Mormons Building Bridges founders tacitly acknowledge: “We’ve been taken over by anti-Mormons”.


Recommended Posts

They don’t say it openly, of course.

Apparently the founders, as a nod to President Nelson, suggested changing the group’s name to “Saints Building Bridges”, which caused a critical mass of members to drop the mask of loyalty and swamp the founders with a bunch of Facebook messages along the lines of “what are we listening to that ol’ poo-poo-head for?”

Takeaways:

1)  President Nelson is seeming wilier and wilier every day.

2)  They went full anti-Mormon.  Never go full anti-Mormon.  

3)  Anyone want to place bets on how long it will take before this “Emmaus” group goes the same way as MBB?

4)  It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at all of this.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is more complicated then the article makes it out to be.  I think there are more elements involved than simply those evil, dirty, anti-Mormon folks.

I think there are several different types of people (and possibly more).

1.  There are those that do not see why the change of the name should be enforced.  They realize that it does not matter how hard the Church tries to rebrand itself and it's name, it's really not going to change what other people refer to the Members of our Church as, especially as saying the full name of the Church is more of a mouthful and takes more space than simply calling it by some of the nicknames (though admittedly I think this argument gets weaker when you are only going to use the term Saints instead of the full name of the church itself).

   1a.  Subset of the above - There are those that see the reasons why the name should be changed to accord more with the prophetic direction, but at the same time also see the organization not just as an outreach for those who are or were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but all the various denominations and branches that came off of it (the Fundamentalists, the Reorganized, etcs) and find the term Mormon more broadly seen to be able to gather people from ALL of those groups rather than just specifically our church.

2.  There are those that are faithful members in the mix trying to show that we have a love for all men and women.

3.  There are those that are faithful members that are also LGBT.  They are trying to remain faithful while they also are LGBT.

4.  There are those that are LGBT that struggle between what they identify as their personality being LGBT while still being members of the church.  Though they struggle, they still try to remain members loyal to the church.

5.  There are those that were hurt emotionally or otherwise by other members in the church.  They struggle with this.  It may not necessarily be something from the church itself that hurt them, but they interpret the personal hurt by a member as representing the church.  They struggle with this hurt but are still wanting some involvement with the church itself and thus are a member of this group.

6.  There are those that DO feel hurt by the policies of the church.  Something they have experienced from the church policies that conflict with their identity of being LGBT has caused them a great deal of hurt, and from that stems anger which they direct towards the church.  This group has tried to heal some of those wounds that these types of people feel, but these wounds can sometimes fester under the surface and come out in lashes of anger at times.  This could be one of those triggering items.

7.  There are those that came to disrupt and show that the church was bad.  They are avowedly anti-Mormon.  They are in the mix to try to convince others of this.  They sometimes go under the guise that they are there for the fellowship of the rest of the LGBT community, but they are really there because they want to tear down the church as they see it as an enemy to LGBTQI.

8.  There are probably a great deal more various groups beyond just the ones I listed above that are involved in MBB.

I think a great deal of the pushback was due to groups #1 and #7 with a few others from the rest influenced by those two groups.  Something we should know is that sometimes the ones that shout the loudest may not be the majority, and in this case I don't think that the anti-Mormons are necessarily the largest group among the MBB.  I think there are probably a great deal of people in the other groups that are trying to work out how they feel about the church or trying to work within the church for their personal salvation and use MBB as a vehicle to help with that.  Because of this, and how many different types of people there are I think this situation can be a lot more complicated than it may appear on the surface.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think there are several different types of people (and possibly more).

I assume you mean that there are various camps among the members of "Mormons Building Bridges" who object to the organizational name change to "Saints Building Bridges". For any practical purpose, I disagree with this assessment.

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

1.  There are those that do not see why the change of the name should be enforced.  They realize that it does not matter how hard the Church tries to rebrand itself and it's name, it's really not going to change what other people refer to the Members of our Church as

Such people are wrong in what they falsely "realize". But in any case, I suspect that few of the people objecting to the name change are doing so because, you know, SLTrib types are going to call them "Mormons" anyway. Most people don't get emotionally worked up about such silly items, certainly not to the point where they make a public stink about it. So what if others are going to continue calling Saints "Mormons"? That's no good reason to oppose changing the organization name. People of this type might have divergent opinions about that proposed name change, but few or none of them will get overly upset over it. I disbelieve that any more than an insignificant minority are in this camp of vocally objecting to the name change just because they think other people will still call them "Mormons". Such an objection simply does not make sense.

