Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by creekster View Post
    The revelation was in the D&C, which is linked through the church's statement, where God DID reveal the name of the church. All the Prophet here is saying is that he has been impressed with the importance of that earlier revelation.

    In looking at the style guide, I don't see too much that should be a problem except for the request not to call members Mormons and to not refer to Mormonism. It's fine to ask that the chiurch's actual name be used when referring to the church, but I think the use of the terms "mormon" and :"mormonism" are so efficient and entrenched (its not only a nickname chosen for us, it is the nickname we chose to use) that I cant see the reference disappearing. But nothing in either the statement or the guide says this is a revelation. To the contrary, it distinguishes the revelation, which is in the D&C, from the statement, which is an impression.
    Uh, this seems a little nit picky. Impressions don't count as revelations? God can't issue another revelation on a topic he has already spoken to another prophet about? Instead, the new prophet just gets an "impression" with a scripture citation?
    Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

    "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by creekster View Post
      The revelation was in the D&C, which is linked through the church's statement, where God DID reveal the name of the church. All the Prophet here is saying is that he has been impressed with the importance of that earlier revelation.

      In looking at the style guide, I don't see too much that should be a problem except for the request not to call members Mormons and to not refer to Mormonism. It's fine to ask that the chiurch's actual name be used when referring to the church, but I think the use of the terms "mormon" and :"mormonism" are so efficient and entrenched (its not only a nickname chosen for us, it is the nickname we chose to use) that I cant see the reference disappearing. But nothing in either the statement or the guide says this is a revelation. To the contrary, it distinguishes the revelation, which is in the D&C, from the statement, which is an impression.
      I think most of the statement is pretty benign and agree that its going to have a hard time sticking. The main head scratcher for me was the request to use "Restored Church of Jesus Christ" as an acceptable shortcut. Seems out of touch and, honestly, could be perceived as quite arrogant if people use it insistently with their friends and neighbors.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by falafel View Post
        Uh, this seems a little nit picky. Impressions don't count as revelations? God can't issue another revelation on a topic he has already spoken to another prophet about? Instead, the new prophet just gets an "impression" with a scripture citation?
        Nit picky? It is a pretty clear and obvious distinction in my mind. An impression is like inspiration. It is a form of revelation in the sense that you have more fully discerned God's will, but it is not the equivalent of revealed scripture, such as the D&C. Or are you one of those people who thinks anything the sitting prophet utters is equivalent to revealed scripture?
        PLesa excuse the tpyos.

        Comment


        • I remember eye-rolling at Ballard’s 2911 talk also. I can’t recall the exact words, but it I seem to recall that he ended with the sentiment that we shouldn’t call ourselves Mormon, but it’s ok to still be referred as one. It was just a big head scratcher.

          And like BG, I don’t understand giving sanction using another approved ‘abbreviation’. If it is direct revelation that we should use the full name and stop using a nickname, why is it OK to use another one? It’s just kind of weird. If this is a rebranding move to distance members away from negative connotations of ‘mormon’, good luck. The members themselves are proud to call themselves Mormon.

          Also, I’d bet the majority of members would call the prophet using the phrase ‘the Lord has impressed upon my mind’ direct revelation. How is it not?
          "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
          "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
          - SeattleUte

          Comment


          • Originally posted by creekster View Post
            Nit picky? It is a pretty clear and obvious distinction in my mind. An impression is like inspiration. It is a form of revelation in the sense that you have more fully discerned God's will, but it is not the equivalent of revealed scripture, such as the D&C. Or are you one of those people who thinks anything the sitting prophet utters is equivalent to revealed scripture?
            I'm not one of those people. But I do think there's less room between revealed scripture and an inspired impression, as you put it.
            Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

            "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

            GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
              I remember eye-rolling at Ballard’s 2911 talk also. I can’t recall the exact words, but it I seem to recall that he ended with the sentiment that we shouldn’t call ourselves Mormon, but it’s ok to still be referred as one. It was just a big head scratcher.

              And like BG, I don’t understand giving sanction using another approved ‘abbreviation’. If it is direct revelation that we should use the full name and stop using a nickname, why is it OK to use another one? It’s just kind of weird. If this is a rebranding move to distance members away from negative connotations of ‘mormon’, good luck. The members themselves are proud to call themselves Mormon.

              Also, I’d bet the majority of members would call the prophet using the phrase ‘the Lord has impressed upon my mind’ direct revelation. How is it not?
              Well, for one thing, the proposed "Restored Church of Jesus Christ" is a lot more descriptive, and communicates a lot of the same things as the full name of the church. To the complete outsider, "Mormon" is no different than Episcopalian or Mennonite in terms of communicating our unique message to the world.
              Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

              "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

              GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

              Comment


              • Thank you to whoever changed the thread title!

