Is the "Mormon" label fading?

[Amulek]

54 minutes ago, rongo said:

The alternative to this is that anything issued or approved by the First Presidency is revelation, because if it wasn't, they wouldn't have issued or approved it. Completely circular. 

If we are using the style guide as proof of revelation, then I will happily admit that God disapproves of using the word Mormon when referring to members of the church in precisely the same way that He deplores people who discuss polygamous sects and (sinfully) fail to state that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not affiliated with polygamous groups.

Look, I'm not idiot. I understand the motivation behind the change in policy. And as I said before, I don't have a problem with the prophet setting policy - that's his prerogative. 

What bothers me, however, is how some people have taken these policy changes and treated them as if they were on par with actual revelation. And it really bothers me when they then go on to use these downstream policy changes as a litmus test for faithfulness. 

I'm sorry, but there is at least one "professedly active Church member" who thinks that is a bunch of garbage.

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by Amulek

[Rain]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think that in general, we are way too self conscious about how the length of our name is apt to be received (or perceived) by those on the outside. Instead of incessantly grumbling, muttering, murmuring and second-guessing, we should move forward with what, through revelation and prophetic direction, we know to be right. After a period of time, we might be surprised to find that what, to some, seemed a bold and inscrutable measure was the best thing after all. 

I am very conscious of it because I am around, working with and writing about many organizations and leaders, mostly religious almost always in unity.  There is something so sweet about serving the Lord's children together.  It's been interesting to me how the names and denominations are so secondary to the service that I'm not about to try to make my church stand out by saying the name much.

Also, while the organization I am with was started with 3 members of the church, we try very hard to make all feel welcome so we don't spend a lot of time on the names and beliefs.  We are also not political.   

In spite of that there are many times we can talk about Heavenly Father's work and his love for his children.  The atmosphere is usually such that people are not afraid to ask questions about religion.  I've found that when love for fellow men is there I don't need to say the name of the church very often - people just ask.  

So I'm not grumbling, murmuring or second guessing.  I just follow what the Spirit tells me to do and I have peace about it.  

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There’s a remarkable brand of Luddite-ism among former, lapsed, discontented and even some professedly active Church members that would eschew course corrections and freeze conditions and practices in the Church of Jesus Christ as they prevailed under the leadership of this or that now-deceased Church president. 
 

Of course, it is very undoctrinal, as we presumably believe in and support ongoing revelation. Have Church presidents of yesteryear been “thrown under the bus” because we now meet for only two hours on Sunday instead of three, ward high priests groups and stake seventies quorums have been discontinued, and we have ditched sponsorship of America’s 21st Century version of Scouting? Or that women may be called upon to give prayers in sacrament meetings (strange to think now that that was once not the case, and the change occurred well within my own lifetime)?  Or that temples will no longer offer cafeteria service? Or that sister temple workers now sit alongside brother temple workers at the recommend desks? Or that we no longer drink from a communal sacrament cup or hold priesthood meetings on week nights as the Church membership did until the early 20th century? Or that junior Sunday School has been discontinued and Primary is today held on Sunday instead of weekdays? Or that a mission president’s wife now more than ever is regarded as a missionary companion to her husband with a leadership role in the mission instead of merely “the president’s wife”? Or that the Church’s magazines have been revamped and renamed at times and there have been new versions of the hymn book published from time to time? 

I do not feel like past leaders were thrown under the bus, but when President Nelson says things like "And if we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, He is offended" I understand why other people do.

Were there any of the things you listed spoken against as strongly? If none were it makes sense why some would not feel past leaders were thrown under the bus for those things, but were for this.

[Amulek]

8 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I thought I did. 

You did not.

 

Quote

It has to be in those exact words that you specify? 

No, it has to be in the words that you specified.

You stated that, "[t]he style guide and directive [to not use the word Mormon when referring to members of the church] came from the First Presidency by revelation as Elder Anderson declared."

So, I believe my CFR stands: Where did Elder Anderson declare that the style guide and directive to not use the word Mormon when referring to members of the church came from the First Presidency by revelation.

 

Quote

Nelson has also said:  “The name of the church is not negotiable, When the Savior clearly states what the name of His church should be … He is serious. And if we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, he is offended.”
Calling members or our church Mormons is using a nickname.

Clearly. Just like it is "using a nickname" to refer to William as Bill. Or, when you are attending BYU and refer to the Ernest L. Wilkinson Center as "The Wilk."

Do you believe that God is offended by the use of any and all nicknames?

Obviously not. Go back and read President Nelson's actual talk. It is abundantly clear that he is talking about nicknames being used in place of the true name of the Church - not about members of the Church. 

 

Quote

He might not say it in the exact way you want him too but I think it's pretty obvious God would rather we do not call ourselves Mormons.

