Recommended Posts

I love the symbol too.  Too complicated to wear around your neck though.  Thank goodness.

Much better than this symbol which is found on military headstones.  

And I freakin love Mormon and Moroni.

E5DD3F27-44FF-415B-9755-531626F9C42F.jpeg.e5986f051d8bcf0188e5817da60cf496.jpeg

EE8E5F65-6D48-49BB-91FB-AD3FAB10C579.jpeg.90d53f6ebb6bf6caf3dcd98732088f75.jpeg

Edited by mikbone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Is that our long lost Carb?  

 I never lose carbs.  I love food too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I would hazard a guess, and it is just a guess, it is in commemoration of Palm Sunday and the First Vision.

It was done at the centennial of the church as well, and as this is the bi-centennial of the First Vision, it would seem appropriate if we are celebrating that momentous occasion.

It would seem more appropriate than many other suggestions I've heard spread around the internet, and the timing and situation would be appropriate.  Celebrating the First Vision, the beginning of the Restoration, and the Gospel being on earth at it's bicentennial seems to be a good reason for it in and of itself. 

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikbone said:

Hitting D&C 110 & the Priesthood pretty hard.

Yes those were largely the two main themes. It made me think of these verses as it pertain to the Priesthood and the temple:

D&C 84: 20 Therefore, in the ordinances thereof, the power of godliness is manifest. 21 And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh; 22 For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.

Leading up to the dedication of the Kirtland temple Joseph Smith promised that all those who were sufficiently pure would see God. I had always limited this promise to just the dedicatory service and the events surrounding in it in which Jesus Christ did appear to Joseph Smith. But if we think about it what is the purpose of the temple but to prepare a person to enter into God's presence and to see Him. And this is made possible by the Priesthood ordinances that are administered there and the accompanying covenants which if lived can produce the godliness necessary to enter Gods presence and "live." 

The last verse in section 110 after all the keys are restored it says: 16 Therefore, the keys of this dispensation are committed into your hands; and by this ye may know that the great and dreadful of the Lord is near, even at the doors.

So these keys, which when exercised always find ultimate fulfillment in the temple for both the living and the dead and are preparatory for the Lord's Second Coming. This got me thinking about how the promise of seeing the Lord in the temple is probably not much different from the promise of being prepared to abide his Second Coming. In both cases we are being prepared to see the Lord. 

So we tie all of this in with the First Vision where the boy Joseph sees the Lord and our prophet's call to "Hear Him" and I would say we have a prophet who is very serious about getting us ready for important things. I am curious what the announced purpose of the solemn assembly will be and how it will tie into all of this (assuming I'm not totally out in left field).

Edited by laronius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

image.thumb.png.0a4214bb7433bd3d6d6962aa0014ad0c.png

Yay!

I'm totally down with the new logo. I think it's lovely, really great. I appreciate the artistry and the symbolism. But I don't understand why this logo, essentially a branding tool, merited a General Conference announcement, much less a center-stage announcement by the Prophet himself.

I am not criticizing at all; I honestly just don't get it. It seems like a prophetic prime-time General Conference announcement of, I don't know, a new BYU dress standard allowing slightly longer hair for men. If anyone can explain in simple terms, I'd love to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Vort said:

If anyone can explain in simple terms, I'd love to know.

I don't know either, I can only guess.  My best guess comes from what I know about organizational messaging and managing change.  In the secular/corporate world, when a business needs to adopt any sort of organizationwide change from the status quo, you need two things.  You need all levels of management, starting at the very top, to give voice to the change.  And you need the worker bees to see the point and be willing to adopt and run with the change.  If you are missing one of those, your change effort will fail. 

So, at least from an earthly understanding of how organizations enact change, if the new logo hadn't gotten senior leadership to announce it, it probably wouldn't have enough teeth to succeed.

(So yeah - I don't know either.  My explanation from the secular world seems to be missing something, but it's the best I've got.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

It was done at the centennial of the church as well, and as this is the bi-centennial of the First Vision, it would seem appropriate if we are celebrating that momentous occasion.

It would seem more appropriate than many other suggestions I've heard spread around the internet, and the timing and situation would be appropriate.  Celebrating the First Vision, the beginning of the Restoration, and the Gospel being on earth at it's bicentennial seems to be a good reason for it in and of itself. 

