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

[blueglass]

18 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.

Ok 1 vote for reversing the name of the 'Melchizedek' priesthood.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

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 

True enough, but then I said from the outset that some of the guidance was too extreme (unrealistic), and I said it right here on this board.  There were people on this board who even expected outside entities to adopt the new guidelines.  Those professionals writing headlines and editing copy are not necessarily interested in being verbose (prolix).  That was never gonna fly.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

True enough, but then I said from the outset that some of the guidance was too extreme (unrealistic), and I said it right here on this board.  There were people on this board who even expected outside entities to adopt the new guidelines.  Those professionals writing headlines and editing copy are not necessarily interested in being verbose (prolix).  That was never gonna fly.

The style guide hasn’t been changed and still tells journalists not to use the term Mormon:  https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/style-guide

As others have stated, a handbook change is directed at leaders and members, not outsiders. 

This policy change is a move away from prophetic counsel.  Even though the counsel was, as you put it, extreme.  Fortunately, I never saw it as revelation or even necessarily inspiration so I’m okay with the Brethren now trying to back out of it. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 8/26/2019 at 3:53 PM, 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

 

On 8/26/2019 at 5:46 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you may be looking at outdated content. 

Scott is spot on here. On a whim, I pulled up the 2006 Handbook of instructions Book 1 on Wikileaks. The text in the OP is the same as it was in 2006. There is no story here and this particular passage is probably just waiting for an update. 

[JulieM]

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Scott is spot on here. On a whim, I pulled up the 2006 Handbook of instructions Book 1 on Wikileaks. The text in the OP is the same as it was in 2006. There is no story here and this particular passage is probably just waiting for an update. 

No, it’s current:

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

(Or do you think they updated the Style Guide online and forgot to update this?)

Edited August 28, 2019 by JulieM

[Robert F. Smith]

38 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The style guide hasn’t been changed and still tells journalists not to use the term Mormon:  https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/style-guide

As others have stated, a handbook change is directed at leaders and members, not outsiders. 

This policy change is a move away from prophetic counsel.  Even though the counsel was, as you put it, extreme.  Fortunately, I never saw it as revelation or even necessarily inspiration so I’m okay with the Brethren now trying to back out of it. 

God gave us brains and He expects us to use them -- that includes the Brethren.  God can step in to assist, if necessary, to keep things on track, but He expects us to pull our own weight.  It is a cop-out to expect that revelation is ever present.  I have no problem with the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit, and do think it of prime import under certain circumstances -- when and how is a very subjective matter.  My own experience, and that of those close to me, is that things often go so smoothly and have such far reaching effects that taking credit for it ourselves seems outlandish and improbable.

[Scott Lloyd]

29 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

Scott is spot on here. On a whim, I pulled up the 2006 Handbook of instructions Book 1 on Wikileaks. The text in the OP is the same as it was in 2006. There is no story here and this particular passage is probably just waiting for an update. 

I suspected as much.

Thanks for running this down. I didn't know where to get a copy of the earlier edition.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

No, it’s current:

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

(Or do you think they updated the Style Guide online and forgot to update this?)

I think that's quite possible. Or maybe they're working on the new wording.

[JulieM]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The style guide hasn’t been changed and still tells journalists not to use the term Mormon:  https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/style-guide

As others have stated, a handbook change is directed at leaders and members, not outsiders. 

This policy change is a move away from prophetic counsel.  Even though the counsel was, as you put it, extreme.  Fortunately, I never saw it as revelation or even necessarily inspiration so I’m okay with the Brethren now trying to back out of it. 

It wasn’t ever announced as a revelation was it?  I do believe we should still try to use the full name when possible but I’m happy to hear this relaxing of it somewhat.  I do love identifying as a Mormon and I’m proud of that name too.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It wasn’t ever announced as a revelation was it?  I do believe we should still try to use the full name when possible but I’m happy to hear this relaxing of it somewhat.  I do love identifying as a Mormon and I’m proud of that name too.

You'r going to disregard President Nelson saying that the Lord had "impressed [it] upon [his] mind," then?

[phaedrus ut]

35 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

Scott is spot on here. On a whim, I pulled up the 2006 Handbook of instructions Book 1 on Wikileaks. The text in the OP is the same as it was in 2006. There is no story here and this particular passage is probably just waiting for an update. 

Look again it's not the same.  2006 says it's fine to call the Mormon Tabernacle Choir by that name as it was up until 2016.  You'll notice that isn't there along with a few other parts of the entry. 

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

 

Scott is spot on here. On a whim, I pulled up the 2006 Handbook of instructions Book 1 on Wikileaks. The text in the OP is the same as it was in 2006. There is no story here and this particular passage is probably just waiting for an update.

I see... page 180 of the 2006 Handbook 1.  But, the OP's quoted section is not from Handbook 1, it is from Handbook 2, May 2019 version.  Anyone have a copy of the previous version of Handbook 2?  I'm wondering when this got moved from Handbook 1 to Handbook 2.

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You'r going to disregard President Nelson saying that the Lord had "impressed [it] upon [his] mind," then?

I didn’t say that.  I’ve said I’ll still try to use the full name of the church when possible.  But I admit I’ll still use the name “Mormon” and I love that name too and I’m proud to be a Mormon.  

(It’s a policy and guideline.  We can disagree with those at times too.  I think we all agree on that.  Although the policy does state it’s acceptable to use Mormon, so I agree with it.)

 

Edited August 28, 2019 by JulieM

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

Look again it's not the same.  2006 says it's fine to call the Mormon Tabernacle Choir by that name as it was up until 2016.  You'll notice that isn't there along with a few other parts of the entry. 

