Name of The Church - Version 152

[mom3]

I maybe shouldn't but I started laughing inwardly once when a new member started bearing his testimony of the Church of Mormon and how he believed our bishop was a true prophet. He had what we charitably call learning difficulties and is a bit of a character. Going back a few years right enough...

I would have run up and given him a big hug. Learning difficulties or not, we need more of this.

[SamBee]

I maybe shouldn't but I started laughing inwardly once when a new member started bearing his testimony of the Church of Mormon and how he believed our bishop was a true prophet. He had what we charitably call learning difficulties and is a bit of a character. Going back a few years right enough...

I would have run up and given him a big hug. Learning difficulties or not, we need more of this.

He wasn't really the huggable type, trust me! Don't think he would have approved. He goes to a happy clappy church down the road now.

[Minyan Man]

Whats wrong with happy, clappy?

[SamBee]

Who said there was anything wrong with it?

[Minyan Man]

Your description stuck me as funny.

There are times I wonder what it was like to attend the LDS worship services in the 1800's.
How would it compare to today? Would we recognize it compared to today?
For example, speaking in tongues, etc. I'm getting off topic. Sorry.

[SamBee]

I used to go to a happy clappy church myself some years ago. I used the phrase because I don't know which denomination his new one is; and he was a bit incoherent in telling me.

[Roy]

I have been out with Pastor's from other faiths all morning. Everyone of them kindly asked what church I belonged to. I stuck with LDS. Everyone of them was "What's the deal with the name thing." The effort to explain it derails any attempt to build bridges. To me Christ wanted a bit more bridge building. So while we explain the long game of it, they are like "What ever?"

I suppose it depends on what role of Christ you believe in. I suppose that some LDS believe in the Christ who brings not peace but a sword, the triumphant Messiah that will make every knee to bow and every lip to confess that He is Lord (and by extension they will also be made to submit and confess that JS is the Prophet of the restoration). That is the Christ that would want us to proclaim the truth of our testimonies with boldness.

I believe this quote from Mom's signature line is appropriate here:

"I am coming to envision a new persona for the Church as humble followers of Jesus Christ....Joseph and his early followers came forth with lots of triumphalist rhetoric, but I think we need a new voice, one of humility, friendship and service. We should teach people to believe in God because it will soften their hearts and make them more willing to serve." - Richard Bushman

[bdavis3]

I see it two ways. The social scientist half of me thinks there is no way that church leaders can prevent people from shortening the name of the church when it's so freaking long. The name "Mormons" has stuck for decades, and it is unlikely that will change.

BUT

If this name change is part of an effort to turn our focus more toward the Savior, I am all for it. I have been searching everywhere for Christ and I ironically rarely find Him or feel Him at church. I'm hoping this is a first step toward turning our sights away from arbitrary teachings and focusing more on what the Savior actually taught, and truly striving to be more like Him.

[mom3]

If this name change is part of an effort to turn our focus more toward the Savior, I am all for it. I have been searching everywhere for Christ and I ironically rarely find Him or feel Him at church. I'm hoping this is a first step toward turning our sights away from arbitrary teachings and focusing more on what the Savior actually taught, and truly striving to be more like Him.

I, and I believe many on this board and others in the church, have the same goal. The reverse psychologist in me thinks "By their fruits ye shall know them" would have been a wiser choice. Make a full court effort to getting us out truly serving in the community. Shift our Sacrament Meetings to Christ centered talks. Don't make missionary efforts an underlying principle. Last of all don't sen out a press release.

My job at the shelter I work with is to create the volunteer calendar. Our long name alone doesn't fit. If I shorten it to "Church of Christ" - I have to add a moniker to it because we already have "Church of Christ Lutheran" - "Church of Christ Local Area" - For us it now reads "Church of Christ - LDS" It's not bad, but it's not what the requested name change was. If a picky member see's it, they will point out the error. If someone who didn't get the memo see's it they will need a nice lengthy explanation.

I don't mind giving the explanation. But to me the fact that it requires explaining makes it seem like a marketing message. Not a change of heart message. It almost anchors the idea that we weren't focused on Christ. And yes good for us jumping on the bandwagon, but I don't want us to come across at "The church formerly known as..." That's fine for celebrities or politicians. For me I want my religion as far away from that as possible.

[SamBee]

I see it two ways. The social scientist half of me thinks there is no way that church leaders can prevent people from shortening the name of the church when it's so freaking long. The name "Mormons" has stuck for decades, and it is unlikely that will change.

BUT

If this name change is part of an effort to turn our focus more toward the Savior, I am all for it. I have been searching everywhere for Christ and I ironically rarely find Him or feel Him at church. I'm hoping this is a first step toward turning our sights away from arbitrary teachings and focusing more on what the Savior actually taught, and truly striving to be more like Him.

You need to come to our ward. I think we are fairly good at keeping things Christ-centered just now.