No, it's pretty obvious to me that the current leaders of the Church would rather we no longer refer to ourselves in that way. I highly doubt that God gives two poop emojis about the matter. 

 

[JAHS]

31 minutes ago, Amulek said:

What bothers me, however, is how some people have taken these policy changes and treated them as if they were on par with actual revelation.

I guess this all depends on what your definition of "revelation" is. Policy changes can come by revelation from God. If the prophet is inspired to make a policy change to me that means he has received revelation on the subject. But that is my opinion as you have your opinion on it.
 

14 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Quote

He might not say it in the exact way you want him too but I think it's pretty obvious God would rather we do not call ourselves Mormons.

No, it's pretty obvious to me that the current leaders of the Church would rather we no longer refer to ourselves in that way. I highly doubt that God gives two poop emojis about the matter. 

 

An you know this how? 

[Amulek]

17 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I guess this all depends on what your definition of "revelation" is. Policy changes can come by revelation from God.

Obviously. Do you believe that all policy changes come from God though? 

 

Quote

If the prophet is inspired to make a policy change to me that means he has received revelation on the subject. 

Again, how do you know whether or not a specific policy change is inspired?

What if, instead, a policy change is merely the good-faith effort of a prophet to do what he believes is best in order to align with some other revelation that he has received?

 

Quote

An you know this how? 

Because of all of the equivocation. 

P.S. I believe my CFR is still outstanding. Please provide the quote from Elder Anderson that you were referring to or admit that you were mistaken and retract it.

 

[JAHS]

15 minutes ago, Amulek said:

P.S. I believe my CFR is still outstanding. Please provide the quote from Elder Anderson that you were referring to or admit that you were mistaken and retract it.

I did that earlier. Here: 
"Elder Andersen underscored the unity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on the subject. “The president has spoken, the Lord has spoken to the president,” 

[Calm]

I can see a revelation going like this…Pres Nelson is praying about how to properly use the name of the Church because he is concerned about properly fulfilling the instruction in the verse in the D&C or because he is seeking more ways to spread the gospel or for multiple reasons.  God reveals that yes, he gave the church its name and he would prefer it to be used like he revealed it as the name makes it clear who the church belongs to and what it is about (Christ and becoming his disciples).  He adds not using it over the years has had the cost of confusing people about the above (Mormon does not obviously mean Christian unless you actually know our teachings) and has in that way become an obstacle to spread the gospel (which Satan delights in).  God instructs President Nelson to put a high priority on improving the visibility and weight of the Church’s true name.

He does not give other instructions, but leaves it up to President Nelson to accomplish the above as he sees fit.  Pres Nelson decides that limiting the use of “Mormon” as much as practical while incorporating the Church’s actual name as much as possible is the way to ensure the proper name is used as the name of the Church as much as possible even if there is nothing inherently wrong with the term “Mormon”.  He seeks for God’s input on his decision and God inspires him this is a workable and desirable solution for placing the actual name of the Church front and center.  

There is no condemnation in the revelation or inspiration in general of the less common use of the name in the past or the promotion of the term “Mormon” over the decades.  There is no contradiction because it can be recognized that even if the usage of “Mormon” created one obstacle, it removed others so the benefits in the past to using it outweighed the costs and that is why God did not instruct/inspire prophets to dispense with “Mormon” and may have even revealed his approval of publicity campaigns using “Mormon” when prophets sought input on their ideas, but at this point whether it is just his preference or we have a strong enough public presence now that the benefits of using the easily identified and remembered “Mormon” are no longer as useful as attention getters, the balance has shifted to the negative at this point.

The above allows for 1) the promotion of the name of the Church to be revealed, for 2) it to be revealed that Satan delights in the confusion caused by not using the name, 3) that in the past the prophets were inspired in promotion of “Mormon” because of it was easier for those unfamiliar at all with the Church to remember it and because it attracted interest, but 4) that now those benefits are smaller and therefore aren’t as valuable which means the value of using the actual name is uppermost.  And 6) this means while God did not instruct Pres Nelson in all the details that Pres Nelson decided would be part of the promotion of the Church’s actual name, he did approve of Pres Nelson’s decisions…thus in one sense not revealed to not use Mormon as much as possible, in another sense revealed.

.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I did that earlier. Here: 
"Elder Andersen underscored the unity of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on the subject. “The president has spoken, the Lord has spoken to the president,” 

He does not say that what the Lord said to the president was identical to what the president said to them though.  The Lord could have spoken the result he wanted and the president spoke his ideas on how to achieve that result to the 12.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Calm

[JAHS]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

He does not say that what the Lord said to the president was identical to what the president said to them though.  The Lord could have spoken the result he wanted and the president spoke his ideas on how to achieve that result to the 12.