Phaedrus is correct... side by side the text in Section 19, page 180 of the 2006 Handbook 1 is not the same as the May 2019 Handbook 2 Section 21.1.34.  There are a couple of changes, most notably the Tabernacle Choir reference.

So the questions to answer would be:

1)  When did the 2006 Handbook 1 Section 19 language get moved to Handbook 2?  And,

2)  When were the text changes made?  Seems unlikely that the Tabernacle Choir reference would have been removed prior to the change of the Choir's name which indicates that this section was revised recently.

[phaedrus ut]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I see... page 180 of the 2006 Handbook 1.  But, the OP's quoted section is not from Handbook 1, it is from Handbook 2, May 2019 version.  Anyone have a copy of the previous version of Handbook 2?  I'm wondering when this got moved from Handbook 1 to Handbook 2.

You can see a few versions using the internet archive they save a version every few years.  Here is one from 2014 you'll notice a lot of the language is similar but not exactly the same.  For example in the last paragraph you'll find 

Quote

The word Mormon will continue to be used in proper names like the Book of Mormon and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

You'll notice that paragraph isn't the same as the 2019 version.

 

Phaedrus

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

Look again it's not the same.  2006 says it's fine to call the Mormon Tabernacle Choir by that name as it was up until 2016.  You'll notice that isn't there along with a few other parts of the entry. 

That's a good point. I do recall now that in the old wording, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir was given as an example of an instance when it was still OK to use "Mormon."

For what it's worth, here is a news release on the Church's website, updated as recently as yesterday. There is nothing in there about a retreat on the matter of Church members being called Mormons or about it being "acceptable" to do so.

I'm still not ready to conclude that it's anything beyond an oversight in the updating of the handbook. I think there might have been an announcement to that effect were it otherwise. But I acknowledge it is confusing, and I'm open to having my mind changed on this.

 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I didn’t say that.  I’ve said I’ll still try to use the full name of the church when possible.  But I admit I’ll still use the name “Mormon” and I love that name too and I’m proud to be a Mormon.  

(It’s a policy and guideline.  We can disagree with those at times too.  I think we all agree on that.  Although the policy does state it’s acceptable to use Mormon, so I agree with it.)

 

What I was referring to was your apparent unwillingness to regard it as revealed even though President Nelson has said the Lord impressed it upon His mind. That strikes me as revelation.

[JulieM]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Phaedrus is correct... side by side the text in Section 19, page 180 of the 2006 Handbook 1 is not the same as the May 2019 Handbook 2 Section 21.1.34.  There are a couple of changes, most notably the Tabernacle Choir reference.

So the questions to answer would be:

1)  When did the 2006 Handbook 1 Section 19 language get moved to Handbook 2?  And,

2)  When were the text changes made?  Seems unlikely that the Tabernacle Choir reference would have been removed prior to the change of the Choir's name which indicates that this section was revised recently.

Ok.  Sounds like it’s been updated if the Choir info is updated.  The name change for the choir happened after Pres. Nelson’s policy announcement about using the full name of the church.  Thanks for the info (you too Phaedrus).  I wouldn’t know how to find that or where it’s even available!

Edited August 28, 2019 by JulieM

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What I was referring to was your apparent unwillingness to regard it as revealed even though President Nelson has said the Lord impressed it upon His mind. That strikes me as revelation.

Oh I believe he felt inspired.  I just hadn’t heard it actually announced as a revelation.  I have no doubt he feels strongly about it and I’ve posted several times that I’m making an effort to use the full name.

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Oh I believe he felt inspired.  I just hadn’t heard it actually announced as a revelation.  I have no doubt he feels strongly about it and I’ve posted several times that I’m making an effort to use the full name.

I think you and I differ in our fundamental understanding of what constitutes revelation. If a prophet is inspired by God to say or do something, I'm inclined to view that as revelation. 

The "Gospel Topics" essay on "Revelation" sustains my understanding regarding this topic. When a prophet receives revelation to guide the Church, there need not be a grandiose announcement. It is enough for the prophet to tell us he is acting in accordance with divine inspiration he has received. 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you and I differ in our fundamental understanding of what constitutes revelation. If a prophet is inspired by God to say or do something, I'm inclined to view that as revelation. 

The prophet is fallible and capable of being wrong about an interpretation of inspiration.

[rockpond]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm still not ready to conclude that it's anything beyond an oversight in the updating of the handbook. I think there might have been an announcement to that effect were it otherwise. But I acknowledge it is confusing, and I'm open to having my mind changed on this.

It could be an oversight.

But if church leadership were trying to back away from and soften President Nelson's declarations than they wouldn't make an announcement.  They would just quietly do it in the background (even though that is becoming increasingly difficult for them to do).

[JulieM]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It could be an oversight.

But if church leadership were trying to back away from and soften President Nelson's declarations than they wouldn't make an announcement.  They would just quietly do it in the background (even though that is becoming increasingly difficult for them to do).

Yes, I highly doubt they’d announce it.  I’m sure Pres. Nelson feels just as strongly about it, but maybe the leaders realized it’s better to soften their stance a bit.  I think it’s good and I also feel it’s good to be reminded of how important it still is to use the full name when possible.

It would be weird for them to correct the part about the choir and not make sure the entire statement was written as they wished.  

Edited August 28, 2019 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It could be an oversight.

But if church leadership were trying to back away from and soften President Nelson's declarations than they wouldn't make an announcement.  They would just quietly do it in the background (even though that is becoming increasingly difficult for them to do).

Oh, it's the old Church-leaders-are-going-rogue-and-acting-behind-the-prophet's-back theory. I think I've made clear before what I think of such nonsense.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The prophet is fallible and capable of being wrong about an interpretation of inspiration.

Knowing President Nelson personally and having conversed with him a few times and having heard him speak on numerous occasions, I don't believe that has happened in this instance.