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

[Northwestcoug]

Appeal to ortho-mo!

You didn’t even use my name with that logical fallacy Weren’t you going to call it the NWC argument? Looks like I have some mo ortho mo appealing to do...

[Applejack]

No mention of the prophet's archaic use of "even?"

The Lord has impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He has revealed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

#podcastfail

[creekster]

No mention of the prophet's archaic use of "even?"



#podcastfail

I think he might just be alluding to the D&C revelation which I believe uses this wording.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Lebowski, I think you are my favorite ortho-motcojcolds on this site.

[creekster]

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.

I think you're wrong. Within my experience most members see a clear difference between scripture, like the D&C, and short press releases or statements. I also cant believe that you find this "tortured" when the impression/revelation distinction is made in the very statement we are talking about.

And let me see if I understand your point here: If the statement said "I am impressed" then it means no revelation? So what is that impression? Just random late night musing? But because he said "The Lord has impressed" then it leapfrogs any sort of intermediate level type of church statement (conference talks, for example) and should be held as closely as the standard works? Does that really make much sense? It is hard for me to believe that you really think this. The issue here isn't what SOME members might think or how SOME people might interpret the statement. I am sure that there are SOME people who agree it is like canon. So what? The issue is what did he actually say and how should we view it. If you want to assume that every time a prophet says "The Lord has impressed me" that it is equivalent to a standard work, that's your right. I find that to be an unreasonable and unsupportable position. The funny thing is that you will be thinking this without darkening the doors of the church and I will be living my much less orthodox approach from my regular pew, every Sunday.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Lebowski, I think you are my favorite ortho-motcojcolds on this site.

Thanks, man. That means a lot to me.

[Bo Diddley]

Appeal to ortho-motcojcolds!

fify

Man, even the acronym is a mouthful!

[Topper]

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.

So members are all supposed to be lawyers so they may splice words to figure out if something is revelation or not?

[Bo Diddley]

Haha! Front page of CNN.

Capture.JPG

Edit:

This effort to distance itself from the Mormon name isn't new. Leaders of the faith -- which has more than 16 million members worldwide -- made similar efforts in 1982, 2001 and 2011, CNN affiliate KSTU reported.

...

But Mason's not sure if this effort will catch on either. Other than Nelson saying he felt inspired to do this, Mason said there doesn't seem to be an obvious "reason why (Nelson) would feel that they might be more successful this time around than in the past."

I agree with this. Maybe it won't be more successful, but that doesn't mean he's wrong to try again.

[falafel]

Haha! Front page of CNN.

[ATTACH]8977[/ATTACH]

Edit:



I agree with this. Maybe it won't be more successful, but that doesn't mean he's wrong to try again.

But does it mean he's right to try again? Why are we trying again, again?

[Bo Diddley]

But does it mean he's right to try again? Why are we trying again, again?

I don't want to be guilty of appeal to authority, but if it's the Lord's will, then yes, he's absolutely right.

[Northwestcoug]

I think you're wrong. Within my experience most members see a clear difference between scripture, like the D&C, and short press releases or statements. I also cant believe that you find this "tortured" when the impression/revelation distinction is made in the very statement we are talking about.

And let me see if I understand your point here: If the statement said "I am impressed" then it means no revelation? So what is that impression? Just random late night musing? But because he said "The Lord has impressed" then it leapfrogs any sort of intermediate level type of church statement (conference talks, for example) and should be held as closely as the standard works? Does that really make much sense? It is hard for me to believe that you really think this. The issue here isn't what SOME members might think or how SOME people might interpret the statement. I am sure that there are SOME people who agree it is like canon. So what? The issue is what did he actually say and how should we view it. If you want to assume that every time a prophet says "The Lord has impressed me" that it is equivalent to a standard work, that's your right. I find that to be an unreasonable and unsupportable position. The funny thing is that you will be thinking this without darkening the doors of the church and I will be living my much less orthodox approach from my regular pew, every Sunday.

In my opinion most ortho mos.......

