Name of the Church


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

From President Nelson's October 2018 Conference talk:

"If we will be patient and if we will do our part well, the Lord will lead us through this important task..."

"We will want to be courteous and patient in our efforts to correct these errors..."

In the original announcement he said, "We have work before us to bring ourselves in harmony with His will. In recent weeks, various Church leaders and departments have initiated the necessary steps to do so. Additional information about this important matter will be made available in the coming months."

I guess the question is: When will this usage cease to be a major win for satan? I would think if it is still a win for satan then the websites and anything else deemed to be a victory for satan would go dark until they could figure out how to roll out this change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2019 at 3:00 AM, CommanderSouth said:

Something that has been nagging at me since the name emphasis for the church has been changing has been why we haven't been focusing on this sooner.  If we have been grieving the spirit since we have been embracing Mormon and such, why was this not stressed during the mormon.org push and the I'm a Mormon campaign?  I very much want to approach this in the right way, but I really do struggle with this question off and on. 

What do you all think?

Really - of all the things in this universe that concern me - this is way - way at the bottom of my list.  So much so that I am more concerned that anybody finds any reason to put this hear the top of their list of concerns.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, ephedra said:

I guess the question is: When will this usage cease to be a major win for satan? I would think if it is still a win for satan then the websites and anything else deemed to be a victory for satan would go dark until they could figure out how to roll out this change. 

Sometimes the wording chosen may not be exactly the wording they meant to say.  In this instance I think people may be stressing this specific thought he expressed to the extremes rather than understand that sometimes (and I also suffer from this, thus tend to be wordy to try to express myself and even fail then as well) what we mean to say may not be exactly how others interpret what we stated.

I feel in this instance he was not meaning to condemn any and all who used the nicknames, but rather trying to stress the importance that he felt in that members should be trying to use the name of the church as expressed in the Doctrine and Covenants.  I do not think (or I hope) he ever thought it would be interpreted to the extremes that many have interpreted it or taken it in their understanding of. 

He may be the Prophet but he is not infallible and is not yet perfect.  This means that sometimes he may mean something (and I think many understand what he meant) but it comes out in such a way that others may interpret it to say something entirely unintentional.

Thus, he never intended to try to castigate former prophets or the ideas presented previously in the church.  I feel (and this is my understanding, so I may have it wrong) that he was merely trying to impress the importance of the Saints going forward to use the Name of the church as presented in the Doctrine and Covenants and to talk about their fellow members of the church without the nicknames that had previously been attached to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Obviously this is my thought about what he intended and I could be wrong, but it is my feeling that this is what was intended...nothing more than that.

It was not meant as some have interpreted it to mean, where he was condemning many of the previous Prophets, Apostles, church membership and other things as having fallen into apostasy and fallen away or any other such crazy ideas I've seen that have come up from myriad interpretations of this phrase that he expressed.

He was expressing the importance he felt in listening to what he said about our terminology as Members.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

He may be the Prophet but he is not infallible and is not yet perfect.  This means that sometimes he may mean something (and I think many understand what he meant) but it comes out in such a way that others may interpret it to say something entirely unintentional. 

 

Agreed, but this stuff gets proof-read a lot and the several people likely to be doing that you would think would point out things and say...uh what exactly do you mean to say here? Of course as is common in many organizations is that the lower level people are afraid to criticize, offer advice or opinion so maybe a proof reader would be of no help in this case. Don't work there so who knows. 

There was a GA back in the day (poleman?? SP) who had to go back an re-record a conference talk and they pulled the old one so maybe no one looks at this stuff first. You know- correlation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ephedra said:

I guess the question is: When will this usage cease to be a major win for satan? I would think if it is still a win for satan then the websites and anything else deemed to be a victory for satan would go dark until they could figure out how to roll out this change. 

It ceases to be a major win for Satan individually when someone, just one person, corrects his own usage. So this has certainly already begun, in a similar fashion to what Spender W. Kimball once said, "“When Satan is bound in a single home—when Satan is bound in a single life—the Millennium has already begun in that home, in that life” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball [1982], 172)." This is also happening collectively as the Church manages the changes as the Lord accepts our offerings (similar to D&C 124:49, except this particular project will go on unimpeded by any enemies that I can see).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

It ceases to be a major win for Satan individually when someone, just one person, corrects his own usage. So this has certainly already begun, in a similar fashion to what Spender W. Kimball once said, "“When Satan is bound in a single home—when Satan is bound in a single life—the Millennium has already begun in that home, in that life” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, ed. Edward L. Kimball [1982], 172)." This is also happening collectively as the Church manages the changes as the Lord accepts our offerings (similar to D&C 124:49, except this particular project will go on unimpeded by any enemies that I can see).

