Raan2005-02-08 14:41:20
-roll- I dont accuse naievete unless its obviously there. And I actually dont use it as an insult as most people do. Lets put it this way.
Elder Russell M. Nelson
Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
President Marion G. Romney
Second Counselor in the First Presidency
There aren't altering views. If they are members of the LDS Church, then they have sustained, (at least one) these men. Once again, bring it up with them, Im sure they will confirm what I have said. If not tell them to go back and read general conference talks for November 2004, in the Ensign.
QUOTE
Today I would like to speak about a name. We are all pleased when our names are pronounced and spelled correctly. Sometimes a nickname is used instead of the real name. But a nickname may offend either the one named or the parents who gave the name.
The name of which I shall speak is not a personal name, yet the same principles apply. I refer to a name given by the Lord:
“Thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.†(D&C 115:4.)
Note carefully the language of the Lord. He did not say, “Thus shall my church be named.†He said, “Thus shall my church be called.†Years ago, its members were cautioned by the Brethren who wrote: “We feel that some may be misled by the too frequent use of the term ‘Mormon Church.’ †(Member-Missionary Class—Instructor’s Guide, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982, p. 2.) Before any other name is considered to be a legitimate substitute, the thoughtful person might reverently consider the feelings of the Heavenly Parent who bestowed that name.
The name of which I shall speak is not a personal name, yet the same principles apply. I refer to a name given by the Lord:
“Thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.†(D&C 115:4.)
Note carefully the language of the Lord. He did not say, “Thus shall my church be named.†He said, “Thus shall my church be called.†Years ago, its members were cautioned by the Brethren who wrote: “We feel that some may be misled by the too frequent use of the term ‘Mormon Church.’ †(Member-Missionary Class—Instructor’s Guide, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982, p. 2.) Before any other name is considered to be a legitimate substitute, the thoughtful person might reverently consider the feelings of the Heavenly Parent who bestowed that name.
Elder Russell M. Nelson
Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
QUOTE
The nickname Mormon is associated with the Church and its members because we accept as scripture a book titled the Book of Mormon. This book is a translation of an ancient record inscribed on gold plates which, in September 1827, were delivered by an angel to Joseph Smith, a twenty-one-year-old youth.
Members of the Church do not resent being referred to as Mormons, nor does the Church resent being referred to as the Mormon church. As we have said, however, it is not the correct name of the Church. Its correct name is, as we have already explained, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintsâ€
Members of the Church do not resent being referred to as Mormons, nor does the Church resent being referred to as the Mormon church. As we have said, however, it is not the correct name of the Church. Its correct name is, as we have already explained, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintsâ€
President Marion G. Romney
Second Counselor in the First Presidency
There aren't altering views. If they are members of the LDS Church, then they have sustained, (at least one) these men. Once again, bring it up with them, Im sure they will confirm what I have said. If not tell them to go back and read general conference talks for November 2004, in the Ensign.
Desdemona2005-02-08 18:43:46
I am Roman Catholic breed, but I am completely dettached from any rituals/ceremonies/etc. from the Church.
I do believe in theism and science, so I may seem contradictory with my beliefs at times. But this is merely because I believe that both theism and science simply tried to explain the same issues and that both aim to the strive of humanity. Theism of course serving as threshold the for early "civilizations" take hold, giving way to the developement of today's societies. Believing that current developements owe much to theism, and the moral and ethical rulings that theism brought upon civilization. This being essential, in my opinion, for any new discoveries or developements to occur (including science) thanks to the Order theism managed to create on the dawn of humanity.
In any case... Like I said, I was born Roman Catholic, but I've always been curious about developing my own spirituality to the point I've always searched around any esoteric branches, methaphysical orientations, and even explored of the world's religion... probably to the point that this research has become more scholarly than anything. Though, some practitioners of my "mother" faith consider me sometimes a heretic or an atheist...
If I can conclude anything is that I believe that there are so many similarities between faiths (try contrast Abrahamic religions to Hindu, Maya, Egyptian, and so on), that to totally consider them as different would be a bit extremist. So in this fashion, I consider that the greatest appealing faith for me would have to be the Baha'i Faith. Concerning that the Baha'i Faith believe that there is really just One faith, and that every passing faith serve as premises for this One faith to emerge.
I do believe in theism and science, so I may seem contradictory with my beliefs at times. But this is merely because I believe that both theism and science simply tried to explain the same issues and that both aim to the strive of humanity. Theism of course serving as threshold the for early "civilizations" take hold, giving way to the developement of today's societies. Believing that current developements owe much to theism, and the moral and ethical rulings that theism brought upon civilization. This being essential, in my opinion, for any new discoveries or developements to occur (including science) thanks to the Order theism managed to create on the dawn of humanity.