Alright. Here’s how I felt when I used to be ortho. If we were talking about a bishop, a stake president, or even a 70, I could easily agree with you that the semantics we are arguing would be irrelevant. Any one of those could be issuing inspired messages that are based on prior ‘scripture-level’ revelation. Wouldn’t even bat an eye if a 70 would issue the phrase ‘the lord has impressed me...’. And I certainly wouldn’t sweat a press release. But when the guy we are sustaining as a revelator speaks, it’s a little more dicey playing the ‘inspiration vs revelation’ game. When the revelator speaks, we listen. I suppose if he says that women should only have one pair of earrings, you and I can see room for nuance. But if the most important revelator on the face of the earth says ‘the lord impressed me’, I nuance that at my own peril. The index of revelatory suspicion is rightfully low when he talks in an official capacity, no matter what verbiage he uses.

I’ll let others decide how much of this opinion is held in the general church, for I shall not make an appeal to ortho mos again today.

Creek, I find this argument tortured, partly because I think you and I are really not that far apart wrt this issue, yet you are parsing it like crazy, and partly because I never know what you’re going to take umbrage at. And partly because I’m not even sure if I’m addressing the point you are reacting against.

[creekster]

In my opinion most ortho mos.......

Alright. Here’s how I felt when I used to be ortho. If we were talking about a bishop, a stake president, or even a 70, I could easily agree with you that the semantics we are arguing would be irrelevant. Any one of those could be issuing inspired messages that are based on prior ‘scripture-level’ revelation. Wouldn’t even bat an eye if a 70 would issue the phrase ‘the lord has impressed me...’. And I certainly wouldn’t sweat a press release. But when the guy we are sustaining as a revelator speaks, it’s a little more dicey playing the ‘inspiration vs revelation’ game. When the revelator speaks, we listen. I suppose if he says that women should only have one pair of earrings, you and I can see room for nuance. But if the most important revelator on the face of the earth says ‘the lord impressed me’, I nuance that at my own peril. The index of revelatory suspicion is rightfully low when he talks in an official capacity, no matter what verbiage he uses.

I’ll let others decide how much of this opinion is held in the general church, for I shall not make an appeal to ortho mos again today.

Creek, I find this argument tortured, partly because I think you and I are really not that far apart wrt this issue, yet you are parsing it like crazy, and partly because I never know what you’re going to take umbrage at. And partly because I’m not even sure if I’m addressing the point you are reacting against.

To be clear I take no umbrage here. Apart from a time or two when that noted provocateur PAC stirred me to indignation, I rarely get angry about stuff here (annoyed, yes; angry, no).

Second, I am NOT parsing like crazy. I didn't draw the distinction, the prophet drew the distinction in the original statement. But I do think he said what he said for a reason. Moreover, you are the one who drilled down and made what I see as a distinction without any meaningful difference ("I am impressed" [in a religious context] versus "The Lord impressed me").

Third, if you want to see the statement as binding on you just as scriptures, then go ahead. I just don't see it that way and I think my position is both reasoned and reasonable. I have lived a long time and seen a lot of policies and impressions come and go. If you think every time the prophet shares an impression he felt from the Lord he is revealing a scripturally important truth, you will soon be very disappointed and likely confused. It just isn't how it works. In my opinion it has never worked this way and it is NOT supposed to work this way.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is a weird debate.

I agree with creekster.

[Northwestcoug]

To be clear I take no umbrage here. Apart from a time or two when that noted provocateur PAC stirred me to indignation, I rarely get angry about stuff here (annoyed, yes; angry, no).

Second, I am NOT parsing like crazy. I didn't draw the distinction, the prophet drew the distinction in the original statement. But I do think he said what he said for a reason. Moreover, you are the one who drilled down and made what I see as a distinction without any meaningful difference ("I am impressed" [in a religious context] versus "The Lord impressed me").

Third, if you want to see the statement as binding on you just as scriptures, then go ahead. I just don't see it that way and I think my position is both reasoned and reasonable. I have lived a long time and seen a lot of policies and impressions come and go. If you think every time the prophet shares an impression he felt from the Lord he is revealing a scripturally important truth, you will soon be very disappointed and likely confused. It just isn't how it works. In my opinion it has never worked this way and it is NOT supposed to work this way.

I lied. I am going to appeal to the ortho mo one more time today. I doubt the typical member sees the distinction creekster says president Nelson intentionally made. The living prophet referenced a previous prophet’s declaration. Whether or not Nelson sees a difference, I don’t think you will have a hard time finding members who see revelation from god working on him in this instance now.

I agree that your position is reasonable, very much so. I am not arguing that your opinion is wrong. You seem to be taking it personally. I’m arguing that others have a different opinion. That’s what ortho mo arguments are made of.