So this means that we have to assume that the prophet's ideas are not inspired by God. To me it's easier to assume that they are. Then there is no confusion.

[sunstoned]

12 hours ago, Amulek said:

Where is the revelation from God stating that He does not want the word Mormon used when referring to members of the Church?

I have yet to see one. And if you look closely at what has been said, you will note that seemingly great care has been taken to not paint ourselves into a corner on the matter.

 

I think we can chalk this up to lessons learned.  It was really painful to see Nelson walking back the POX revelation so soon after it was given.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

I am very conscious of it because I am around, working with and writing about many organizations and leaders, mostly religious almost always in unity.  There is something so sweet about serving the Lord's children together.  It's been interesting to me how the names and denominations are so secondary to the service that I'm not about to try to make my church stand out by saying the name much.

Also, while the organization I am with was started with 3 members of the church, we try very hard to make all feel welcome so we don't spend a lot of time on the names and beliefs.  We are also not political.   

In spite of that there are many times we can talk about Heavenly Father's work and his love for his children.  The atmosphere is usually such that people are not afraid to ask questions about religion.  I've found that when love for fellow men is there I don't need to say the name of the church very often - people just ask.  

So I'm not grumbling, murmuring or second guessing.  I just follow what the Spirit tells me to do and I have peace about it.  

I do not feel like past leaders were thrown under the bus, but when President Nelson says things like "And if we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, He is offended" I understand why other people do.

Were there any of the things you listed spoken against as strongly? If none were it makes sense why some would not feel past leaders were thrown under the bus for those things, but were for this.

As I recall, the context of the statement you quote from President Nelson is not just the allowance and sponsorship of the use of the nicknames, but their use in place of and supplanting the name of Christ as the identifier for His Church in contravention of His direct commandment. If such a thing is offensive to God (and I believe President Nelson spoke the truth when he said it is) then it is incumbent upon President Nelson as a prophet of God to make that known to the membership of the Church. Indeed, it would be a dereliction of duty for him not to do so. 
 

I regret that you seem to be annoyed by the forcefulness of President Nelson’s statements, but I see it as justified in view of the pushback and murmuring that have transpired over time (and I’ve been observing this matter for a number of years now, certainly more than a decade, and it’s not just President Nelson who has spoken out on it). 
 

To me it exemplifies the scriptural directive of “reproving … with sharpness” and then showing forth an increase of love. There is certainly no shortage of love expressed and shown by President Nelson toward the Latter-day Saints, both before and after his direction with regard to using the proper name of the Church. 

[Rain]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I recall, the context of the statement you quote from President Nelson is not just the allowance and sponsorship of the use of the nicknames, but their use in place of and supplanting the name of Christ as the identifier for His Church in contravention of His direct commandment. If such a thing is offensive to God (and I believe President Nelson spoke the truth when he said it is) then it is incumbent upon President Nelson as a prophet of God to make that known to the membership of the Church. Indeed, it would be a dereliction of duty for him not to do so. 

 

Which makes those different than the other things you listed.

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

I regret that you seem to be annoyed by the forcefulness of President Nelson’s statements, but I see it as justified in view of the pushback and murmuring that have transpired over time (and I’ve been observing this matter for a number of years now, certainly more than a decade, and it’s not just President Nelson who has spoken out on it). 

 

I'm not annoyed by the forcefulness of his statements.  I'm not even annoyed that he said them at all.  I do admit to being annoyed by what felt like your judgment of me, especially when I'm not actually against what he said.  

I can see both sides of this.  I'm not for or against it, but I very much choose to follow it by not saying things like "mormon church" because President Nelson has asked us not to do it. On the other hand I can see a lot of times why others choose to do so.

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

To me it exemplifies the scriptural directive of “reproving … with sharpness” and then showing forth an increase of love. There is certainly no shortage of love expressed and shown by President Nelson toward the Latter-day Saints, both before and after his direction with regard to using the proper name of the Church. 

I get that.  I also get why others don't feel the same way. 

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, Rain said:

Which makes those different than the other things you listed.

I thought I had already implied this, but it is the unseemly pushback and murmuring against the prophetic direction and the stubborn resistance to change. I don’t recall such reaction to, say, the decision to permit the calling on of women to give sacrament meeting prayers or the change in the day of the week on which Primary is held. 

Edited February 27, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Rain said:

can see both sides of this.  I'm not for or against it, but I very much choose to follow it by not saying things like "mormon church" because President Nelson has asked us not to do it. On the other hand I can see a lot of times why others choose to do so.

So you’re not doing it yourself, but you’re rationalizing others doing it. Pardon, but I can’t applaud such a tepid reception of a very clear and explicit prophetic directive. 

[Rain]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you’re not doing it yourself, but you’re rationalizing others doing it.

No, I'm not.  I'm choosing not to judge them.  There is a difference.