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

2.  There are those that are faithful members in the mix trying to show that we have a love for all men and women.

Why would such people be opposed to renaming "Mormons" to "Saints"? Even if such a class existed, they would form a very tiny minority of those objecting to the name change.

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

3.  There are those that are faithful members that are also LGBT.  They are trying to remain faithful while they also are LGBT.

Again, why would such people be opposed to renaming "Mormons" to "Saints"? It's unlikely that such people would be opposed to a name change simply because they are homosexuals who want to remain faithful. Any such a class would form a tiny minority of the total who object to the name change.

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

4.  There are those that are LGBT that struggle between what they identify as their personality being LGBT while still being members of the church.  Though they struggle, they still try to remain members loyal to the church.

Why would such people be opposed to renaming "Mormons" to "Saints"?

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

5.  There are those that were hurt emotionally or otherwise by other members in the church.  They struggle with this.  It may not necessarily be something from the church itself that hurt them, but they interpret the personal hurt by a member as representing the church.  They struggle with this hurt but are still wanting some involvement with the church itself and thus are a member of this group.

Why would such people be opposed to renaming "Mormons" to "Saints"?

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

6.  There are those that DO feel hurt by the policies of the church.  Something they have experienced from the church policies that conflict with their identity of being LGBT has caused them a great deal of hurt, and from that stems anger which they direct towards the church.  This group has tried to heal some of those wounds that these types of people feel, but these wounds can sometimes fester under the surface and come out in lashes of anger at times.  This could be one of those triggering items.

Why would such people be opposed to renaming "Mormons" to "Saints"?

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

7.  There are those that came to disrupt and show that the church was bad.  They are avowedly anti-Mormon.  They are in the mix to try to convince others of this.  They sometimes go under the guise that they are there for the fellowship of the rest of the LGBT community, but they are really there because they want to tear down the church as they see it as an enemy to LGBTQI.

This class of people, and this class alone, would object to the renaming. In their minds, "Mormon" sounds cultish and weird, while "Saints" doesn't, so therefore they much prefer "Mormon". These are most likely to be the people driving objection to the name change, not any of the other above-mentioned groups. Note that those objecting to the name change are more than just a tiny but vocal minority; they appear to be a majority. Ergo, we can conclude that most members of "Mormons Building Bridges" are antiMormons.

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

8.  There are probably a great deal more various groups beyond just the ones I listed above that are involved in MBB.

Other than the aforementioned antiMormons, which subgroups would object to replacing "Mormons" in their organization's name with "Saints"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the greatest unsung heroes, and defenders of biblical sexuality, is Dr. Warren Throckmorton. He is professor of Psychology at Grove City College, in, yep, Grove City, PA. Approximately 20 years ago a group of Christian men came to him. They said they had same-sex attraction, but as Christians believed that it would be a sin to fulfill those attractions. They asked that he meet with them weekly for therapy and Bible study. He agreed. Eventually he developed Sexual Identity Therapy (helping religiously-motivated, same sex-attracted men maintain celibacy). After a few years he submitted SIT (with another Christian psychologist) to the APA. Despite much political push-back, APA approved the therapy. My rough recollection of Dr. Glasgow's (head of the APA committee that examined the work) summary comment: As surprising as it is to some of us, for a number of people who they worship is more important than who they sleep with. Here's the SIT: https://sitframework.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/sexualidentitytherapyframeworkfinal.pdf

Dr. Throckmorton's quiet love is far superior to those who claim a form of godliness, but yell at church leadership, "Love is love!" I beg to differ. Love is not selfish. I will not feed my flesh by causing another to stumble.

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

I assume you mean that there are various camps among the members of "Mormons Building Bridges" who object to the organizational name change to "Saints Building Bridges". For any practical purpose, I disagree with this assessment.