In any case... Like I said, I was born Roman Catholic, but I've always been curious about developing my own spirituality to the point I've always searched around any esoteric branches, methaphysical orientations, and even explored of the world's religion... probably to the point that this research has become more scholarly than anything. Though, some practitioners of my "mother" faith consider me sometimes a heretic or an atheist...
If I can conclude anything is that I believe that there are so many similarities between faiths (try contrast Abrahamic religions to Hindu, Maya, Egyptian, and so on), that to totally consider them as different would be a bit extremist. So in this fashion, I consider that the greatest appealing faith for me would have to be the Baha'i Faith. Concerning that the Baha'i Faith believe that there is really just One faith, and that every passing faith serve as premises for this One faith to emerge.
Rauros2005-02-08 18:47:09
Aethiest of course
Shiri2005-02-08 18:50:50
More Jews than Buddhists? That's surprising. Barely any of the board population's voted yet, though.
Lunarisiil2005-02-08 19:05:34
QUOTE(raan @ Feb 8 2005, 06:45 AM)
There are no such things as mormen, or mormons. Never have been. The church you are referring to is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. Further, our missionaries are far from newbies. Lastly, there is no logic that would lump Jehova's Witnesses and the LDS together, if you actually new anything about them other than what the local pastor's have told you.
44806
It's Jehovah. With an 'h' on the end. You should at least be able to spell God's name right. Or Yahweh would work. Or Jah. Jah being the shortened nickname of Jehovah, it still refers to Him.
Raan2005-02-08 19:37:28
My appologies Lunar 
Its not a form I commonly use.
Its not a form I commonly use.Lunarisiil2005-02-08 19:40:24
No need to apologize! I just like seeing names and words spelled correctly. 
Unknown2005-02-08 20:57:17
From raan:
“Thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.†(D&C 115:4).
Nowhere in that passage does it say anything about what the -followers- of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints shall be called. Thusly, for the ease of all concerned, we shall refer to the -followers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as Mormons instead of calling the -followers- of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the followers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
“Thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.†(D&C 115:4).
Nowhere in that passage does it say anything about what the -followers- of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints shall be called. Thusly, for the ease of all concerned, we shall refer to the -followers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as Mormons instead of calling the -followers- of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the followers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Daganev2005-02-08 21:06:17
I think anyone who thinks that all faiths basically believe the same thing doesn't know thier Faiths very well.
That would be like saying, All societies are basically the same because they all have taxes of some sort, oh and they all eventually die.
Ofcourse, deep down there is a unity to everything, which is why its not that hard for people to get together and be friendly, but to say the believes are all basically the same Faith I think insults every Faith.
The mere fact that you group "Abrahamic" religions together is just insulting to me.
That would be like saying, All societies are basically the same because they all have taxes of some sort, oh and they all eventually die.
Ofcourse, deep down there is a unity to everything, which is why its not that hard for people to get together and be friendly, but to say the believes are all basically the same Faith I think insults every Faith.
The mere fact that you group "Abrahamic" religions together is just insulting to me.
Raan2005-02-08 21:12:35
QUOTE
Nowhere in that passage does it say anything about what the -followers- of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints shall be called. Thusly, for the ease of all concerned, we shall refer to the -followers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as Mormons instead of calling the -followers- of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the followers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
You can call us anything you want. It doesnt make it correct, and it wont stop me from correcting you when you say it.
LDS willl do fine. Like I said, it is a very big pet peve of mine.Unknown2005-02-08 21:22:15
But is there any passage wherein the followers of the LDS are specifically given a name? Jews is a slang term (to the best of my knowledge) for followers of Judaism, but I haven't heard anything about 'Jew' being an incorrect means of talking about said followers.
Daganev2005-02-08 21:35:53
Yeah, Jew is a slang term for a slang term for a slang term.
Jewish people have historically taken whatever established anti-semitism there is and wear it with pride. (Take for example the Jewish star which was not popular until Jews where forced to wear them by various persecuting groups)
The proper term for a Jew would be "B'nai Yisroel" or Child(ren) of Israel or Israelites.
When the Asyrians destroyed and Assimilated 10 of the 12 tribes, what was left was Yehuda or Judah and Benyamin or Benjamin. Since Judah is like 5 times the size of Benjaim, and the king of Israel always came from the tribe of Judah, "B'nai Yisroel" became "Yihudim" or Judahites. The Slange for that became "Yid" and at some point in Europe and in various countries in Europe Yid turned into Jew.
