Name of The Church – Version 152

[Anonymous]

bridget_night wrote:

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.

I think this is an important thing to think through, for me personally. I’m glad you brought it up Bridget.

I was thinking that I feel MORE comfortable with change than no change. To see Nelson stand up for what what he feels impressed, even if it seems to go against prior programs or quotes from prior prophets, is better overall for the church and for me in it.

If Pres Nelson was beholden to everything previously said…we would be stuck in our past and unable to address current needs.

So…overall…I personally don’t see this topic as the biggest fish to fry, and don’t personally care about it, but the overall point that we can make changes, we can do something even if Monson and Hinckley had a different take on it…is good, IMO. And I think good to have the body of the church accept that things can change as needed….temple ceremonies change, scripture changes, policies change, even our understanding of doctrine changes.

It moves us further from black and white thinking, and proof-texting, and being cowards for change because we fall back on something some prophet said decades ago (which is likely under different context).

Something Nibbler said before really struck me, and got me thinking about how much I appreciate Nelson’s boldness:

Quote:

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.

If this is the direction it takes us, that is a “win.”

Of course, day to day, there still is the problem of knowing what is of Christ and what is of mortal prophets. But…it is an improvement to be talking about Christ, and not the prophets. Always keeping an eye on Christ as the image of our worship.

The rest of it, seems like devil is in the details. It gets messy and it gets frustrating on how to do it christ-like. But I appreciate change, and I hope for what nibbler said is the silver lining in years to come on what we find we are talking about in our church experience, regardless of what others outside our religion call us…what are we talking about in church…that matters.

If that is Pres Nelson’s vision…I am grateful for that.

[Anonymous]

So why does it have to be Satan winning and god being offended when people say Mormon?

I’ve heard this story (just a story, not a history lesson) that King Shen Nong wanted people to drink boiled water because the process purified unsanitary drinking water. It was a tough sell, so the tea culture was invented to help get the practice of boiling water off the ground, even going so far as incorporating tea into religious observances, all in an effort to get people drinking cleaner water.

So Satan does a victory dance and god gets offended not because they actually do, but because it’s what people need to believe in order for them to change their habits?

Then there’s people like me who really never said Mormon before but now feel like they have to. :angel:

[Anonymous]

Thanks Heber…I appreciate your perspective and the discussion here. One of my best girlfriends, who is strong lds replied to me about this today:

I guess I took it as ” from this day forward “. I don’t believe that the Lord was offended by the name mormon church in the past. Now that he has revealed that we are to refer to his church using the full title, by us not doing as he has commanded would offend. The Lord knows and allows the progression of his church and when the time is right he reveals the next step. There are so many new converts that have no issues with one name versus the other. It’s only an issue with members who have always used the nickname and are now required to only use the full name. It’s the nature of people to resist change, even for something as simple as a name. When I was introduced to you, you went by the name of Ruth. After a time you decided that you wanted to go by your middle name of Bridget, those people who had known you as Ruth probably had a more difficult time remembering to call you Bridget. Since I hadn’t known you as Ruth for very long it was easy for me to address you as Bridget, however if those who had always known you as Ruth refused to call you by your chosen name it would be offensive. I believe that those who are transgender suffer from the same thing when people refuse to use their preferred pronoun and to recognize the new name that identifies who they are today not the day they were born. I look at it as respect, I respect your chosen name, I respect all transgender people who have chosen the name they identify with. I respect the Savior who no longer desires that his church be identified by a name that has worked in the past. His reasons are not important to me and I will use His preferred name, just like I use your preferred name. Not to do so is offensive.

[Anonymous]

bridget_night wrote:

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.

Allow me to make things a little less confusing for you… When people talk about Satan, reference Satan, declare something was inspired by Satan or decieved by Satan… “Satan” just means “Whatever I passionately don’t like”. Pineapple on Pizza? Inspired by Satan. Lovers of “Star Wars: The Last Jedi”? Decieved by Satan.