Such people are wrong in what they falsely "realize". But in any case, I suspect that few of the people objecting to the name change are doing so because, you know, SLTrib types are going to call them "Mormons" anyway. Most people don't get emotionally worked up about such silly items, certainly not to the point where they make a public stink about it. So what if others are going to continue calling Saints "Mormons"? That's no good reason to oppose changing the organization name. People of this type might have divergent opinions about that proposed name change, but few or none of them will get overly upset over it. I disbelieve that any more than an insignificant minority are in this camp of vocally objecting to the name change just because they think other people will still call them "Mormons". Such an objection simply does not make sense.

Why would such people be opposed to renaming "Mormons" to "Saints"? Even if such a class existed, they would form a very tiny minority of those objecting to the name change.

Again, why would such people be opposed to renaming "Mormons" to "Saints"? It's unlikely that such people would be opposed to a name change simply because they are homosexuals who want to remain faithful. Any such a class would form a tiny minority of the total who object to the name change.

Why would such people be opposed to renaming "Mormons" to "Saints"?

Why would such people be opposed to renaming "Mormons" to "Saints"?

Why would such people be opposed to renaming "Mormons" to "Saints"?

This class of people, and this class alone, would object to the renaming. In their minds, "Mormon" sounds cultish and weird, while "Saints" doesn't, so therefore they much prefer "Mormon". These are most likely to be the people driving objection to the name change, not any of the other above-mentioned groups. Note that those objecting to the name change are more than just a tiny but vocal minority; they appear to be a majority. Ergo, we can conclude that most members of "Mormons Building Bridges" are antiMormons.

Other than the aforementioned antiMormons, which subgroups would object to replacing "Mormons" in their organization's name with "Saints"?

I never said you would agree with them on it.  I'm not sure if you are EVEN PART of the MBB or any of those groups to begin with.  The fact that you don't agree with their assessment would actually probably be a good indication that you are not part of that specific group you do not understand about or agree with.

I also never said that ALL of those groups are against the renaming, hence the last part of my post above in which I specify which groups are probably the most against the name change and pointing out that those opposed to the name change may not actually represent a majority, but are simply the LOUDEST.  It could represent a good chunk of them, but it may not.  Apparently there is a large enough group that they can also support a splinter group (Emmaus) as well, and I imagine there are probably a good percentage that will be members of both groups now.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I never said you would agree with them on it.  I'm not sure if you are EVEN PART of the MBB or any of those groups to begin with.  The fact that you don't agree with their assessment would actually probably be a good indication that you are not part of that specific group you do not understand about or agree with.

I also never said that ALL of those groups are against the renaming, hence the last part of my post above in which I specify which groups are probably the most against the name change and pointing out that those opposed to the name change may not actually represent a majority, but are simply the LOUDEST.

I do not understand what you're saying. You seem not to be consistent in what you're talking about. Your initial reply to this thread was:

39 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think this [i.e. the objection to renaming "Mormons Building Bridges" to "Saints Building Bridges"] is more complicated then the article makes it out to be.  I think there are more elements involved than simply those evil, dirty, anti-Mormon folks.

So you're going to tell us why the objection to renaming the group is more complicated than the analysis by the vomitous SLTrib would have us think. Okay. You've caught my attention. I'm listening (well, reading), expecting to hear (read) reasons why the SLTrib analysis of the objections to renaming the group is overly simplified. Whereupon I read your next sentence:

42 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think there are several different types of people (and possibly more).

Remember, this is your explanation of why the SLTrib analysis of objections to renaming MBB is oversimplified. So you seem quite clearly to be laying out that there are many different subgroups within MBB that object to the name change, each for its own reasons.

My response above to your post was made with the above idea in mind: JohnsonJones is explaining all of the various subgroups that he believes exist within MBB that each have their own private reasons for objecting to the name change, some of which presumably will overlap only slightly, or not at all, with the reasons of other subgroups.

Instead, you list out a whole bunch of subgroups that you presume exist within MBB, none of whom appear to have any reason to object to the proposed name change.

Hence my confusion. How does your lengthy list of subgroups within MBB demonstrate that the SLTrib's analysis of the reasons for objection to the name change is oversimplified?

Then, when I put my question to you, you state how you never said I would agree with them. Huh? What makes you think I expected to agree with them? This is not about whether I agree with them. This is about how these various subgroups have their own private reasons for objecting to the proposed name change, reasons that the SLTrib's article didn't adequately cover.

