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

[old_gregg]

Legit LOL on that post.

i really don’t think we deserve santos on this here sports message blog.

[CardiacCoug]

It doesn’t seem necessary to get too caught up in the specific discourse and use of terms/metaphors right?

If you run Intermountain Healthcare and you are tired of people calling it IHC you say:

“When people hear IHC they think about this big bureaucratic institution like the IRS, a large, cold, unfeeling institution. IHC is bad for our image in the community, simply bad for business. Let’s call ourselves Intermountain or Intermountain Healthcare — that makes people think about our beautiful mountains, seems like a warmer kinder institution than IHC.”

If I were trying to rebrand us away from Mormons/Mormonism I would say “Uh you know when people hear Mormon they think about the BOM Musical, Big Love, polygamists, Sherlock Holmes, Mountain Meadows, etc.” When they hear the Church of Jesus Christ they think about Jesus and we can maybe fool some really dumb people into thinking we aren’t Mormons and over time it will be better for our brand to go away from “Mormon” and toward “Jesus.”

But when President Nelson is rebranding the corporation he is going to quote the Book of Mormon and talk about Satan rejoicing and all that stuff. But it’s the same thing as the other examples — just a discourse and metaphor choice peculiar to the calling. No biggie.

Of those options og I’m going with number 3

[HBCoug]

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.

Do we not all benefit greatly from the full Santos? Thanks, Jeffe!

[smokymountainrain]

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.

one of the funniest things ever posted on this site.

[beefytee]

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.

So what you're saying is that much like the terms "Doctor" or "Engineer", several religious sects have highjacked a generic term and tried to define it as something that makes them special and exclusionary of others.

[smokymountainrain]

Do we not all benefit greatly from the full Santos? Thanks, Jeffe!

amen, brother.

[Northwestcoug]

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.

'Correcting an error.' Our second-hand info notwithstanding, I'll stand by my assertion that he believes it was in error. Maybe a 'necessary' error, but an error that offends Jesus and makes Satan happy. I will trust his words.

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?"

I know it bugs you. Just so we are clear, I am not the all or nothing caricature you are describing. There will always be something that we can improve on, no matter how much energy we consecrate. I understand that, and most people here do. I doubt there's a lot of people who fall into your characterization anyways. In this case, it's the absence of the needed sermons that makes the one about name changing more glaring.

So if you want concrete examples, here you go. Before explaining why the whole church is in error using a nickname, and spending a lot of energy and money fixing that error, I would prefer sermons loving LGBTQ members, with apologies and doctrinal corrections when necessary. There's one. And then when that is done, go on to the next doctrinal error. Repeal section 132

[Pelado]

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.

That's awesome. Maybe I'll try to implement that at home, too.

[creekster]

It doesn’t seem necessary to get too caught up in the specific discourse and use of terms/metaphors right?

If you run Intermountain Healthcare and you are tired of people calling it IHC you say:

“When people hear IHC they think about this big bureaucratic institution like the IRS, a large, cold, unfeeling institution. IHC is bad for our image in the community, simply bad for business. Let’s call ourselves Intermountain or Intermountain Healthcare — that makes people think about our beautiful mountains, seems like a warmer kinder institution than IHC.”

If I were trying to rebrand us away from Mormons/Mormonism I would say “Uh you know when people hear Mormon they think about the BOM Musical, Big Love, polygamists, Sherlock Holmes, Mountain Meadows, etc.” When they hear the Church of Jesus Christ they think about Jesus and we can maybe fool some really dumb people into thinking we aren’t Mormons and over time it will be better for our brand to go away from “Mormon” and toward “Jesus.”

But when President Nelson is rebranding the corporation he is going to quote the Book of Mormon and talk about Satan rejoicing and all that stuff. But it’s the same thing as the other examples — just a discourse and metaphor choice peculiar to the calling. No biggie.

Of those options og I’m going with number 3

Although I would obviously describe it differently, and while I think there are other benefits CC is overlooking, I think this is pretty much right.

[creekster]

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.

I am just trying to figure things out.

[swampfrog]

So what you're saying is that much like the terms "Doctor" or "Engineer", several religious sects have highjacked a generic term and tried to define it as something that makes them special and exclusionary of others.

You can't use the phrase, "So what you're saying" without trigger warning tags. All human interaction by definition creates a special/exclusionary relationship. I can't so much as talk to another person without creating exactly that paradigm--my wife and I exclude our kids all of the time. As far as I can tell, there's no escaping that as part of the human condition. We are all included and excluded, both of which taken to the extreme become a problem (disagreement arises on where the line for "extreme" is placed). That view is either minimized or maximized by one's own biases, and by certain ideologies (especially those that see all exclusion as a power play). So yes, I'm in agreement that many groups (religious or not, Mormons included), have appropriated accepted language or societal customs, used them as a label for their own customs, rituals, and sacraments and then complained when others were not accepting.

[myboynoah]

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?"

serious lol; so true

[SteelBlue]

AP not opting in quite yet. At least not in the West Region.

110CCF93-3FCE-42F0-89E8-D9A6E6AC961F.jpg

[MartyFunkhouser]

AP not opting in quite yet. At least not in the West Region.

[ATTACH]9131[/ATTACH]

Major victory for Satan?

[MartyFunkhouser]

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.



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?"

To be fair, I don't think that most of the critics complaints about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are that they aren't focusing on Christ enough. SJBH.