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Pardon, but I can’t applaud such a tepid reception of a very clear and explicit prophetic directive. 

That's fine. I wasn't looking for your approval.  

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, Rain said:

No, I'm not.  I'm choosing not to judge them.  There is a difference.

Seems to me there has been a good deal of unkind and unrighteousness judgment from a good many voices poured out on  President Nelson for fulfilling his prophetic role. That’s not OK with me. I guess having an opinion one way or another on that might be regarded as judging. 

Edited February 27, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Rain]

Deleted. Not worth it.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Rain

[Teancum]

On 2/25/2022 at 4:24 PM, Freedom said:

It also embraced systemic racism.

Yes it did.

 

On 2/25/2022 at 4:24 PM, Freedom said:

 

 

Was the revelation on priesthood just a pet project of pres Kimball?

It is odd to me that if this is really was a revelation that it took so long to make it clear that the priesthood ban was a long time mistake which seems to be the position of the church now.  Had there not been so much social pressure for the change, the fact that the church was building temples in Brazil where many faithful members would not have been able to attend due to race issue, this might have really seemed like a revelation.  But you miss the point.  Kimball had not been publicly promoting the lifting on the ban and also he had not been publically corrected by a church president about that.  The church leaders had been wrangling with the issue of lifting the ban for quite a few years before Kimball did this.  It seems to me that President McKay was considering it.  Hugh Brown wanted to lift it.  I think the FP was undermined on this by a number of powerful apostles including JF Smith, HB Lee and Benson.  ANyway your comparison is a poor one and not really applicable.

 

On 2/25/2022 at 4:24 PM, Freedom said:

 

 

The name of the church is clear.

I did not say it wasn't. When I was active I always, when asked about my religion, said I was a Latter-day Saint.  And would often use the full name of the church.  If the person did not recognize that I said Mormon, but we prefer Latter-day Saint.

On 2/25/2022 at 4:24 PM, Freedom said:

 

 

This was a correction what was started long ago but then leadership waffles. Mormon is a slang term that should go away. We are not mormons, we are not bibles, we are saints, and we are Christians. 

The outside world will continue to use Mormon Church for a very long time whether you like it or not.

[MiserereNobis]

11 hours ago, JAHS said:

So this means that we have to assume that the prophet's ideas are not inspired by God. To me it's easier to assume that they are. Then there is no confusion.

Aren’t prophets fallible? If so, isn’t it ok to question their teachings?

 On this board, at least, it seems like faithful LDS treat the president as infallible. Is it this way in the broader LDS community?

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Aren’t prophets fallible? If so, isn’t it ok to question their teachings?

 On this board, at least, it seems like faithful LDS treat the president as infallible. Is it this way in the broader LDS community?

Worse

[JAHS]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Aren’t prophets fallible? If so, isn’t it ok to question their teachings?

 On this board, at least, it seems like faithful LDS treat the president as infallible. Is it this way in the broader LDS community?

He is not infallible but we trust him to do what is in our best interest and the best interest of the church, so we try to go along with what he counsels us to do.  And it is not just him but there are 14 other prophets that have a say in the process to make sure what is done is not wrong.
If it turns out that he is wrong about something (eg a policy) we forgive him for it and continue to follow his counsel. God will not hold us accountable for doing something the prophet tells us to do that is wrong.
There would be a lot of confusion in the church if we were always doubting what the prophet tells us so we try to assume that what he does is inspired of God.
It works for me anyway.
 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

it seems like faithful LDS treat the president as infallible.

Some do, not all.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

God will not hold us accountable for doing something the prophet tells us to do that is wrong.

I have my doubts about that if the Spirit is witnessing to us it is wrong because that means we chose to obey the prophet rather than God.

Quote

There would be a lot of confusion in the church if we were always doubting what the prophet tells us so we try to assume that what he does is inspired of God.

Wouldn’t an appropriate course be to confirm what he teaches and asks of us through the Spirit?

Edited February 27, 2022 by Calm

[JAHS]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

God will not hold us accountable for doing something the prophet tells us to do that is wrong.

I have my doubts about that if the Spirit is witnessing to us it is wrong because that means we chose to obey the prophet rather than God.

Quote

 

There would be a lot of confusion in the church if we were always doubting what the prophet tells us so we try to assume that what he does is inspired of God.

Wouldn’t an appropriate course be to confirm what he teaches and asks of us through the Spirit?

Of course that is an appropriate thing to do. I just think we should refrain from having the attitude of doubting everything the prophet says or asks us to do.
By the way, for those things I have asked God about, the spirit has never told me that what the prophet has said or done was wrong.  Perhaps your experience is different.

[JustAnAustralian]

Well the British tabloid  "The Sun" is still using it. https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/17751368/polygamist-father-mormon-siblings/