Then perhaps the most puzzling sentence of all:

14 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I also never said that ALL of those groups are against the renaming

What on earth were you talking about, if not the various subgroups who had their own reasons for objecting to the group's renaming? I mean, that's the crux of the whole thread. If you weren't saying that the various named subgroups were against the renaming for their own independent reasons, why on earth were you bringing them up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t doubt that there’s an amalgamation of people in MBB who have varying experiences, motivations, and agendas.  But I spent some time today trolling through the last three weeks of their  Facebook discussions, and I am satisfied that my summation as given in my opening post here is substantially accurate.

It’s also worth noting that of the 8K Facebook followers MBB have, fewer than 300 of them seem to have followed the founders to their Facebook site, Emmaus, which has apparently been online for nearly two weeks. The vast bulk of the MBB constituency seem no longer interested in even masquerading as a “loyal opposition.” 

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Of course they do.  I've heard people say it openly.

Quote

Apparently the founders, as a nod to President Nelson, suggested changing the group’s name to “Saints Building Bridges”, which caused a critical mass of members to drop the mask of loyalty and swamp the founders with a bunch of Facebook messages along the lines of “what are we listening to that ol’ poo-poo-head for?”

I believe what I heard was,"Who does he think he is trying to tell us what we can and can't call ourselves?"

Quote

Takeaways:

1)  President Nelson is seeming wilier and wilier every day.

We could look at it that way.  Or we could take it as proof that the Lord is a better chess player than a bunch of activists who don't know how to hold down a real job.

Quote

2)  They went full anti-Mormon.  Never go full anti-Mormon.  

Love the Tropic Thunder reference.

Quote

3)  Anyone want to place bets on how long it will take before this “Emmaus” group goes the same way as MBB?

I've heard the name before. But I had no idea who or what they were.  I've just done a google search and perused several sites.  I still don't know.

EDIT: Oops.  I saw the article link.  I get it now.

Quote

4)  It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at all of this.

Sorry, but I'm more along the lines of SMH.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the linked article:

Quote

Should Bridges appeal to active churchgoers who respect their leaders as mouthpieces for God yet yearn for more LGBTQ understanding in the pews and from the pulpit?

Or should the group at least acknowledge that church policies and teachings have harmed these believers, no matter how kindly they are treated within the faith?

Are these the only two choices?

Quote

By year’s end, Bridges was chosen as The Salt Lake Tribune’s Utahns of the Year.

Well, that should tell you something.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think there are several different types of people (and possibly more).

@Vort IMO there is just a misunderstanding between you and JJ.  I don't want to get into a debate, but possibly I could help with the misunderstanding?

 FWIW, I think the misunderstanding you two hare having stems from this sentence.  I read that to mean "there are several different types of people (and possibly more) that belong.  Then he listed the groups and said that when the issue about changing the group's name arose, groups 1 and 7 probably were the ones that fought it the hardest, but they don't necessarily represent the group as whole.  

That's how I read his posts, anyway, and so they made sense to me.   

Back in the day, I joined a couple groups like this, perhaps MBB, I don't remember.  But I left because of very loud antis.  I was in JJ's Group 2.  I would have supported the name change whole-heartedly, had I not already left these kinds of groups awhile ago...again because there is a very loud group of anti's....whether they are a majority or a vocal minority I really don't know.  So the article doesn't really surprise me, but I appreciate JJ's reminder that not everyone in the group is Anti, or not even all of them are against the name change.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Vort said:

I do not understand what you're saying. You seem not to be consistent in what you're talking about. Your initial reply to this thread was:

So you're going to tell us why the objection to renaming the group is more complicated than the analysis by the vomitous SLTrib would have us think. Okay. You've caught my attention. I'm listening (well, reading), expecting to hear (read) reasons why the SLTrib analysis of the objections to renaming the group is overly simplified. Whereupon I read your next sentence:

Remember, this is your explanation of why the SLTrib analysis of objections to renaming MBB is oversimplified. So you seem quite clearly to be laying out that there are many different subgroups within MBB that object to the name change, each for its own reasons.

