- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I thought about posting this in the rumor thread but I’ll post it here. In my ward, the Sunday after the announcement we dedicated a large portion of PH to discussing Nelson’s desire to use the proper name of the church. Mormons gonna Morm and all but a part of that discussion was letting the group know that as members we shouldn’t be saying Mormon anymore, we should follow the counsel of a prophet of god.
I was kinda bummed. One more thing for people to police each other over while at church. I felt it missed what I had hoped was the spirit of the counsel, a call to reorient the church towards Christ.
I now find myself wondering whether policing others, getting onto them and insisting they use the correct name of the church, helps move the needle closer towards that ultimate goal. Maybe it does? If we police people towards saying Christ more we may miss the mark entirely but as a culture would the end result be moving us closer to getting people to focus more on Christ?
Personally I don’t think focusing on the name does much to achieve that goal. Maybe if we policed people to say “obey the commandments” instead of “obey the prophet” and to say “follow Christ” instead of “follow the prophet.”
But this is all me speculating on what someone else hoped to achieve in the name change. Maybe they had some other goal in mind, or maybe there was no long term goal, maybe it was just a nit stated out loud.
My only point, the policing is annoying, it feels like it misses the mark, but could it have the desired effect long term? After all, the police are going to police regardless, they might as well be policing towards something that’s constructive long term.
nibbler wrote:
My only point, the policing is annoying, it feels like it misses the mark, but could it have the desired effect long term? After all, the police are going to police regardless, they might as well be policing towards something that’s constructive long term.
Just had a thought: Do you think it might be in attempt to distance ourselves from the spotty history of the Church? Kind of like how the RLDS Church changed their name to “Community of Christ”, and practically no one calls them Mormon or associates them with the Mormon Church anymore?
Just last night, in response to another thread, I found this “scholastic” article on the Church’s website, called
“Joseph Smith’s Teachings about Priesthood, Temple, Women”It was interesting to me, that the full name of the Church was emphasized when relating to us today. “Latter-Day Saints” referred to both past and present, and “Mormon” referring to the early Church members. Maybe I’m reading a little too much into it, but it feels like the modern Church is attempting to identify less with Church history. “That was then, this is now”.
Or the FLDS. SamBee wrote:Or the FLDS.
Which are, more or less, the embodiment of everything in early Church history we wish to reject.
dande48 wrote:
SamBee wrote:Or the FLDS.
Which are, more or less, the embodiment of everything in early Church history we wish to reject.
Very much so. But the media persists in calling them Mormons even though our church is unconnected to them.
Like the Phillip Larkin poem “This be the Verse” says “They fill you with the faults they had/ And add some extra, just for you.”
nibbler wrote:In my ward, the Sunday after the announcement we dedicated a large portion of PH to discussing Nelson’s desire to use the proper name of the church. Mormons gonna Morm and all but a part of that discussion was letting the group know that as members we shouldn’t be saying Mormon anymore, we should follow the counsel of a prophet of god.
I can’t really help it…I’m me…I’m gonna react how I react…because…such policing only makes me want to say “mormon” more often in the presence of those who I know are trying to be self-appointed spiritual safety officers.
If nothing else…I want to make the point to everyone that there are certainly more important things in life to worry about.
I just can’t help myself.
I was just thinking out loud, trying to take something as I see as a negative (great, now people are going to get onto me for saying Mormon) as something that could change the culture long term as something that could be a net positive for some. We correct people so much, make sure they say church of Christ, or whatever, and in 20 years we talk about following Christ and obeying commandments more than we talk about following and obeying leaders of the church.
An annoying thing to be sure, but it played its role in turning the ship.
Unless we hear more about the name change during conference I think this one has already died on the vine.
nibbler wrote:
Unless we hear more about the name change during conference I think this one has already died on the vine.
I agree. Changing the “nickname” of the church would need to be a near constant drumbeat and become the signature push of President Nelson’s administration. I believe that many organizations with “Mormon” in their title are in a “wait and see” pattern – not going out right away to make expensive changes in signage etc. but not digging their feet by refusing to make the change either.
