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

[Jeff Lebowski]

RMN also gave us two hour church, so he can do whatever he wants, IMO.

Yes. I can't believe people are obsessing over the name thing. 2-hr church is a big deal.

[swampfrog]

Maybe his impressions are wrong. Maybe he is adding a spin ("satan is pleased when...") that goes beyond the mark of what God intended. Maybe God can do whatever the hell he wants and it doesn't have to make sense to you and me.

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.

[Pelado]

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.

Loved that.

[Northwestcoug]

Yes. I can't believe people are obsessing over the name thing. 2-hr church is a big deal.

Have you considered the possibility that even though a 2 hour block is a welcome change, some MOTCOJCOLDS more ortho than you do struggle defining divine revelation when it contradicts previous prophetic statements?

[creekster]

Have you considered the possibility that even though a 2 hour block is a welcome change, some MOTCOJCOLDS more ortho than you do struggle defining divine revelation when it contradicts previous prophetic statements?

What contradiction is there? I don't see one.

This isn't something that springs out of nowhere. This is in the book of mormon. Christ tells us what his church shall be called. The current policy is one of emphasis. We have always know what the name of the church is. We have always known this is what Christ said in the BoM. The question is whether we try to adopt it in the common vernacular or if we go ahead and use Mormon. If you view the struggle of life as a zero sum game between good and evil, christ and satan, then it is probably correct, although maybe a little extreme, to say that using the correct name pleases christ and using mormon pleases satan. But even staying away from what I personally see as a bit of hyperbole, why is it a big deal? So we rebrand things and encourage people to use the correct name. Sure, some people will go overboard and be self-righteous about it, but if this board is any indication, plenty of people will drag their feet and provide a counterweight to the new emphasis. But, really, is it that big of a deal? So now we want to emphasize Christ. How can all of you who have complained so loudly about needing to be more Christ-centered now squawk about an effort to emphasize Christ in the naming of things, which Christ told us to do?

I will go along as much as possible. I certainly will not correct non-member acquaintances. Sometimes I will remember, other times I won't. But I don't really see the big deal. Like JL and others said, 2 hour church is a MUCH bigger policy change in my weekly life.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Have you considered the possibility that even though a 2 hour block is a welcome change, some MOTCOJCOLDS more ortho than you do struggle defining divine revelation when it contradicts previous prophetic statements?

Appeal to ortho-mo!

[old_gregg]

What contradiction is there? I don't see one.

This isn't something that springs out of nowhere. This is in the book of mormon. Christ tells us what his church shall be called. The current policy is one of emphasis. We have always know what the name of the church is. We have always known this is what Christ said in the BoM. The question is whether we try to adopt it in the common vernacular or if we go ahead and use Mormon. If you view the struggle of life as a zero sum game between good and evil, christ and satan, then it is probably correct, although maybe a little extreme, to say that using the correct name pleases christ and using mormon pleases satan. But even staying away from what I personally see as a bit of hyperbole, why is it a big deal? So we rebrand things and encourage people to use the correct name. Sure, some people will go overboard and be self-righteous about it, but if this board is any indication, plenty of people will drag their feet and provide a counterweight to the new emphasis. But, really, is it that big of a deal? So now we want to emphasize Christ. How can all of you who have complained so loudly about needing to be more Christ-centered now squawk about an effort to emphasize Christ in the naming of things, which Christ told us to do?

I will go along as much as possible. I certainly will not correct non-member acquaintances. Sometimes I will remember, other times I won't. But I don't really see the big deal. Like JL and others said, 2 hour church is a MUCH bigger policy change in my weekly life.

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

[creekster]

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

If that is what I said or believed, I guess it might. But that is a mischaracterization so thankfully I will probably sleep well tonight.

[old_gregg]

If that is what I said or believed, I guess it might. But that is a mischaracterization so thankfully I will probably sleep well tonight.

what about those factual statements is a mischaracterization?

[Northwestcoug]

What contradiction is there? I don't see one.

This isn't something that springs out of nowhere. This is in the book of mormon. Christ tells us what his church shall be called. The current policy is one of emphasis. We have always know what the name of the church is. We have always known this is what Christ said in the BoM. The question is whether we try to adopt it in the common vernacular or if we go ahead and use Mormon. If you view the struggle of life as a zero sum game between good and evil, christ and satan, then it is probably correct, although maybe a little extreme, to say that using the correct name pleases christ and using mormon pleases satan. But even staying away from what I personally see as a bit of hyperbole, why is it a big deal? So we rebrand things and encourage people to use the correct name. Sure, some people will go overboard and be self-righteous about it, but if this board is any indication, plenty of people will drag their feet and provide a counterweight to the new emphasis. But, really, is it that big of a deal? So now we want to emphasize Christ. How can all of you who have complained so loudly about needing to be more Christ-centered now squawk about an effort to emphasize Christ in the naming of things, which Christ told us to do?

I will go along as much as possible. I certainly will not correct non-member acquaintances. Sometimes I will remember, other times I won't. But I don't really see the big deal. Like JL and others said, 2 hour church is a MUCH bigger policy change in my weekly life.

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.

[Northwestcoug]

Appeal to ortho-mo!

Like clockwork!

[Eddie]

I agreed to watch an hour of conference. I don't know how you guys do it. My eyeballs are still sore from rolling. The faith of my fathers has gone from quaint to kooky.

You watched the wrong hour. There were some pretty good talks in there - though I'll give you that others were not as good.

[smokymountainrain]

You watched the wrong hour. There were some pretty good talks in there - though I'll give you that others were not as good.

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.

[creekster]

what about those factual statements is a mischaracterization?

It mischaracterizes the nature of the joy/offense. Every time we move to Christ he is happy and satan isn't. Every time we move away the reverse. There are many, many commandments and non-eternal policies that we are asked to follow as part of Christ's body. 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. 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,.

[Sullyute]

Maybe God can do whatever the hell he wants and it doesn't have to make sense to you and me.

I think has been doing that for about 6000 years, give or take.