My response above to your post was made with the above idea in mind: JohnsonJones is explaining all of the various subgroups that he believes exist within MBB that each have their own private reasons for objecting to the name change, some of which presumably will overlap only slightly, or not at all, with the reasons of other subgroups.

Instead, you list out a whole bunch of subgroups that you presume exist within MBB, none of whom appear to have any reason to object to the proposed name change.

Hence my confusion. How does your lengthy list of subgroups within MBB demonstrate that the SLTrib's analysis of the reasons for objection to the name change is oversimplified?

Then, when I put my question to you, you state how you never said I would agree with them. Huh? What makes you think I expected to agree with them? This is not about whether I agree with them. This is about how these various subgroups have their own private reasons for objecting to the proposed name change, reasons that the SLTrib's article didn't adequately cover.

Then perhaps the most puzzling sentence of all:

What on earth were you talking about, if not the various subgroups who had their own reasons for objecting to the group's renaming? I mean, that's the crux of the whole thread. If you weren't saying that the various named subgroups were against the renaming for their own independent reasons, why on earth were you bringing them up?

Let's put it this way.  There are a LOT of members of the Church that are Republicans.  These members normally see the Democrat Party as a politically opposed party to them.

Does this mean that EVERY member is a Republican?  Does it mean that EVERY member has to see the Democrat party as politically opposed to them?  Does it mean that every member of the church is exactly the same and are the same group?  Do they ALL say the exact same thing and behave the exact same way, or is it a little more complicated than that?  Does this mean members in Europe are oddly enough, choose to join and be a part of the US Republican party.  Members in Russia are opposed to the US Democrat party politically?  And they all act and say the exact same things in this?

I'd find that ridiculous.  In the same way, it applies to this instance.

I listed out several of the groups that would exist within MBB that have differing thoughts and opinions.  You are correct, some have no reason to object to the name change and some of them actually supported it.  This makes it a little more complex than simply labeling them all as Anti-Mormons.  They have different thoughts, ideas, and reasons for acting as they did.

It's not a uniform block of people acting exactly the same like robots. 

You are right, it is my speculation on this...and in that vein...

A Lot of them have jobs and lives beyond just MBB.  People may be surprised to know that for some of them, they may not have even known this was occurring (and many may still not know) as MBB is not necessarily the focus of their lives.  For many of them, they probably just don't care which way it went.  Others have reasons for staying with the group, while others are still trying to decide what exactly they will do.  There are too many different ideas and opinions floating around among them to say it was as simple as the SLC tribune makes it out to be.

It's hard to tell from the internet about the meetings in person and the personal interactions they had with each other among the leadership of MBB and the different complications that arose between them.

I've seen groups like this before, they are all over the nation.  They are not necessarily by Members of the church, but they have similar purposes of outreach.  When there is a rift among them, it is almost NEVER as simple as what the article tries to paint it as.  There is normally a lot more going on that is not spoken about that makes it even more complicated than one may imagine.  Normally there is a group that is very vocal, but there is also a LARGE group that is not being heard or talked about.  I imagine things are still volatile there, and we won't know really how things will fall into place until a few months from now, if not longer.

As I said, I feel it is a lot more complicated than the article makes it out to be.

 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

And they all act and say the exact same things in this?

I'd find that ridiculous. 

The bottom line is that they eventually opted to keep the name "Mormons Building Bridges."  So, regardless of the individual makeup of the group, those that remain currently are at least "ok" with that move.  It wasn't a matter of deciding it would take too much effort or anything.  The change to "Saints" had already been done and they decided to change it BACK.  That should say something.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The bottom line is that they eventually opted to keep the name "Mormons Building Bridges."  So, regardless of the individual makeup of the group, those that remain currently are at least "ok" with that move.  It wasn't a matter of deciding it would take too much effort or anything.  The change to "Saints" had already been done and they decided to change it BACK.  That should say something.

People are INCREDIBLY resistant to change, even more so when logically (even if spiritually we should do so) it doesn't actually make any sense.  PR wise, Mormons building bridges makes a LOT of sense as a LOT of people have no idea what Saints would refer to (The New Orleans Saints?) or Emmaus (that's from the New Testament, no indication that it has any connection to the Church for most people, including those who are members). 