So in all technicality, I realize now that those arguments the the Ethopian Jews arn't really Jewish is actually true. They would be Danish since they came from the Tribe of Dan, but they are still the Children of Israel.
Jewish people have historically taken whatever established anti-semitism there is and wear it with pride. (Take for example the Jewish star which was not popular until Jews where forced to wear them by various persecuting groups)
The proper term for a Jew would be "B'nai Yisroel" or Child(ren) of Israel or Israelites.
When the Asyrians destroyed and Assimilated 10 of the 12 tribes, what was left was Yehuda or Judah and Benyamin or Benjamin. Since Judah is like 5 times the size of Benjaim, and the king of Israel always came from the tribe of Judah, "B'nai Yisroel" became "Yihudim" or Judahites. The Slange for that became "Yid" and at some point in Europe and in various countries in Europe Yid turned into Jew.
So in all technicality, I realize now that those arguments the the Ethopian Jews arn't really Jewish is actually true. They would be Danish since they came from the Tribe of Dan, but they are still the Children of Israel.
Stetson2005-02-08 21:38:28
I shall henceforth coin the term "LDSies". For example. "This LDSy came to my door earlier." Or "I just saw a march of LDSies against gay marriage."
Also, I've gotta agree with Desdemona on some level. Religion serves a few very specific purposes. Dealing with major events in life. Life, death, marriage, whatever. There are points in life, we have to deal with things that -cant- be explained. I like to think there will be a heaven, but when a friend dies, I have no idea whats happened to them. Religion can be there to help people through things.
It was also used to preserve heirarchy, kings, queens, brahmen, whatever. To keep a social order, letting everyone know that people are rich or poor because it is some kind of plan, or they have earned it. (My number 1 beef with indian religions).
Thirdly, they all provide some sort of moral code to live by. The 10 comandments or whatever. Religion was at one point, the corner stone of -every- civilisation. However many of its functions are no longer required. We have electoral systems, laws, more fair economic systems to give everyone a chance to be rich.
All religions, whatever their creation story, and what not, all serve similar purposes, which have in recent times been usurped. These days, we are faecd with a veritable buffet of religions, we just have to pick the one we believe suits us. or is "right" =)
Also, I've gotta agree with Desdemona on some level. Religion serves a few very specific purposes. Dealing with major events in life. Life, death, marriage, whatever. There are points in life, we have to deal with things that -cant- be explained. I like to think there will be a heaven, but when a friend dies, I have no idea whats happened to them. Religion can be there to help people through things.
It was also used to preserve heirarchy, kings, queens, brahmen, whatever. To keep a social order, letting everyone know that people are rich or poor because it is some kind of plan, or they have earned it. (My number 1 beef with indian religions).
Thirdly, they all provide some sort of moral code to live by. The 10 comandments or whatever. Religion was at one point, the corner stone of -every- civilisation. However many of its functions are no longer required. We have electoral systems, laws, more fair economic systems to give everyone a chance to be rich.
All religions, whatever their creation story, and what not, all serve similar purposes, which have in recent times been usurped. These days, we are faecd with a veritable buffet of religions, we just have to pick the one we believe suits us. or is "right" =)
Raan2005-02-08 21:41:26
QUOTE
But is there any passage wherein the followers of the LDS are specifically given a name? Jews is a slang term (to the best of my knowledge) for followers of Judaism, but I haven't heard anything about 'Jew' being an incorrect means of talking about said followers.
There is, but I for the life of me cannot find it. Somewhere in the november general conference talks :S
Eithery way, an example of why the real name should be used is a floridian after the hurricanes that said only two churches helped out his local community with food and such (lds church has a massive charity program), the Mormons, and the Latter Day Saints (also note that florida based LDS missionaries were probably out digging with the rest of em.)
Daganev2005-02-08 21:50:20
That may be what you see as the purpose of religion, but it is not the purpose of religion. I know its not the purpose, because for me, it does none of those things.
My religion dictates how I see my everyday life. It doesn't help me "through things" it has hindered me as much as it has helped me. Judaism has never been used to preserve the Heirachy of anything, infact its gotten more people in jail and killed than probabbly any other factor. Judaism has ment the same thing to me as it has to the rest of my family no matter what country they live in or what generation they have lived in.
My religion is about having a connection with the world that makes me a part of it and not just a visitor of it. It helps me get my priorites straight, and once in a while saves me from making really stupid mistakes. (if only I would listen more often.)
To me Religion is your third parent (We call G-d our Father in Heavan for a reason)... is the only purpose of your parents to keep you in line and establish the Family name through history, and to help you pay your bills in time of crisis? I sure hope not.
