- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Does this mean we should speak about the International Society for Krishna Consciousness instead of ISKCON and Krishnas? On the off chance I ever have to text someone about them, I know which I would use. I hate to point this out but Jesus is a bit out of fashion in the west these days too. We are Christian and I am Christian, and I follow him… but a lot of people are downright hostile to Christianity partly for reasons the original LDS talked about. They may wish us to look more like a mainline Christian church, but do we wish to be associated with the corruption of certain other churches?
I’m talking about money grabbing pastors, pedophile cover-ups, association with despotic regimes (particularly in Latin America) and the more ridiculous forms of fundamentalism. Or on a more traditional basis, people who go once a week and don’t practise what they preach
What I’m trying to get at is that Jesus is and should be the focus of our faith, but that when other people think of Jesus they may get a whole lot of wrong impressions we might have to correct. It’s not a bad thing to put some clear water between us and BAD “Christianity” (i.e. the corrupt type which shouldn’t be known by that name.)
Heber13 wrote:
dande48 wrote:
What bigger issues do you think they should cover?
Well…I’m no prophet…but I think there are important issues around how to unify groups and rid our communities of hate and discrimination. Perhaps mental illness issues and suicide are important issues. Things that bring us together to help work with making the world a better place.
To be fair, Ensign has had some good articles over the last few years about disability, racism and mental health incl. suicide. The LGBTetc thing – well, that’s another matter.
Here’s a few things which could be discussed more –
* Addiction (not just the obvious ones or P & M.)
* Work with the homeless.
* Judgementalism, self-righteousness, being Pharisaical.
* Religious freedom, not just for ourselves or on sexual/reproductive matters. The right for people to practise religions, or to be irreligious/atheist etc. With one or two exceptions (I draw the line at human sacrifice.)
dande48 wrote:
What bigger issues do you think they should cover?
I’d like to see more acknowledgement of the truths we get from other sources and learn about those…
Example: The Jewish teachings on “Charity” are different then what we teach – even though that is in part the origin of the teachings of our principles. In general, our teachings are a) we should be charitable, b) women do it better, c) Sermon on the Mount, d) minister to your assigned families. A & C are good teachings, B is problematical, and D is becoming more relevant (ish) over the last 6 months. Jewish teachings on charity expand acts of charity to include long term care of family members and have a more practical emphasis while attempting to categorize the individual cost of different acts of charity.
If a General Authority can talk about the process of acquiring the Bible as “divine” or “inspired”, then we can make the case for looking at the history of the principle of charity.
I personally, selfishly would also like to see a course on “Faith Transitions – Best Practices for Treating Those You Love” as a toolbox for a) what NOT to do (broad example: call for the priesthood to cast out the devil or insist on an instant divorce), b) what might be going on in the mind of the transitioner, and c) general principles about mixed-faith close relationships (and why you should not cast your no longer believing children off). We already have acknowledgement about honest questioning in quotes from general authorities such as President Holland, and if Jana Reiss’s data and interpretation is correct, more people are becoming “Nones” or leaving the church instead of less people – and we all deal with these people every day in one way or another.
The way that President Nelson announced this made it sound like some new revelation. But it turns out that this is something that has apparently bothered him for a long time and he actually talked about this same general idea in General Conference way back in 1990 but after that it was largely ignored by both the Church and media alike. So of course now that Nelson is the Church president all of a sudden this is supposedly very important and is being reported in several major news outlets. In the 1990 talk, it sounded like this was based mostly on Nelson’s observation and interpretation of the Doctrine and Covenants literally saying this is what the Church should be “called” and that it didn’t just say that’s what it should be “named.” Personally I think “called” and “named” are interchangeable for practical purposes and that most active Church members already know that this is the official name of the Church so I still don’t see the problem with un-offensive nicknames or abbreviations. It’s too bad that Nelson or other Church leaders aren’t paying this much attention to detail about the fact that the relevant D&C sections literally say that tithing should be on interest (not income) and that the Word of Wisdom was “not by commandment or constraint” and that “mild drinks” made from barley are perfectly acceptable. Those are things that really make a difference in terms of temple “worthiness” and missionary work and that could at the very least instantly increase the pool of potential faithful followers if interpreted more literally than they have been recently.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:
It’s too bad that Nelson or other Church leaders aren’t paying this much attention to detail about the fact that the relevant D&C sections literally say that tithing should be on interest (not income) and that the Word of Wisdom was “not by commandment or constraint” and that “mild drinks” made from barley are perfectly acceptable. Those are things that really make a difference in terms of temple “worthiness” and missionary work and that could at the very least instantly increase the pool of potential faithful followers if interpreted more literally than they have been recently.
I agree. Those are some things also that are examples of sometimes the frustration I feel where such huge emphasis is placed on little cultural or traditional things within the religion, that can seem trivial in our world.
I go back to those wonderful quotes by nibbler:
nibbler wrote:GBH wrote:They could do worse. More than fifty years ago, when I was a missionary in England, I said to one of my associates, “How can we get people, including our own members, to speak of the Church by its proper name?”