 

One of my favorite quotes from Spencer W. Kimball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ephedra said:

I guess the question is: When will this usage cease to be a major win for satan? I would think if it is still a win for satan then the websites and anything else deemed to be a victory for satan would go dark until they could figure out how to roll out this change. 

Then the follow up question is, why would it need to go dark immediately before the change? They can easily progress by small and simple changes until all things have rolled out. Sure, human nature could mean, they may miss a site and then when informed they make the change -- NO BIG DEAL -- changes are being made. That's the point -- CHANGES ARE BEING MADE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

Similar to "lds.org" which is right now informing people on the site that it will be changed.

Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill with changes that are already taking place.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
12 hours ago, ephedra said:

I guess the question is: When will this usage cease to be a major win for satan? I would think if it is still a win for satan then the websites and anything else deemed to be a victory for satan would go dark until they could figure out how to roll out this change. 

You know they're working on this change as we speak, right?  Just type in ChurchofJesusChrisr.org.  the church emails have changed too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
On 3/16/2019 at 9:32 PM, let’s roll said:

Just a thought...consider how comfortable you are when you see Xmas during the Christmas season.

If you support the notion of not taking Christ out of Christmas, it’s only logical you’d support not taking Christ out of the name of His Church.

This is nothing but an urban legend.   Xmas has nothing to do with taking the name of Christ out of Christmas.

X is the Greek letter chi in Christós which is written in Greek as Χριστός, which was translated into Christ in English.  Christmas is a shortened version of Christ's Mass.  In Old English, this was written as Xp̄es mæsse which in Middle English was shortened to Xmas.  Writing Christmas as Xmas has been in place for several centuries.  It is only in recent decades that people have started to make a big deal out of and started claiming that it originated in recent years as an attempt to take Christ out of Christmas. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Scott said:

This is nothing but an urban legend.   Xmas has nothing to do with taking the name of Christ out of Christmas.

X is the Greek letter chi in Christós which is written in Greek as Χριστός, which was translated into Christ in English.  Christmas is a shortened version of Christ's Mass.  In Old English, this was written as Xp̄es mæsse which in Middle English was shortened to Xmas.  Writing Christmas as Xmas has been in place for several centuries.  It is only in recent decades that people have started to make a big deal out of and started claiming that it originated in recent years as an attempt to take Christ out of Christmas. 
 

A sincere thank you for the background you provided.  

While the origin of the term is interesting, it is unknown to the vast majority of people who use the term today, which is why style guides denigrate its use and etiquette guides say it shouldn’t be used in polite conversation.

My hope is that my attempt at a simple analogy didn’t distract you, and others, from the invitation I was trying to make in the last paragraph of my post.

Godspeed to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it matter what the name of the church is if it doesn't change behavior?  I think not, but as an official matter I can see why President Nelson wants to emphasize the name.  It's more of an outreach effort in my opinion, meaning it's for consumption by those outside the church.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott said:

This is nothing but an urban legend.   Xmas has nothing to do with taking the name of Christ out of Christmas.

X is the Greek letter chi in Christós which is written in Greek as Χριστός, which was translated into Christ in English.  Christmas is a shortened version of Christ's Mass.  In Old English, this was written as Xp̄es mæsse which in Middle English was shortened to Xmas.  Writing Christmas as Xmas has been in place for several centuries.  It is only in recent decades that people have started to make a big deal out of and started claiming that it originated in recent years as an attempt to take Christ out of Christmas. 
 

This isn't accurately true.

I had friends, atheists who would use "X-mas" because they did not believe in Christ and did not care about a "Greek" interpretation of the X. So, "Xmas" does have things to do with taking the name of Christ out of Christmas for many people I grew up with.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
46 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

This isn't accurately true.

I had friends, atheists who would use "X-mas" because they did not believe in Christ and did not care about a "Greek" interpretation of the X. So, "Xmas" does have things to do with taking the name of Christ out of Christmas for many people I grew up with.