I’m just wondering if it’s a coincidence that the decay of the Nephite church commenced about 200 years after Christ appeared and now we are commemorating the 200th anniversary of His most recent recorded appearance.

 

 

24 And now, in this two hundred and first year there began to be among them those who were lifted up in apride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world.

25 And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more acommon among them.

26 And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up achurches unto themselves to get bgain, and began to deny the true church of Christ.

27 And it came to pass that when two hundred and ten years had passed away there were many churches in the land; yea, there were many churches which professed to know the Christ, and yet they did adeny the more parts of his gospel, insomuch that they did receive all manner of wickedness, and did administer that which was sacred unto him to whom it had been bforbidden because of unworthiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

I'm totally down with the new logo. I think it's lovely, really great. I appreciate the artistry and the symbolism. But I don't understand why this logo, essentially a branding tool, merited a General Conference announcement, much less a center-stage announcement by the Prophet himself.

I am not criticizing at all; I honestly just don't get it. It seems like a prophetic prime-time General Conference announcement of, I don't know, a new BYU dress standard allowing slightly longer hair for men. If anyone can explain in simple terms, I'd love to know.

This is not the first time the topic addressed did not seem to merit the importance that seemed to be placed upon it. When Pres Nelson first spoke about discontinuing the name Mormon and using the Church's true name he said (and repeated today) "I promise you that if we will do our best to restore the correct name of the Lord’s Church, He whose Church this is will pour down His power and blessings upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints, the likes of which we have never seen. We will have the knowledge and power of God to help us take the blessings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people and to prepare the world for the Second Coming of the Lord."

At the time I could not see how using the correct name of the Church, though important, could merit such promises. And if I'm honest I still don't. But it reminds me of yet another instance from some years ago. In 2000 the brethren put out The Living Christ document. I thought it was cool but frankly it did not say anything new. The prophets have always testified of the Christ. We have multiple sets of scriptures that testify of Christ. So why this document? Then 13 year later in General Conference Elder Hales said this:

"In recent decades the Church has largely been spared the terrible misunderstandings and persecutions experienced by the early Saints. It will not always be so. The world is moving away from the Lord faster and farther than ever before. The adversary has been loosed upon the earth. We watch, hear, read, study, and share the words of prophets to be forewarned and protected. For example, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” was given long before we experienced the challenges now facing the family. “The Living Christ: The Testimony of the Apostles” was prepared in advance of when we will need it most."

Making this connection between Christ and His Church known seems to be growing in importance. I don't pretend to know where this is all culminating but there is no way these are isolated or random changes. The Lord is preparing us and His Church for something. How much the prophet sees is anyone's guess.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Vort said:

I'm totally down with the new logo. I think it's lovely, really great. I appreciate the artistry and the symbolism. But I don't understand why this logo, essentially a branding tool, merited a General Conference announcement, much less a center-stage announcement by the Prophet himself.

I am not criticizing at all; I honestly just don't get it. It seems like a prophetic prime-time General Conference announcement of, I don't know, a new BYU dress standard allowing slightly longer hair for men. If anyone can explain in simple terms, I'd love to know.

If I may say, and this is just a guess based on observations..... I think it's because we as a whole have forgotten Him in our doings. When I hear members talk about church stuff, I rarely hear The Lord mentioned. It's more focused on things we do practically like the Word of Wisdom, self reliance, and family history. While these definitely are good things, people outside of the church will not associate us with The Lord if we don't show that we do such things because of Him. think about it, we even got commanded to focus on the church's proper name instead of "Mormons". Plus, since we often have used Moroni as a symbol, quite a few think that we worship angels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It heartens me to hear the terms used “Good Friday”and “Palm Sunday” when was the last time you heard those used in a sacrament meeting, my limited experience has shown me that we gloss over the Holy Week in our meetings. I am excited for this to be the new normal. To celebrate these holy days as other Christ centric church’s do. 
 

We have been letting this slip, I remember once I had to go to a mass at my daughters school. It was Palm Sunday there services occurred before ours so it was no big deal, I would go to mass @ 9am then our normal services @ 1130. 
 