He replied, “You can’t. The word Mormon is too deeply ingrained and too easy to say.” He went on, “I’ve quit trying. While I’m thankful for the privilege of being a follower of Jesus Christ and a member of the Church which bears His name, I am not ashamed of the nickname Mormon.”
Takeaway. This has been a pet issue for RMN for some time. And GBH has already given the reasons why we won’t shake the nickname… in a general conference address no less.I am still not sure what we could call ourselves. I think “Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” is too much. I like being called a Latter-Day Saint. But we are not to call ourselves “LDS”. So, I’m at a loss as to what we should call ourselves instead of Mormons. Has anyone seen any guidance on this?
To me, a name change would be easier to then relate a collective name. But we are locked into JS’s revelation about what the church should be called. You can always reverse revelation, with appropriate reasons given, but that is a major deal. It would be nice, however, to see a new chapter given in the D&C since there hasn’t been anything new for decades upon decades upon decades. Makes you wonder if the foundation of revelation is really in place anymore, doesn’t it?
I will leave the change / new focus to be applied at the official level of news reports and such. I get it and respect it at that level. At the personal level, I will continue to say the first time a new acquaintance asks, “I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – the LDS Church – I’m Mormon.”
After that, I’m Mormon.
Old Timer wrote:
I will leave the change / new focus to be applied at the official level of news reports and such. I get it and respect it at that level.At the personal level, I will continue to say the first time a new acquaintance asks, “I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – the LDS Church – I’m Mormon.”
After that, I’m Mormon.
There hasn’t been much guidance yet, has there? Just that we shouldn’t call ourselves Mormon anymore?
Quote:There hasn’t been much guidance yet, has there? Just that we shouldn’t call ourselves Mormon anymore?
And the only people who are going to hear about it is us. It was a slow news day. It was a blip on everyone else’s radar screen. They ran with it for 48 hours. If Romney ran for President again we would likely fall back to “Mormon”.
We just get to endure the “reminders” from our insular group.
mom3 wrote:
Quote:There hasn’t been much guidance yet, has there? Just that we shouldn’t call ourselves Mormon anymore?
And the only people who are going to hear about it is us. It was a slow news day. It was a blip on everyone else’s radar screen. They ran with it for 48 hours. If Romney ran for President again we would likely fall back to “Mormon”.
We just get to endure the “reminders” from our insular group.
If they are serious about it, then to get your church directly, you go to
http://www.churchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaints.org , get your churchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaints tools app, learn more about the church at churchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaints.infoIt’s just WAY too long. under the new rulesI can’t even call myself LDS either. I think if we just called ourselves Christians that would be to my liking. Or with websites like
christianslds.org
or latterdaysaints.org
I don’t mind calling myself a latter-day saint.
One problem with calling ourselves LDS Christians is that people say ‘No, because that name implies there are LDS members who are NOT christians”. I personally don’t see it, but I heard a number of members say that when I was on a “let’s not call ourselves Mormons” kick years ago. I finally gave up because change suggested from the rank and file is never well received in our top down church. They have to figure it out on their own, and it often takes decades, if they even get there. At least, on those issues where I have a point.
Quote:I finally gave up because change suggested from the rank and file is never well received in our top down church. They have to figure it out on their own, and it often takes decades, if they even get there
Amen.
Will we have to use the full name on Twitter or SMS? A lot of people can’t decide whether “day” is capitalized or hyphenated. [Admin Note]: This post is about a church name usage change request, not temple area development. Those are two very different topics. If anyone wants to have a discussion about the development, take it to another post. Further, I am deleting the previous comments about that topic from this thread, since it was based on a question of motive and we deleted another motive suggestion in a previous comment. This is a not a thread to question the motive in accusatory ways, and we have to be consistent in how we approach that.
Also, in regard to threadjacks that change the focus of posts from what the writers intended:
1) We need to try to honor the intent of people who write posts and keep the focus on the topic they address. We aren’t perfect in that effort, but we try. It is a matter of respect for them and their reasons for posting here.
2) Thousands of people visit our site each month and read but never comment. They need to be able to find our archived discussions by searching titles for words or phrases that deal with the topic in which they are interested. Threadjacks can destroy that ability, since the new topics are not reflected in the titles of the posts where they occur.
I haven’t read all the comments but I imagine there has been at least some eye rolling, to which I’ll add my own. But if I could see at least one positive, if this “new” (old?) emphasis encourages at least some members to be a little more reflective of their relationship to and discipleship with Jesus Christ, then that will be a positive.
But mostly, I just
🙄 I think one problem vexing this desired change is the fact that the D&C has a formal revelation in it that the church shall be called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Back then, JS probably had no idea about domain names, or how a long name like that might encourage people to call us by a nickname. So, if RMN wants to change it, it’s hard. As I said earlier, the name is WAY too long for domain names, or even use in conversation. We need a shorter name. It must have Christ in it. I would like us to be called Christians, but with a twist that preserves our uniqueness. Perhaps a Restored Christian? Or a Christian Restorationist, or a Latter-Day Christian? Companies have done it before, so we can. But it’s going to take some pretty hard selling and culture management to get away from the overly long Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints with the name nailed down for eternity in the D&C. People can always find a way to justify decisions, so I hope we see something final from RMN that is workable.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.