 

Maybe so, but it wasn't a recent conspiracy meant to take Christ out of Christmas.   Your friends were just ignorant since X actually refers to Christ and the usage of Xmas came from Christians.  Xmas means Christmas, no matter what your friends or anyone else says.  Writing Xmas is actually keeping Christ in Christmas, but writing it a different way.  Xmas was actually preferred in many early text since it saved precious writing space.   

It is no different from saying that the word Christmas takes Jesus out of Christmas.  Christ refers to Jesus in Christmas as much as Xmas refers to Christ in Xmas.

Here is a page from the Lindisfarne Gospels, written about 1300 years ago:

Image result for lindisfarne gospels

In this particular example, chi-rho (Xr) is the way used to write Christ.  The X was also a reminder among Christians of the cross and crucifixion. 

In early and most centuries of Christianity, X or Xr were both a common way of writing Christ (including the X and r superimposed on each other); they were perhaps even the most common in certain time periods.   It is still all over in historic Christian art, writings, architecture, etc.:

chi-rho.jpeg

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Scott said:

Maybe so, but it wasn't a recent conspiracy meant to take Christ out of Christmas.   Your friends were just ignorant since X actually refers to Christ and the usage of Xmas came from Christians.  Xmas means Christmas, no matter what your friends or anyone else says.  Writing Xmas is actually keeping Christ in Christmas, but writing it a different way.  Xmas was actually preferred in many early text since it saved precious writing space.   

It is no different from saying that the word Christmas takes Jesus out of Christmas.  Christ refers to Jesus in Christmas as much as Xmas refers to Christ in Xmas.

Here is a page from the Lindisfarne Gospels, written about 1300 years ago:

Image result for lindisfarne gospels

In this particular example, chi-rho (Xr) is the way used to write Christ.  The X was also a reminder among Christians of the cross and crucifixion. 

In early and most centuries of Christianity, X or Xr were both a common way of writing Christ (including the X and r superimposed on each other); they were perhaps even the most common in certain time periods.   It is still all over in historic Christian art, writings, architecture, etc.:

chi-rho.jpeg

This is great, but I wasn't responding to the historic view of "X." I was responding to the following statement you provided, " Xmas has nothing to do with taking the name of Christ out of Christmas."

This isn't accurate. Friends ignorant or not ignorant of the historic view of X doesn't negate that there are people who use "Xmas" to remove Christ out of Christmas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

This is great, but I wasn't responding to the historic view of "X." I was responding to the following statement you provided, " Xmas has nothing to do with taking the name of Christ out of Christmas."

This isn't accurate. Friends ignorant or not ignorant of the historic view of X doesn't negate that there are people who use "Xmas" to remove Christ out of Christmas.

Now you can tell your friends that they are not actually removing Christ out of Christmas when using Xmas. 😊

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Then the follow up question is, why would it need to go dark immediately before the change? They can easily progress by small and simple changes until all things have rolled out. Sure, human nature could mean, they may miss a site and then when informed they make the change -- NO BIG DEAL -- changes are being made. That's the point -- CHANGES ARE BEING MADE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

Similar to "lds.org" which is right now informing people on the site that it will be changed.

Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill with changes that are already taking place.

Well is it a big deal?? Sure sounded like it in conference. Maybe not so much eh?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ephedra said:

Well is it a big deal?? Sure sounded like it in conference. Maybe not so much eh?
 

Of course it is a big deal, and this is why they are already making changes. Again, let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. The changes are being made. Just because the changes aren't being made according to your timeline and judgement, doesn't mean they aren't making a "big deal" out of this.

It's "no big deal" if the sites go dark or are changed overtime. What the Lord cares about is if the changes are being made -- and they are. You present a false dichotomy, either the sites go dark -- then this is a big deal like they said in conference, but if they don't cause all the current sites to go dark, then they aren't making it a big deal. The notion you present is making a mountain out of a molehill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

Of course it is a big deal, and this is why they are already making changes. Again, let's not make a mountain out of a molehill. The changes are being made. Just because the changes aren't being made according to your timeline and judgement, doesn't mean they aren't making a "big deal" out of this.

It's "no big deal" if the sites go dark or are changed overtime. What the Lord cares about is if the changes are being made -- and they are. You present a false dichotomy, either the sites go dark -- then this is a big deal like they said in conference, but if they don't cause all the current sites to go dark, then they aren't making it a big deal. The notion you present is making a mountain out of a molehill.