But then again, Judaism is a strange religion and breaks all the rules of history, so maybe I should retract my rant.
My religion dictates how I see my everyday life. It doesn't help me "through things" it has hindered me as much as it has helped me. Judaism has never been used to preserve the Heirachy of anything, infact its gotten more people in jail and killed than probabbly any other factor. Judaism has ment the same thing to me as it has to the rest of my family no matter what country they live in or what generation they have lived in.
My religion is about having a connection with the world that makes me a part of it and not just a visitor of it. It helps me get my priorites straight, and once in a while saves me from making really stupid mistakes. (if only I would listen more often.)
To me Religion is your third parent (We call G-d our Father in Heavan for a reason)... is the only purpose of your parents to keep you in line and establish the Family name through history, and to help you pay your bills in time of crisis? I sure hope not.
But then again, Judaism is a strange religion and breaks all the rules of history, so maybe I should retract my rant.
Daganev2005-02-08 21:52:10
QUOTE(raan @ Feb 8 2005, 01:41 PM)
There is, but I for the life of me cannot find it. Somewhere in the november general conference talks :S
Eithery way, an example of why the real name should be used is a floridian after the hurricanes that said only two churches helped out his local community with food and such (lds church has a massive charity program), the Mormons, and the Latter Day Saints (also note that florida based LDS missionaries were probably out digging with the rest of em.)
Eithery way, an example of why the real name should be used is a floridian after the hurricanes that said only two churches helped out his local community with food and such (lds church has a massive charity program), the Mormons, and the Latter Day Saints (also note that florida based LDS missionaries were probably out digging with the rest of em.)
45016
Floridan Jews voted for Bucanan(a percieved anti-semite), you can't really rely on Floridians for anything.
Unknown2005-02-08 21:57:12
I voted other.
I suppose what I believe could be lumped into a neo-pagan category; it really is a mish-mash of various pre-Christian beliefs, new scientific thought, and made up stuff in my head.
It's very accepting of Me
.
I suppose what I believe could be lumped into a neo-pagan category; it really is a mish-mash of various pre-Christian beliefs, new scientific thought, and made up stuff in my head.
It's very accepting of Me
.Nementh2005-02-08 23:40:39
Like I said, JWs and Mormons were grouped together because BOTH did NOT root FROM the Cathlic Church or the Luthrin movement. Both are MODERN Religious movements.
And when the Mormons PUBLISH a flyer for their Tabernacle in San Diego, THEY label it the Mormon Tabernacle of San Diego...
And when the Mormons PUBLISH a flyer for their Tabernacle in San Diego, THEY label it the Mormon Tabernacle of San Diego...
Desdemona2005-02-08 23:47:11
QUOTE(daganev @ Feb 8 2005, 02:06 PM)
I think anyone who thinks that all faiths basically believe the same thing doesn't know thier Faiths very well.
That would be like saying, All societies are basically the same because they all have taxes of some sort, oh and they all eventually die.
Ofcourse, deep down there is a unity to everything, which is why its not that hard for people to get together and be friendly, but to say the believes are all basically the same Faith I think insults every Faith.
The mere fact that you group "Abrahamic" religions together is just insulting to me.
That would be like saying, All societies are basically the same because they all have taxes of some sort, oh and they all eventually die.
Ofcourse, deep down there is a unity to everything, which is why its not that hard for people to get together and be friendly, but to say the believes are all basically the same Faith I think insults every Faith.
The mere fact that you group "Abrahamic" religions together is just insulting to me.
44988
Ah, the Faiths allow people to be friendly? In so many instances, one could believe that strictly adhering to a Faith has caused more conflict than what is worth. The Crusades, Inquisition, the Holocaust, etc. , etc... Even historically, all faiths (an ideologies, or anything by that matter) have suffered some sort of tribulation before being accepted. All faiths have been modified, evolved, assaulted and mantained... if this isn't enough to show how in the humanitarian aspect all faiths walk the same path...
Maybe one should go ahead and seek more information about the existing faiths, even go venture into the realms of pantheism, polytheism and other sorts of "paganism". Read about those religions and see that there is a vincule between them which may well be more than coincidential.
If you daganev decide to take insult on me cataloguing those faiths that seem to stem from the teachings of Abraham and developed differently as Abrahamic faiths... I am not sure what so say other than ask why do you consider yourself insulted? But remember, what I voiced was my opinion, so by no regards would I expect someone else to agree with me.
Personally, I believe it is for the best interest to view the similitudes of the faiths rather than constantly try to seclude themselves.
Unknown2005-02-08 23:47:14
Catholic
Lutheran
sorry
Lutheran
sorry
