- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
‘it can’t be done,’ ” President Nelson repeated the difficulty with a clarification: “I know it can’t — but
it’s going to be, because the Lord wants it that way.” In the post-devotional interview, President Nelson said church leaders are not surprised at the initial hesitancy. “We know that it’s going to be a challenge to undo tradition of more than 100 years.
And we don’t have all the answers. All we know is the Lord has said, ‘Thus shall my church be called …. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,’ ” he said, repeating Doctrine and Covenants 115:4. “ That’s enough for me.” Underlining mine. So, when is the big move happening? You know, The one where we all relocate to Jackson County as the epicenter of the church?
:lolno: I feel like the early days of the church are littered with failed projects and experiments that began with just this sort of “the Lord has spoken” push.
Quote: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.
As I understand the history, JS co-opted “Mormon” and refranchised it under the “More Good” mantra.
Even back then, it was a mouth full, a page full.
The problem with Christianity disconnect has nothing to do with the name. It is a 200 year old battle based on our historic origin. Nobody doubts that the Seventh Day Adventists are Christian. Nor the Lutherans or Catholics. I believe our pride caused this. Beginning all the way back to Joseph’s time. A name change, nor quota’s of service, or numbers of new members will not change the belief that we are not Christian.
If that is the change that is desired, it needs to be much more action based, policy based, less preach, more kindness reach, etc. We should just zip our lips, stop proselyting, and hunker down and demonstrate (in an unsung way) our devotion to Christ. Then we can have a conversation about who we are and what you call us.
Otherwise we are just “Mormons’ with a Christian comb over.
Quote:‘
it can’t be done,’ ” President Nelson repeated the difficulty with a clarification: “ I know it can’t— but it’s going to be, because the Lord wants it that way.” In the post-devotional interview, President Nelson said church leaders are not surprised at the initial hesitancy. “We know that it’s going to be a challenge to undo tradition of more than 100 years. And we don’t have all the answers. All we know is the Lord has said, ‘Thus shall my church be called …. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,’ ” he said, repeating Doctrine and Covenants 115:4. “That’s enough for me.”
Underlined different parts.
:wtf: 
SilentDawning wrote: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.
Can there be a difference between the formal name and people referring to it informally? The D&C outlines the formal name but doesn’t exactly put forth an edict that people can’t use nicknames.
And that’s probably what Nelson is referring to when he says this was by revelation… I’m guessing. Less the spirit is whispering in his ear to make this change and more enforcement of a revelation received in 1838.
That’s nice that a scripture can be quoted and it is “enough for me” to go on. But…it kinda seems a bit more involved than that when the whole world is referring to it otherwise.
But, hey…if we’re gonna do that….
Quote:D&C 89
1 A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—
2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom
…not a commandment?? That’s what the Lord said…and that is enough for me, thank you very much.
Heber13 wrote:
That’s nice that a scripture can be quoted and it is “enough for me” to go on.But…it kinda seems a bit more involved than that when the whole world is referring to it otherwise.
But, hey…if we’re gonna do that….
Quote:D&C 89
1 A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—
2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom
…not a commandment?? That’s what the Lord said…and that is enough for me, thank you very much.
[img]https://i.imgur.com/sdD8k30.jpg [/img] Nibbler your art is amazing. Read an article in the NYT about the church today. They used the name “Mormon church” in the title and repeatedly throughout the article. Also used “the church” throughout. The only reference to the full name was to a lawsuit against the “corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”. It makes me wonder if there might be some sort of backlash within the journalistic community to this new name emphasis. We seem to be trying to sort of force or trick journalists into a tacit endorsement of our restoration and “one true church” doctrine in the way that they use our church name in their article. From what I am observing so far, journalists may be resisting or stubbornly refusing what they view as church coercion and may even be using the full name of the church LESS often in their reporting.
Roy wrote:
We seem to be trying to sort of force or trick journalists into a tacit endorsement of our restoration and “one true church” doctrine in the way that they use our church name in their article. From what I am observing so far, journalists may be resisting or stubbornly refusing what they view as church coercion and may even be using the full name of the church LESS often in their reporting.
It reminded me a bit of how Caesar Augustus was called, in his day, “The Son of God”, “Redeemer”, “Savior of Mankind”. To which, the Christians replied, “Nu-uh! I’m NOT calling you that,” and went on refering to Jesus by those titles. Well, the Romans wouldn’t have that either. I think if there is anything someone fundamentally disagrees with in a name or title, it is going to be very difficult to get them to use it.