"Already making changes?" Already? It has been six plus months! Well I will give credit where credit is due- when you have to unravel what the last three Prophets did what they thought God approved of, it will take some time just to clean up all the links. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ephedra said:

"Already making changes?" Already? It has been six plus months! Well I will give credit where credit is due- when you have to unravel what the last three Prophets did what they thought God approved of, it will take some time just to clean up all the links.

Already? Yes, they are making changes already. The Lord nor his prophet isn't concerned with ephedra's judgement and timeline in order for something to be a "big deal." Oh my, it has been six months, heaven forbid it take this long. I mean, it should have only taken two days!

1) Lds.org is already transitioning to ChurchofJesusChrist.org - that is called making changes

2) Email communications will be sent using the domain name aforementioned -- Oh, ya, I just received one on March 15th with the new domain name, not lds.org.

3) 13 days ago the Church sent out an email addressing the following:

  • Mormon.org will be changed to ComeUntoChrist.org
  • Social media accounts will emphasize the Savior's Church

4) MormonNewsroom.org will be updated to (Newsroom.ChurchofJesusChrist.org)

You can read here the changes that are being made and will be made: https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-name-alignment

Unravel? Oh my, have fun conversing with the Lord and the Father on that one. Well, yes, they know it will take time to clean up all the links, and here you are complaining about "six months"! From the link provided,

Quote

Eventually, Mormon.org will be incorporated into the new domain as well. However, because its primary audience is those outside the Church, merging it with the Church member-focused ChurchofJesusChrist.org will take more time.

You mean, they already know these changes will take some time, even six months or more! Heaven forbid! Two days I say, two days! If not, they aren't working hard enough, or it isn't important or a big deal!

I have climbed the molehill (your mountain) without loosing breath. Keep up, it wasn't that big, actually took me one stride -- over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Already? Yes, they are making changes already. The Lord nor his prophet isn't concerned with ephedra's judgement and timeline in order for something to be a "big deal." Oh my, it has been six months, heaven forbid it take this long. I mean, it should have only taken two days!

1) Lds.org is already transitioning to ChurchofJesusChrist.org - that is called making changes

2) Email communications will be sent using the domain name aforementioned -- Oh, ya, I just received one on March 15th with the new domain name, not lds.org.

3) 13 days ago the Church sent out an email addressing the following:

  • Mormon.org will be changed to ComeUntoChrist.org
  • Social media accounts will emphasize the Savior's Church

4) MormonNewsroom.org will be updated to (Newsroom.ChurchofJesusChrist.org)

You can read here the changes that are being made and will be made: https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-name-alignment

Unravel? Oh my, have fun conversing with the Lord and the Father on that one. Well, yes, they know it will take time to clean up all the links, and here you are complaining about "six months"! From the link provided,

You mean, they already know these changes will take some time, even six months or more! Heaven forbid! Two days I say, two days! If not, they aren't working hard enough, or it isn't important or a big deal!

I have climbed the molehill (your mountain) without loosing breath. Keep up, it wasn't that big, actually took me one stride -- over it.

if you are going to respond, quit whining

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odd coincidence, I'm on Mormon.org right now chatting with Missionaries. Look who I am chatting with-

Hi Ephedra,

Thank you for your interest in chatting with a member of the Church. What would you like to talk about?

A representative will join the chat once you send a message.

Mormon.org3:28 PM

Welcome! As representatives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we devote our time to help people come closer to Him. We look forward to a thoughtful and considerate conversation about your questions as we explore the gospel together. Sound good to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
11 hours ago, ephedra said:

Odd coincidence, I'm on Mormon.org right now chatting with Missionaries. Look who I am chatting with-

Hi Ephedra,

Thank you for your interest in chatting with a member of the Church. What would you like to talk about?

A representative will join the chat once you send a message.

Mormon.org3:28 PM

Welcome! As representatives of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we devote our time to help people come closer to Him. We look forward to a thoughtful and considerate conversation about your questions as we explore the gospel together. Sound good to you?

As has already been explained, we are in a transition period.  I just checked and mormon.org and ComeUntoChrist.org go to the same place.  Transition . . . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of all the monumental problems facing the church in our society; the crumbling of the family, the plague of pornography, and drug and alcohol abuse (amongst many others) are we truly upset because the name change isn't happening fast enough? It really is a problem that the church is making the change slowly and thoroughly to make sure it's done right rather than a quick slapdash job they would have to be fixing constantly? Wow, I think I finally understand what the Lord meant when he criticized the Pharisees for straining at a gnat and trying to swallow a camel in Matthew 23:24.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share