I think we’re too often confused by what’s personal opinion and God-given doctrine. I don’t even think the Q15 can often tell the difference between the two. That being said, I’m grateful for this “doctrinal experimentation”. It’s how we grow, so long as we can recognize it for what it is.

[Anonymous]

bridget_night wrote:

One of my best girlfriends, who is strong lds replied to me about this today:

That’s a pretty good answer.

[Anonymous]

dande48 wrote:

bridget_night wrote:

.. “Satan” just means “Whatever I passionately don’t like”. Pineapple on Pizza? Inspired by Satan.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I believe that those who are transgender suffer from the same thing when people refuse to use their preferred pronoun and to recognize the new name that identifies who they are today not the day they were born. I look at it as respect, I respect your chosen name, I respect all transgender people who have chosen the name they identify with. I respect the Savior who no longer desires that his church be identified by a name that has worked in the past. His reasons are not important to me and I will use His preferred name, just like I use your preferred name. Not to do so is offensive.

That is a fair point. I think there is resistance and even resentment to change everywhere. If black people want to be known as African Americans or American Indians want to be known as Native Americans then there is resistance and resentment to what is seen as the “political correctness.” I can respect those groups for wanting to be reffered to in a more respectful and accurate manner. I will try to do the same for the Church.

[Anonymous]

bridget_night wrote:

dande48 wrote:

.. “Satan” just means “Whatever I passionately don’t like”. Pineapple on Pizza? Inspired by Satan.

[picture]

😆 :clap:

I dream of a world where one day pineapple can openly be on pizza without persecution…haha.

[Anonymous]

This just occurred to me:

Quote:

D&C 107

2 Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.

3 Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.

4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

This just occurred to me:

Quote:

D&C 107

2 Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.

3 Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.

4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Lol. Though in fairness Jesus Christ was not called “Jesus” nor “the Christ” while he was alive. I wonder if He’s ticked we get his name wrong so often?

[Anonymous]

The Jehovah’s Witnesses take very seriously the idea that omitting the name of deity is both offensive to God and limits of the saving power of the gospel.

[Anonymous]

dande48 wrote:

Lol. Though in fairness Jesus Christ was not called “Jesus” nor “the Christ” while he was alive. I wonder if He’s ticked we get his name wrong so often?

Hmm… sort of. Latin and Greek were widely spoken in Jesus’ home area, and he would have been referred to as something very similar in them. Jesus had dealings with Romans (they executed him for one!), so likely as not he would have been referred to as Iesus/Iesous in his presence while still alive.

Roy wrote:

The Jehovah’s Witnesses take very seriously the idea that omitting the name of deity is both offensive to God and limits of the saving power of the gospel.

They go to the other extreme and insert Jehovah in everywhere it does not appear in the original. The textual evidence suggests that in OT times, the supreme being was known by a number of names. YHWH was one, albeit the most important one. Jews won’t even say the name YHWH out loud.

(Despite all the criticisms of JWs, Jehovah isn’t as far removed from YHWH as some make out. We use a hard J, but in languages such as German, the similarity is more apparent to the original Yod. Waw can be transliterated as V and is also known as Vav. The vowels are debatable, and may never be known for sure.)

[Anonymous]

SamBee wrote:

The RLDS/CoC name change was I believe more understandable.

Once again, The Community of Christ is way ahead of us!

[Anonymous]

FaithfulSkeptic wrote:

SamBee wrote:

The RLDS/CoC name change was I believe more understandable.

Once again, The Community of Christ is way ahead of us!

Different reasons.

The RLDS didn’t want to be confused with us!

[Anonymous]

From the Mormon :crazy: newsroom:

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-name-alignment” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-name-alignment

Quote:

The Church’s official website will become ChurchofJesusChrist.org. This change is effective today, March 5, 2019, when the domain name ChurchofJesusChrist.org begins pointing to the LDS.org home page. In the coming months, the ChurchofJesusChrist.org domain name will replace what were the following:

[Author]

Posts