The Deseret News published an article yesterday, as referenced by Minyan Man in another thread: The most interesting part of this article to me was that the Church’s own Deseret News used this phraseology:
Quote:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, often called the
Mormon church… This is in conflict with the “Mormon church’s” Style Guide for the press, published a month ago:
Quote:While the term “Mormon Church” has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use. Thus, please avoid using the abbreviation “LDS” or the nickname “Mormon” as substitutes for the name of the Church, as in “Mormon Church,” “LDS Church,” or “Church of the Latter-day Saints.”
I noticed this in the article too. Isn’t there more important issues for the Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) to address? Sometimes I just get tired of all this. By the way, the web site name hasn’t changed yet either (lds.org)
Minyan Man wrote:
I noticed this in the article too. Isn’t there more important issues for the Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) to address?Sometimes I just get tired of all this. By the way, the web site name hasn’t changed yet either (lds.org)
Yes…there are more important issues. I think this was said, it got a headline or two…and everyone moved on.
yes…there might be some people talking about it, or that will bring it up at church. But that is kind of like the people talking about if BYU should adopt a solid gray uniform…and debating the issue. Besides the handful of people who even care to click and read about it…most of the world moves on and doesn’t care.
Kind of like adding the 4th fold to our church mission. Not really much talked about it by hardly anyone, even if a prophet did say it.
Minyan Man wrote:
I noticed this in the article too. Isn’t there more important issues for the Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) to address?Sometimes I just get tired of all this. By the way, the web site name hasn’t changed yet either (lds.org)
I think the root of the issue, is that most people know us as the “LDS” Church, or more commonly, the “Mormons”. Very few people know us as “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints”. If people want to know more about us, they will visit Mormon.org. I honestly think Nelson is trying to justify the earlier revelation for the name of the Church. It was important to Christ, so it should be important to us.
But the name “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” goes against so many modern naming conventions. It’s way too long to be memorable or used in common language. It has two “of” clarifies, and a hyphen to boot. It uses the largely archaic term “latter”, in an even more archaic way. It’d be like a business calling itself “The Conglomerate of the United States of Modern-American Patriots”. Any business consultant would tell you to do away with it.
We’re too wrapped up in us being the “One and Only True Church of Christ”. We look down on the other Churches, such as the “Baptists” or the “Methodists” for not having “Christ” in their Church’s name. But those names are easy to remember, and set them apart from the other Christian denominations. “Mormon” sets us apart nicely. We’re different from other Christian denominations, in that we believe in the Book of Mormon. You know who you’re talking about. Clarifying our unique status with our really long name, really says nothing about our Church other than we are “superior” (more true, only one with authority, etc) to all others. Which is what Nelson really wants everyone to know.
I just walked in and read dande previous comment. ^^^^ I have been out with Pastor’s from other faiths all morning. Everyone of them kindly asked what church I belonged to. I stuck with LDS. Everyone of them was “What’s the deal with the name thing.” The effort to explain it derails any attempt to build bridges. To me Christ wanted a bit more bridge building. So while we explain the long game of it, they are like “What ever?”
My honest reply is “By their fruits ye shall know them.” I told them “It was a slow news day. For me you can call me a Child of God.”
Heber13 wrote:
Kind of like adding the 4th fold to our church mission. Not really much talked about it by hardly anyone, even if a prophet did say it.
“Muggles don’t notice much, now do they?” I actually love that observation by Mr. Weasley (and others). I notice this in the church all the time. Just this week in stake council as we were discussing SC topics someone brought up preparedness (as in end of times prepper preparedness, based on the current natural disaster in NC). I held my tongue in the open and privately shared my view the the SP, directly asking him when the last time one of our prophets talked about that kind of preparedness was, intimating that it might not really be an appropriate topic for SC (but my be perfectly OK in a PH/RS meeting). It was particularly poignant because he had just finished talking about the areas of focus given him from the AA for our area. (Hint: they happen to center around the four missions of the church, which incidentally were not only mentioned by TSM but are included in Handbook 2). My point to him and in general here is that so many members just don’t pay attention when things change. The prophet doesn’t say to plant a garden anymore, that song needs to come out of the next Children’s Songbook. There are four missions of the church, not three – and the fourth is probably the most important from the point of view of becoming more like Christ. So many members are stuck in the 80s McConkie version of the church, and just don’t seem to have noticed that we’ve moved on from not drinking Pepsi. I don’t know if it’s sleeping through the restoration or if it’s just our Muggle tendency to not notice much but it’s a problem sometimes. I am quite positive (99.99%) that I can find at least five people in my ward who attend almost every Sunday if not every Sunday who don’t know RMN said anything about the name of the church lately.
I maybe shouldn’t but I started laughing inwardly once when a new member started bearing his testimony of the Church of Mormonand how he believed our bishop was a true prophet. He had what we charitably call learning difficulties and is a bit of a character. Going back a few years right enough… I could see trembling on the bishopric bench, but he never got the mike taken off him.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.