We currently have the missionaries on their way to our house. A friend of my step-daughter at school came up to her and said:
Quote:Hey, aren’t you mormon? I want the missionaries to teach me. How does that get arranged?”
So…we set it up and it will happen in the next hour in our home.
So…did the name “mormon” matter in this situation? Should we correct our friends who ask about it?
I don’t think so.
This friend does not get religion at home, and doesn’t know much about our beliefs but has heard some good things about how we stress family and how we serve others and how we have fun activities but have high standards and are good clean values. She wants that.
The name of the church doesn’t make as much of a difference as how we are living our lives and others see it and associate it with a church name. If the church had nothing to do with Christ…I think it would be a deal breaker for her. But if it is about Christ and the bible AND these other things she is looking for…that is what attracted her to ask.
She’ll get baptized or she won’t. But it won’t be based on the official name or the nickname, it will be based on the people and the feelings while studying about it and going to church. Call it what you will…it’s good when it feels good.
Roy wrote:
nibbler wrote:
Unless we hear more about the name change during conference I think this one has already died on the vine.
I agree. Changing the “nickname” of the church would need to be a near constant drumbeat and become the signature push of President Nelson’s administration. I believe that many organizations with “Mormon” in their title are in a “wait and see” pattern – not going out right away to make expensive changes in signage etc. but not digging their feet by refusing to make the change either.
There you go. It’s the signature push.
Quite often right before conference I’ll hear a story that goes something like this:
I talked to a coworker about how my church would be having a conference and we’d get an opportunity to hear from a prophet of god. My coworker said, “Wow, you have a prophet of god. That’s amazing. What have they said?” I was embarrassed to admit that I couldn’t think of anything they had said and my coworker said, “You mean to tell me you have a prophet of god and you don’t even listen to them?”
We then usually take time to list off things that the prophet has said recently but the moral of the story is – make sure you listen to conference.
If you listened to conference you’d be able to proudly respond to the coworker, “The prophet has revealed that it is a victory for Satan when people call us Mormons.”
“You mean to tell me you have a prophet of god and…”
I guess, based on conference, this issue is not going away. It became pretty apparent to me, that this push isn’t so much about calling us “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints”, as it is about eradicating the “Mormon” label. The push was to use “Latter-Day Saints” to describe us, as the prophet did repeatedly. “Latter-Day Saints” still does not have the name of Christ in it. Not to mention, the TCATQ doesn’t have “Christ” in its name either. It feels very similar to what the Community of Christ did back in 2001. I wonder if, with all the changes being done to the curriculum (which, to be fair, seems more Christ focused), we will distance ourselves from the Book of Mormon, much like they did. I’ve got the feeling we’ll be reading from the scriptures directly quite a bit less than before. Do you think this is a re-branding overhaul?
“Anyone who comes to know the man Mormon, through the reading and pondering of his words, anyone who reads this precious trove of history which was assembled and preserved in large measure by him, will come to know that Mormon is not a word of disrepute, but that it represents the greatest good—that good which is of God.” -Gordon B Hinkley
“The church’s name is not negotiable When the savior clearly states what the name of his church should be, and even precedes his declaration with, ‘Thus shall my church be called,’ he is serious. And if we allow nicknames to be used and adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, he is offended.”
-Russell M Nelson
Which is it?
What bothered me most was when President Nelson said:” By allowing the nicknames of the Church to be used, adopted or even sponsored they have offended God and given a major victory to Satan!! Isn’t this like throwing Hinckley and Monson under the bus? So was “Meet the Mormons” inspired by Satan? Very confusing. Mark 9:39 38John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone else driving out demons in Your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not accompany us.” 39But Jesus replied, “Do not stop him. No one who performs a miracle in My name can turn around and speak evil of Me. 40For whoever is not against us is for us.… Isn’t Jesus telling us that you do not have to even be Mormon/cojclds to be considered a follower of him.
bridget_night wrote:
“The church’s name is not negotiable When the savior clearly states what the name of his church should be, and even precedes his declaration with, ‘Thus shall my church be called,’ he is serious. And if we allow nicknames to be used and adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, he is offended.”-Russell M Nelson
God chose to become offended.
:angel: :angel: The RLDS/CoC name change was I believe more understandable.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.