                Comment


                • Anyone interested in going to a showing of Meet the Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the Legacy Theater tomorrow?

                  https://www.lds.org/church/events/te...rmons?lang=eng
                  As I lead this army, make room for mistakes and depression
                  --Kendrick Lamar

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post

                    Also, I’d bet the majority of members would call the prophet using the phrase ‘the Lord has impressed upon my mind’ direct revelation. How is it not?
                    I guess you don't like nuance very much? It is direct, in the sense that it is from God/the spirit to one person, the prophet. It is revelation, in the sense that God has shown his will more clearly. Thus, some aspect of God's will was directly revealed. But is is not the same as a "Thus saith the Lord" entry into scripture. Not only does this stand to reason, but he makes this very clear distinction in his own statement. There is obviously a question of how much difference exists between those two, as Falafel has pointed out. Personally, I see them as almost opposite ends of a spectrum. Here all the Prophet seems to be saying is that he got the feeling that we really need to do a much more complete job of implementing GOd's will as revealed long ago in the D&C. The revelation was the name for the church that God asked us to use. The impression is that we need to follow that revelation more fully. The result is a policy as expressed in the style guide. By the time we get to the style guide, we are at least two steps away from a scriptural revelation.
                    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by creekster View Post
                      I guess you don't like nuance very much? It is direct, in the sense that it is from God/the spirit to one person, the prophet. It is revelation, in the sense that God has shown his will more clearly. Thus, some aspect of God's will was directly revealed. But is is not the same as a "Thus saith the Lord" entry into scripture. Not only does this stand to reason, but he makes this very clear distinction in his own statement. There is obviously a question of how much difference exists between those two, as Falafel has pointed out. Personally, I see them as almost opposite ends of a spectrum. Here all the Prophet seems to be saying is that he got the feeling that we really need to do a much more complete job of implementing GOd's will as revealed long ago in the D&C. The revelation was the name for the church that God asked us to use. The impression is that we need to follow that revelation more fully. The result is a policy as expressed in the style guide. By the time we get to the style guide, we are at least two steps away from a scriptural revelation.
                      The thing that sucks about your spectrum is that it means we haven't had "scriptural revelation" in forever. But I'm willing to be that even you would agree that we've had plenty of high-level revelation since the last section of the D&C was added.
                      Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

                      "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

                      GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by falafel View Post
                        The thing that sucks about your spectrum is that it means we haven't had "scriptural revelation" in forever. But I'm willing to be that even you would agree that we've had plenty of high-level revelation since the last section of the D&C was added.
                        Actually, I agree that we have not had much scriptural type revelation for quite a while. It is one of the reasons I infer that God is a lot more hands off than we typically like to assume. He had a lot to tell us through Jospeh Smith. Less so through BY and so forth. Now it is primarily impressions because the meat of the restoration has already been served. We are here to figure things out largely on our own, IMO. I don't think this 'sucks' by the way, as it explains a lot of what I see around me and helps me reconcile some of my own spiritual impressions with my reasoned view of life. I certainly don't assert I am necessarily or exclusively correct, but it is how I see it.
                        Last edited by creekster; 08-17-2018, 11:58 AM.
                        PLesa excuse the tpyos.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by creekster View Post
                          I guess you don't like nuance very much? It is direct, in the sense that it is from God/the spirit to one person, the prophet. It is revelation, in the sense that God has shown his will more clearly. Thus, some aspect of God's will was directly revealed. But is is not the same as a "Thus saith the Lord" entry into scripture. Not only does this stand to reason, but he makes this very clear distinction in his own statement. There is obviously a question of how much difference exists between those two, as Falafel has pointed out. Personally, I see them as almost opposite ends of a spectrum. Here all the Prophet seems to be saying is that he got the feeling that we really need to do a much more complete job of implementing GOd's will as revealed long ago in the D&C. The revelation was the name for the church that God asked us to use. The impression is that we need to follow that revelation more fully. The result is a policy as expressed in the style guide. By the time we get to the style guide, we are at least two steps away from a scriptural revelation.
                          I ooze nuance, bro. My point was that I think most members who hear that phrase coming from a prophet would see no distinction between ‘thus saith the lord’-type revelation and the inspiration you’re talking about. I’ve seen members call less direct language from a prophet revelation. If he had said, ‘I feel impressed...’, then I’d be down with this tortured argument we’re having. But again, the prophet for the whole church said the Lord impressed him. Maybe here I am less nuanced, but there’s not a lot of difference between that and ‘thus saith...’. Just style, really.
                          "...you pointy-headed autopsy nerd. Do you think it's possible for you to post without using words like "hilarious," "absurd," "canard," and "truther"? Your bare assertions do not make it so. Maybe your reasoning is too stunted and your vocabulary is too limited to go without these epithets."
                          "You are an intemperate, unscientific poster who makes light of very serious matters.”
                          - SeattleUte

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Northwestcoug View Post
                            I ooze nuance, bro. My point was that I think most members who hear that phrase coming from a prophet would see no distinction between ‘thus saith the lord’-type revelation and the inspiration you’re talking about. I’ve seen members call less direct language from a prophet revelation. If he had said, ‘I feel impressed...’, then I’d be down with this tortured argument we’re having. But again, the prophet for the whole church said the Lord impressed him. Maybe here I am less nuanced, but there’s not a lot of difference between that and ‘thus saith...’. Just style, really.
                            Appeal to ortho-mo!

                            "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
                            "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
                            "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
                              Appeal to ortho-motcojcolds!

                              fify

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by SCcoug View Post
                                fify
                                "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
                                "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
                                "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X