While we assume that most members have been going along with this, I've seen resistance among many members online (and some of them I'd consider stronger than most here from what they say, though it's HARD to tell from simply what one writes online) not using a common nickname.  I try to do as the prophet has told us to do (normally now days falling back on the term the Church, members, Saints, or the full name of the church though I try NOT to take the Lord's name in vain by too much repetition of it) but I know many who do not like doing this.  It can be hard as much of this feels unnatural, especially if talking to my peers or those who are not members of the Church today.  Still, I consciously (and I normally  make the conscious decision to try to do so) try to follow what the prophet has told us to do and refer to the Church properly.

For those that are struggling or otherwise, it can be even harder to follow the prophet's command.  However, usage of the world Mormon in a worldly outreach is not necessarily WRONG...though the policy may have been updated (not sure where to find it, PDF's were much easier to look through for these types of things for me).  It was brought up that the term "Mormon" (which I now days normally try to refrain from using, but this is for this specific purpose to illustrate the Church's handbook and a former post) was still acceptable in some situations awhile back on these very boards by posting the items below.  I know on the church's website they still have Handbook 2 in PDF format and a quick look on it shows the following.

21.1.34

Quote

As the Church grows across boundaries, cultures, and languages, the use of its revealed name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see D&C 115:4), is increasingly important in the responsibility of the Church and its members to proclaim the name of the Savior throughout all the world. Accordingly, references to the Church should include its full name whenever possible. Following an initial reference to the full name of the Church, the contractions “the Church” or “the Church of Jesus Christ” are acceptable.

Referring to the Church as “the Mormon Church,” “the Latter-day Saints Church,” or “the LDS Church” is discouraged.

When referring to Church members, it is preferable to use the phrase “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” As a shortened reference, “Latter-day Saints” is preferred and “Mormons” is acceptable.

The word Mormon will continue to be used in proper names like the Book of Mormon and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. It will also continue to be used as an adjective in phrases such as “Mormon pioneers.” In addition, it may be necessary to use the word Mormon to identify the Church as it is commonly known in some countries.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/08702_eng.pdf?lang=eng

Though it seems outdated to me (as the Choir is now known as the Choir at Temple Square or something like that), it seems to indicate that it may not necessarily be wrong for this group to make the decision they made, and not all of them are as devoted to following what the prophet has told us to try to do as some others are. 

Scholastically (luckily I'm only an amateur church historian, if I tried to do what I do in normal life in academics with the name usage in mind, I may be laughed out of the academic community for ignoring common guidelines), it is awkward as it is not the correct usage.  The term that was a nickname commonly used incorporates the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but also includes MANY MORE denominations beyond just our church under the umbrella of the nickname commonly used by everyone outside our church. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Adding the reference more specifically so others can look it up and find it if they so desire.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

People are INCREDIBLY resistant to change, even more so when logically (even if spiritually we should do so) it doesn't actually make any sense. 

I can understand that as a reasonable argument if it were the case.  But I've spoken with gay members about MBB.  And they were all against the change specifically because they wanted to be their own entity.  NOTE: I don't believe they were actually members of MBB.  They just supported everything they did.

Name recognition is one thing.  Resisting change is one thing.  But to specifically separate themselves from the Church is quite another.  

It was one of these who I quoted as saying,"Who does he think he is (referring to the prophet) telling me what I can or can't call myself?"  Given that personal experience, I'm not likely to believe that "resistance to change" was the motivation.  But I could be wrong.

8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Though it seems outdated to me (as the Choir is now known as the Choir at Temple Square or something like that), it seems to indicate that it may not necessarily be wrong for this group to make the decision they made, and not all of them are as devoted to following what the prophet has told us to try to do as some others are. 

Yes, it is the old policy.  I remember Pres. Hinckley speaking those words in an announcement (I believe) in conference.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I can understand that as a reasonable argument if it were the case.  But I've spoken with gay members about MBB.  And they were all against the change specifically because they wanted to be their own entity.  NOTE: I don't believe he was actually a member of MBB.  He just supported everything they did.

Name recognition is one thing.  Resisting change is one thing.  But to specifically separate themselves from the Church is quite another.  

It was one of these who I quoted as saying,"Who does he think he is (referring to the prophet) telling me what I can or can't call myself?"  Given that personal experience, I'm not likely to believe that "resistance to change" was the motivation.  But I could be wrong.

