- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Katzpur wrote:
SamBee wrote:
One of the things that upsets me these days is so much attention is paid to words, and usually to derive offense from where none is meant!Since the word “Mormon” was nixed (except in ref to the BoM), I notice some LDS get annoyed about the use of Mormon. It never bothers me, to be honest, and I do not think it is an unkind nickname.
My only objection to the word concerns when people speak of “Mormon polygamists.” I wish there were a easy way to distinguish ourselves from the fringe groups. “LDS” as opposed to “FLDS” seems to work, so in that respect, I prefer “LDS” to “Mormon.” However, I use both “Mormon” and
“LDS” and refuse to feel like I’m giving Satan any kind of a victory when I use the word “Mormon.”
FLDS are a bit like those embarrassing cousins none of our family speaks about any more. I think they will be referred to as Mormon, as much as we will despite any officially pronouncements from our church. The media still does it. It reminds me of what the Serenity Prayer says – about needing help to accept the things we cannot change. We can’t do much about our relationship with these creepy fundie groups and their plural marriages… What we can do is present a good image of ourselves by behaving in a Christlike manner, not just talking about it. The Catholic church has umpteen offshoots like Mel Gibson’s groups, but these are of little concern to it… Its main priority is keeping its own house in order.
How far are we supposed to go? Is the Book of Mormon going to be known as just “Another Testament of Jesus Christ? Will Mormon crickets be rebranded? Are we going to have to go back like Stalin did and alter all our old photographs so that the word disappears along with the Moroni logo?
I support a heavier emphasis on Jesus Christ. But I don’t think the use of “Mormon” drives us away from him.
DarkJedi wrote:
Katzpur wrote:
However, I use both “Mormon” and “LDS” and refuse to feel like I’m giving Satan any kind of a victory when I use the word “Mormon.”
I generally chuckle at the Satan thing. I think it’s one of those instances where RMN has no clue what he’s saying or even talking about. Satan and I aren’t best buds (I don’t believe there is actually a singular Satan being) but I don’t think the rest of the world cares as much about Mormons as some Mormons seem to think they do – and neither does Satan (if there is one).
There is something faintly ridiculous about the notion that Evil personified is trying to tempt us into using words like Mormon or Home Teacher. It isn’t exactly the master plan of evil is it? You just have to look out there and see all the nastiness of this year to know that it would pretty low priority, well below getting some school kid to put gum under their chair.
As unfortunately you guys know, our church has bigger problems with pride, puritanism and prejudice. It wouldn’t be Satan’s priority and it shouldn’t be ours either, despite us being on opposite sides.
SamBee wrote:
FLDS are a bit like those embarrassing cousins none of our family speaks about any more.
Yes! I believe “Mormon Polygamists” are a major reason for this rebranding. These and many other offshoot group have as much claim to the word Mormon as we do.It’s sort of like the Catholic church (hypothetically) claiming that they have a monopoly on Christianity and Jesus Christ and all of the other churches that started long after the fact must now come up with a different name.
Roy wrote:
SamBee wrote:
FLDS are a bit like those embarrassing cousins none of our family speaks about any more.
Yes! I believe “Mormon Polygamists” are a major reason for this rebranding. These and many other offshoot group have as much claim to the word Mormon as we do.I’ve always found them ironic given our origin story. Joseph Smith is told to join none of the churches, but then sets up a movement, which to my knowledge has resulted in at least a hundred offshoots (and some are really obscure). These offshoots began in JS’ lifetime (the fallen prophet motif), accelerated after his death (since BY was not the only show in town), and happen every time there is a major change in SLC doctrine.
The Community of Christ/RLDS have eschewed the Mormon label for decades, I believe. In their case, they have a better logic for doing so than we do. I’ve nothing against them, but they seem to have their own problems – their prophets were supposed to be descendants of JS, but that line died out, and they’ve also got a very big temple I’m told it takes a lot of money to maintain.
Roy wrote:
It’s sort of like the Catholic church (hypothetically) claiming that they have a monopoly on Christianity and Jesus Christ and all of the other churches that started long after the fact must now come up with a different name.
I agree. I know a good few RCs, and they have varying attitudes to other churches. The split with the Orthodox Churches came about from a difference over a few words in the Creed (or was it the Mass?). The main reason was political though and came out of the fact the Roman Empire was split in half.
As someone of Protestant origins, I could never accept a number of RC claims. For one, I was acutely aware that Rome was the head of a brutal pagan Empire, and that Christianity has no particular reason to be run from there. Secondly, Rome replaced the agency of believers with secular power and dubious doctrine. Thirdly, the Vatican relies on some questionable origin myths and forged documents.
But on the other hand… Rome does have the FLDS problem. Mel Gibson is emphatically NOT a Roman Catholic. But the mass media keep calling him one. He’s a member of a recent split off (not Protestant), and a small one at that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.