that was published.  

Those aren’t qualifiers. They are examples of context, which is important to consider in applying this policy (“as actually stated” in some 2 dozen lines, and not just fixating on one short sentence). I am also pointing out the value of integrating the original explanation(s) by the prophet, personal experience, judgement and empathy in applying the policy. This prevents a rigid dependence on someone else spelling everything out in every detail for them, whcih I assume most people recognize as a liability.

[ALarson]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I guess Satan is probably in need of a few victories.

Ha!  

I am seeing this discussed in a few other areas online now, so word is getting out about the softening or change (or whatever one wants to call it  ).  The Bishop also mentioned it last night when we were talking and he's happy about it too.  

 

Edited August 27, 2019 by ALarson

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I seem to recall a verse that says we don't call The Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son Of God just that because we aren't supposed to use the name of the Son of God to frequently?

That was the design of those in ancient days, according to their sensibilities, and carried into this dispensation:

"Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood." Notice that even in this, "the Son of God" is used instead of His Actual Name, so we the general public don't know -- thankfully -- what Actual Name they were avoiding the use of.

Edited August 27, 2019 by CV75

[JulieM]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I am seeing this discussed in a few other areas online now, so word is getting out about the softening or change (or whatever one wants to call it  ).  The Bishop also mentioned it last night when we were talking and he's happy about it too.  

Yup.  I just came from my YW presidency meeting and they were discussing it.  I think they saw it on Facebook.

[Robert F. Smith]

21 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. ........................

I don't think that was quite what the announcement had in mind.  Non- Mormon scholars will likely continue to measure the sociology of Mormons simply because it is a much larger group than simply LDS members.  It is a kind of ethnic heritage which requires a term like "Mormons," and this applies to the Mormon Pioneers and to the Mormon Trail.  On the other hand, I regularly make an effort to use the full name of the Church and to refer to members in a more formal way.  I think that accomplishes what Pres Nelson had in mind.  Even Satan probably wonders what all the hullabaloo was about.

[the narrator]

 

[JulieM]

I wonder why they changed the name from "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" if this is true?

“The word Mormon will continue to be used in proper names like the Book of Mormon. It will also continue to be used as an adjective in phrases such as ‘Mormon pioneers.’”

 

 

[ALarson]

33 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I wonder why they changed the name from "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" if this is true?

Don't you mean "The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square, formerly known as the Mormon Tabernacle Choir"?   

[Maureen]

7 hours 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?  

Exactly.

M.

[phaedrus ut]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't think that was quite what the announcement had in mind.  Non- Mormon scholars will likely continue to measure the sociology of Mormons simply because it is a much larger group than simply LDS members.  It is a kind of ethnic heritage which requires a term like "Mormons," and this applies to the Mormon Pioneers and to the Mormon Trail.  On the other hand, I regularly make an effort to use the full name of the Church and to refer to members in a more formal way.  I think that accomplishes what Pres Nelson had in mind.  Even Satan probably wonders what all the hullabaloo was about.

Yes but Handbook 2 deep inside the church's website isn't guidance for outsiders.  It's specifically for members and this is clearly a retreat from the hyperbolic "victory for Satan" rhetoric. 

Phaedrus