That is actually a common thing that I've heard myself from members even.  I have also had rehearsed the entire history of Nelson's campaign pointing out that logically and from many viewpoints it could be shown that this was a campaign that Nelson had been on (and been slapped down about by the prophets before him no-less, such as Hinckley and Monson) for over 20 years.  In addition, it can be seen as a direct refutation of Kimball (from the  ad campaign) Hinckleys promotions, and Monson's more internet/movie/temple visitor center campaigns. 

It's always a bad idea to try to tear down your predecessors as it also weakens your own position and verification of the authority thereof, which this move has done.

So, I can understand the sentiment many have expressed in this arena, including what you have stated.  It does not take an anti-Mormon to express that, as the GREAT majority that I have heard these things (and far more) are from actual members who attend their ward meetings.  Most of these have no desire to separate from the Church, but to remain with the Church, but to respect the choices made by former prophets (even Joseph Smith had utilized the term, and Joseph F. Smith is famous for the use of it in standing up for who he was and what he believed (though, it is harder to relate that story today as it uses the nickname we are not to use.  It was seen as turning a slang term to a positive inflection).  Some see it as incredibly disrespectful to the former prophets and their instructions to the church.

This is not just an anti thing (in fact most anti's would prefer not to use the term at all in many instances, and have some colorful terms for the Church and it's members itself at times), but more a Member thing of those that have varied and conflicting feelings on the matter.

That does not mean that we, ourselves, need to fall into using the nickname.  I'm not going to condemn someone for using it, but have made the personal choice to try to follow the Prophet's council and thus I personally try to catch myself (and even then, I try my best but am not always successful, longterm usage is a habit that can be difficult to stop at times) and change anytime I catch myself using the old nickname to using a more proper utilization of the Church's preference as per it's current President of the Church.

Edit: I see it myself that there were those that are more like me and are trying very hard to do as the Prophet asked.  This is why they were changing the name (and why you will commonly find me using the term Saints myself) I think...however...those that try to do this I think are actually more of a minority of the members than a majority.  I see members commonly using the nickname today, even while I try to refrain from doing so.  That this would be reflective in a group that is already somewhat divided among itself should surprise...no one.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

That is actually a common thing that I've heard myself from members even. 

I can't say what you have or have not heard.  But what I hear from the more faithful members is that they are troubled and confused about the idea.  But I've never heard any of them say

Quote

Who does he think he is?

You've heard these same words?  Or simply that they disagree with some ideas or are "troubled"?

I "disagreed" with the handgun policy.  But I still respect his position as prophet.  And when you say something like "Who does he think he is?" does not respect his position as prophet.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

I looked at the MMB page on occasion.  It seemed mostly to be people who wanted to jump up and down in histrionics over the church.

I looked up their webpage.  I didn't really notice anything like that. But I couldn't really see anything that I'd call histrionics.  Were you talking about their facebook page?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

I can't say what you have or have not heard.  But what I hear from the more faithful members is that they are troubled and confused about the idea.  But I've never heard any of them say

You've heard these same words?  Or simply that they disagree with some ideas or are "troubled"?

I've heard that phrase, specifically.  This particularly would be a hard thing to actually cover in depth here, as it could be seen as not that helpful, and phrasing it in a more useful manner can be difficult but I will try.

From what I gather, a LOT of this boils down to a struggle Nelson apparently seemed to have at the direction of Kimball, and more specifically Hinckley and Monson.  He was pushing this same idea over 20 years ago and Hinckley came back and refuted him (some would say, not so kindly and this caused a grudge regarding this) over the pulpit in conference.  This has popped up a few times elsewise with Nelson with Monson even going so far as to promote the exact opposite of what Nelson seemed to desire (anyone else remember the entire internet campaign that came out along with a certain movie with a  certain Nickname in it's title that went to theaters and otherwise?).

They see this thing more as a personal grudge of Nelsons and thus a personal item rather than a prophetic item.  In this, I've seen it highly controversial among some members.  It seems MORE of something I've seen discussed between members than anywhere else.  Most of the collegues and friends I have outside the church could care less, and continue to use the nickname regardless of what anyone in the church may tell them.

