Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[creekster]

The contradiction other people besides you see is the prophet-sanctioned celebration of the term 'mormon' for a generation, and then the abrupt prophetic edict against it. Speaking only for myself, if this is strictly a rebranding effort (which according to Nelson is not), it's rather small potatoes. But Nelson emphatically believes that doctrinally the church was in error. Which is fine, he's the prophet. I would say that for myself, the edict in isolation is not a big deal. It's when you consider what other worthy causes the church might focus on, rather than what name both the world and members choose to use, that starts some of those existential wheels in motion.

I dont think the other prophets ever said anything inconsistent with this policy. They never renamed the church. Accepting the sobriquet Mormon was probably the right approach in the day. It turned away wrath and avoided confrontation. It highlighted the Book of Mormon. At the time that was important and useful. Now there are broadway plays about the Book of Mormon, so it isnt quite as important to remind people about it. Instead, it might be more important to focus on the fact that we are Christ's church. Moreover, by suggesting that the only effect here is to annoy media editors I think you are under selling the possible purpose and the effect of the initiative. Think about how much time has been devoted to considering that this is a church for and about Christ since the talk was given. All of this goes to focus our efforts on being Christlike. I think you will see a net gain on commitment to other worthy pursuits rather than a net loss.

[creekster]

i especially liked that Gay guy's talk. probably my fave for all of conference - though slept through DFU's talk (would have fallen asleep before he spoke - assuming he did speak) this time around.

I liked Renlund's talk. Read his definition of sin and punishment. It warms my heart.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The contradiction other people besides you see is the prophet-sanctioned celebration of the term 'mormon' for a generation, and then the abrupt prophetic edict against it. Speaking only for myself, if this is strictly a rebranding effort (which according to Nelson is not), it's rather small potatoes. But Nelson emphatically believes that doctrinally the church was in error. Which is fine, he's the prophet. I would say that for myself, the edict in isolation is not a big deal.

Geez, come on. You already have a second-hand explanation for what RMN personally thinks of past practice and it is most certainly not how you are characterizing it.

It's when you consider what other worthy causes the church might focus on, rather than what name both the world and members choose to use, that starts some of those existential wheels in motion.

OK, this argument really bugs me (you are not the only one making it). Is there some fixed number of things that the church can focus on? You could use this argument to complain about virtually anything because there is always some other more pressing issue that people will subjectively find that is more important than issue X.

Also:

Critics: "The church should focus more on Christ."
Church: "We want to have a greater emphasis on using 'Jesus Christ' in the name of the church."
Critics: "Why are you focusing on this when there are so many other important things?"

[smokymountainrain]

i can see both sides here, but i like that last argument set forth by the monkey. #teamcreekster #teamrussellm

[smokymountainrain]

I liked Renlund's talk. Read his definition of sin and punishment. It warms my heart.

was dozing off during Renlund so only heard bits and pieces, but he is quickly becoming a must hear (need to plan my GC naps much better) among GC speakers as well.

[old_gregg]

But focusing on whether or how much Christ is unhappy or Satan is pleased rather than on trying to be more christlike is not a good idea, IMO

did you even listen to the talk?

Moreover, you ascribe the policy to the church, suggesting that it is not of Christ. That is simply not true. Christ told us what name to use. Now maybe the current emphasis is policy based, but CHrist;'s statement is pretty straightforward, the interpretative skills of others here notwithstanding,.

i don’t understand what this means. the premises of this argument are very simple.

[creekster]

did you even listen to the talk?



i don’t understand what this means. the premises of this argument are very simple.

Yes, I listened. I am sorry you don't understand. I did my best.

[falafel]

i especially liked that Gay guy's talk. probably my fave for all of conference - though slept through DFU's talk (would have fallen asleep before he spoke - assuming he did speak) this time around.

I really like E. Renlund's talk. Hooray for diversity in leadership!

[CardiacCoug]

so satan and jesus purportedly rejoicing/being offended, respectively, by official church-sponsored initiatives doesn't create tension in your mind?

Satan and Jesus and their reactions are metaphors dude.

[Bo Diddley]

was dozing off during Renlund so only heard bits and pieces, but he is quickly becoming a must hear (need to plan my GC naps much better) among GC speakers as well.

Agreed. We need someone who can give us the order of talks ahead of time.

[swampfrog]

i especially liked that Gay guy's talk. probably my fave for all of conference - though slept through DFU's talk (would have fallen asleep before he spoke - assuming he did speak) this time around.

Yep, one of the few that stood out for me also.

[jay santos]

did you even listen to the talk?



i don’t understand what this means. the premises of this argument are very simple.

I think creek is wanting you to interpret RMN the same way my marriage counselor tells me I should interpret my wife. Basically ignore everything she says and try to imagine a positive, logical underlying message and picture her saying that instead.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think creek is wanting you to interpret RMN the same way my marriage counselor tells me I should interpret my wife. Basically ignore everything she says and try to imagine a positive, logical underlying message and picture her saying that instead.

Legit LOL on that post.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think Mormon vs. TCoJCoLDS will always be a significant problem. I don't believe it reduces to emphasis on the name of the church. That perspective views it only or primarily an internal problem. It's not. When those that proclaim Christianity state that Mormons are not Christians, they are right. We may have many values in common, but the fact of the matter is we disagree on how and what the atonement is, and how to activate it one's personal life. We disagree on the nature of God, and the relationship between the members of the Trinity. We cannot insist that we are the restored church of Christ, (with the accompanying restoration of "true beliefs" about the most fundamental tenets of our relationship to God), and also simultaneously insist that we be allowed under the umbrella of Christianity. It's not our umbrella--and we have rejected what lies at its core. Those whose umbrella it is will continue to label us as "other", and rightly so. We are other. Mormon is a convenient "other" label. It's not going away.

The question is what to do about it. Some leaders have opted to embrace it, others have not. Any inspiration is going through that filter. Once I accepted church leaders as irreparably broken human revelation filters, with all of their intrinsic biases and prejudices, general conference became palatable. Does that mean I get to arbitrarily accept or reject their teachings based on my own irreparably broken human revelation filter? Yep, that's what it means. Why would I want it any other way? I want to be judged on my own moral decisions.

Well said, as always.

[old_gregg]

Yes, I listened. I am sorry you don't understand. I did my best.

using “mormon” makes jesus sad and satan happy. the church has sponsored at least two major media pushes, including a wide release movie, within the last five years that specifically define members as mormons. closed universe of options: 1. jesus and satan have developed their sensitivity since these campaigns, 2. jesus and satan were sad and happy respectively by official efforts of the church or 3. russ was imprecise and misrepresented or doesn’t actually know. you tell me.