I’ll tell you what they had a great sermon focused on Christ’s triumphant return. They even handed out crosses made out of palm leafs. I went to our  meeting and they had talks about family history and temple work. I don’t even think it was on anyone’s radar that it was Palm Sunday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

image.thumb.png.0a4214bb7433bd3d6d6962aa0014ad0c.png

Yay!

We don't do the cross, we do the arch.  The arch symbolizes the resurrection.  

Whats wrong with crosses? I know this discussion has been had before. A symbol is what you make of it. I see nothing wrong with the cross. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see  

1 minute ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Whats wrong with crosses? I know this discussion has been had before. A symbol is what you make of it. I see nothing wrong with the cross. 

I don't see anything wrong with crosses either.  My faith chooses to focus on the resurrection, rather than the atonement.  That doesn't mean there's something wrong with the atonement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Whats wrong with crosses? I know this discussion has been had before. A symbol is what you make of it. I see nothing wrong with the cross. 

I think there's the surface and a deeper idea behind it.

Today, in the cemetery you see many gravestones and crosses.  When a loved one dies we go to visit their grave at the cemetery.  Their gravestone marks where they lie.  We can remember them there. Normally they do not mark the way the individual died.

However, in general we do not wear the marks of how they were died or were killed.  If you had a relative that was killed by a 1969 black mustang running over them would you wear a copy of that mustang around your neck, post it on the wall, and put it everywhere to remind you of that black mustang?

What about if it was with a Remington .44 Revolver.  They were shot and killed.  Would you wear pictures and carvings of that revolver everywhere.  Would you put it up on your wall and say you remember them by posting pictures of that revolver?

Some see the cross in the same way.  The Cross was not how he completed the atonement, nor was it the purpose behind it.  It was the cause of his death which was an instrument along the way, but the atonement and his resurrection were composed of something far greater which we remember.  Instead of worshipping and wearing the instruments which were utilized to try to cause his death and to kill him we celebrate his name, his resurrection, and his triumph over sin and death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deseret News photo of Temple Square at Conference:

confsatam.cit_sh_01.0.thumb.jpg.c573ba9a52c5585128b37e625a248c82.jpg

Never thought I'd see Temple Square like that conference weekend! 

Are all the protesters doing so on facetime?

Anyway, one thing that does surprise me is that the main focus for a lot of people both inside and outside the Church is the logo change.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

t heartens me to hear the terms used “Good Friday”and “Palm Sunday” when was the last time you heard those used in a sacrament meeting, my limited experience has shown me that we gloss over the Holy Week in our meetings.

That's because we aren't Catholic and don't necessarily accept the Catholic religious calendar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

It heartens me to hear the terms used “Good Friday”and “Palm Sunday” when was the last time you heard those used in a sacrament meeting, my limited experience has shown me that we gloss over the Holy Week in our meetings. I am excited for this to be the new normal. To celebrate these holy days as other Christ centric church’s do. 
 

We have been letting this slip, I remember once I had to go to a mass at my daughters school. It was Palm Sunday there services occurred before ours so it was no big deal, I would go to mass @ 9am then our normal services @ 1130. 
 

I’ll tell you what they had a great sermon focused on Christ’s triumphant return. They even handed out crosses made out of palm leafs. I went to our  meeting and they had talks about family history and temple work. I don’t even think it was on anyone’s radar that it was Palm Sunday.

It's never been on my radar. This is all new to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I don't see  

I don't see anything wrong with crosses either.  My faith chooses to focus on the resurrection, rather than the atonement.  That doesn't mean there's something wrong with the atonement.

And to simply add to this, many people died on a cross. There were also false Christs and false prophets. It wasn't the cross that solidified who Christ was, it was his resurrection. The resurrection, He who triumphed OVER death that the GRAVE hath no STING, is the ultimate sign that the atonement was wrought.

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. The cross is the symbolism of death (Adam). The resurrection is the symbol/sign of life (Christ).

Edited by Anddenex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Vort said:

That's because we aren't Catholic and don't necessarily accept the Catholic religious calendar.

Sounds like that is changing, leave the Catholic religious calendar out of the discussion. It’s not relevant. Palm Sunday did happen, Good Friday or the crucifixion of Jesus did happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now