That said...MY PERSONAL OPINION...is that it does not matter.  Personally speaking, whether it is him speaking as a man in this instance, or as a prophet, we should do as the Prophet instructs us to do.  IF the Lord removes him from his place, we will do as his successor states, but as he is the current prophet, we do AS HE instructs us.  In this, we follow the prophet. 

He came out and said this in General conference, which is a place where we receive instructions for our day and time.  In this, we should do as he says.  It may be difficult, but at the same time, we should try to do as the Prophet has told us (and to point it out again, in conference no less).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I've heard that phrase, specifically. 

Then those individuals are in the same boat as MBB.  And they are on the road to apostasy if they are not fullly in apostasy already.

Simply being at church each week doesn't define "faithful."  If it were so, we'd all be apostate now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

Then those individuals are in the same boat as MBB.  And they are on the road to apostasy if they are not fullly in apostasy already.

Simply being at church each week doesn't define "faithful."  If it were so, we'd all be apostate now.

Perhaps, but if we took all the things members have difficulties with and said they were all apostate, we'd have a vast majority of members that are apostate, and a very small number that were not, at least in my very anecdotal experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

Perhaps, but if we took all the things members have difficulties with and said they were all apostate, we'd have a vast majority of members that are apostate, and a very small number that were not, at least in my very anecdotal experience.

Sometimes I have to wonder if you're actually paying attention to what I wrote. That's not what I've said at all.

It isn't about people having problems with X, Y, or Z.  I've indicated that I, myself, have difficulties with some things. It's called "loyal opposition."  I'm sure you're familiar with the term.

It is the ATTITUDE of disrespect for the Church, the Prophet, the scriptures, and even for God.  When someone says "who does he think he is?" this is an obvious show of disrespect.

JJ,

You know that you've got a reputation for marathon posts.  If you honestly expect others to read the entire post and get all the information out of it, would it be so much to ask that you read my much shorter posts and actually pay attention to what I wrote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It is the ATTITUDE of disrespect for the Church, the Prophet, the scriptures, and even for God.  When someone says "who does he think he is?" this is an obvious show of disrespect.

The appropriate response is, "He thinks he is the mouthpiece for Jesus Christ." Let them roll their eyes and snicker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Sometimes I have to wonder if you're actually paying attention to what I wrote. That's not what I've said at all.

It isn't about people having problems with X, Y, or Z.  I've indicated that I, myself, have difficulties with some things. It's called "loyal opposition."  I'm sure you're familiar with the term.

It is the ATTITUDE of disrespect for the Church, the Prophet, the scriptures, and even for God.  When someone says "who does he think he is?" this is an obvious show of disrespect.

JJ,

You know that you've got a reputation for marathon posts.  If you honestly expect others to read the entire post and get all the information out of it, would it be so much to ask that you read my much shorter posts and actually pay attention to what I wrote?

I understood that (edit: at least I think I do).

The item I was discussing regarding the name of the church is a singular item though, not X,Y, or Z per se.  The members normally don't have a problem with Nelson as a Prophet (that I know of), just that they see him showing an attitude of disrespect for the Church and the Prophets before him.  I think (now this, I don't know, thus why I am guessing) they are trying to reconcile this idea of theirs with his current position, thus how they phrase it at times.

I think it is a different interpretation than mine (and I've encountered it enough times among members at this point, that as I said, I'm not going to condemn those who use the nickname instead of the Church's name as we've been instructed to do, but I will do as I think we should, which is follow the prophetic counsel) and that they have some things they are working through.  In the large whole of things, this is (at least in my view, I could be wrong) such a very small thing to worry about or pull tantrums about when we also have those addicted to drugs, alcohol, pornography, and abusing others within various ward and stake confines.  To me, there are much larger fish to worry about that are far more troubling.

I suppose if we incorporate the entire groups of MBB, some on there would have problems with X, Y, or Z.  However, once again, there are many groups  that are not actually part of the church's leadership administration but are connected in some way that also have similar problems.  The church has separated itself from some of these (for example, Boy Scouts also has a very wide range of problems and difficulties, but I don't think those that are still in scouting are apostates currently), but does not really condemn people who are a part of them or indicate they are in apostasy either...at least not yet (that I know of).

 

Edited by JohnsonJones
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