←back to thread

Mormons Make Great FBI Recruits

(www.atlasobscura.com)
80 points churchill | 9 comments | 01 May 23 13:24 UTC | HN request time: 1.391s | source | bottom
Show context
geocrasher ◴[01 May 23 14:49 UTC] No.35773533[source]▶
I spoke with some LDS youngsters who came to my door some time back. They're friendly. I learned that they do not like being referred to as "Mormon" but instead prefer "LDS". For them, being called Mormon is derogatory.
replies(4): >>35773669 #>>35774125 #>>35774583 #>>35776245 #
freedomben ◴[01 May 23 15:25 UTC] No.35774125[source]▶
Youngsters are probably not the best source for this info as they're too young to remember that 20 years ago "Mormon" was perfectly fine, and in fact a lot of Mormons called (and still call) themselves "Mormon." Some time back the leadership of the Church decided that Mormon was offensive for some reason and made it so.

But then "LDS" is now out of date as well! The leadership has decided that they don't want to be called "LDS" anymore. They even dumped the wonderfully succinct "lds.org" domain for "churchofjesuschrist.org."

Now they want you to use the full name of the Church (at least the first time referenced in the convo), which is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." So for example, if you want to refer to a person you would have previously called "Mormon" or "LDS," you should instead use "member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." There is a minor relief though. On subsequent references you can shorten it to "Church of Jesus Christ" or "the restored Church of Jesus Christ."[1]

Personally I like the (still silly long) acronym COJCOLDS. But realistically very few Mormons are going to offended if you call them "LDS."

[1]: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/style-guide

replies(2): >>35774603 #>>35774642 #
operatingthetan ◴[01 May 23 15:54 UTC] No.35774642[source]▶
Is that an effort to blend in more with evangelicals?
replies(4): >>35774766 #>>35774905 #>>35775110 #>>35775168 #
1. potta_coffee ◴[01 May 23 16:29 UTC] No.35775168[source]▶
My perception is that they don't want to "blend in" to the point that there's no distinction, but they want acceptance under the umbrella of Christianity. Most other groups under Christianity reject LDS doctrine as heresy, LDS church says "we are Christians though". I'm not trying to project an opinion about who is correct, just trying to describe what I think is going on.
replies(1): >>35775383 #
2. mensetmanusman ◴[01 May 23 16:42 UTC] No.35775383[source]▶
I believe not accepting the divinity of Christ in the trinity is the stumbling block. Same with Muslims, who misunderstand the trinity to mean three Gods.
replies(3): >>35775941 #>>35776042 #>>35776574 #
3. mrkstu ◴[01 May 23 17:14 UTC] No.35775941[source]▶
They/we do accept the divinity of Christ, we just don’t accept the Nicean creed version of the Trinity.

That version of the Trinity wasn’t/isn’t universal and other accepted Christian churches that don’t follow the Nicean creed - something shared with Jehovahs Witnesses.

replies(1): >>35778691 #
4. 128bytes ◴[01 May 23 17:20 UTC] No.35776042[source]▶
Characterizing it as 'misunderstanding' is disingenous, we just don't believe it stands up to scrutiny. Any inquiries into the nature of the trinity result in the trinitarian doing one of two things: collapsing into obvious polytheism, or claiming their doctrine is incomprehensible and therefore inscruitable, neither of which are satisfying answers. Many Catholics in particular will in fact fall into what their church considers various heresies in trying to wrap their heads around what they claim to believe.
replies(2): >>35776739 #>>35777280 #
5. AnimalMuppet ◴[01 May 23 17:53 UTC] No.35776574[source]▶
The whole "we can progress to become gods" thing is a stumbling block to "normal" Christianity, too. As is the "these other books are also scripture".
6. mensetmanusman ◴[01 May 23 18:06 UTC] No.35776739{3}[source]▶
The latter of the two is probably reasonable, because claiming that a finite mind can not grasp an infinite one is a reasonable conclusion (even from a thermodynamic point of view :)).

“I and the Father are One” is the genesis.

Not all mysteries are scrutable in a given axiomatic framework, thankfully Gödel taught us that.

7. NoZebra120vClip ◴[01 May 23 18:46 UTC] No.35777280{3}[source]▶
That's an oversimplification and not charitable. Trinitarians are perfectly capable of defending the doctrine without making stupid mistakes. I wouldn't call the doctrine "incomprehensible"; it's just beyond human understanding, in a way that we could contemplate it for the rest of eternity without reaching the fullness of what God has planted in that seed of knowledge.

It's easy to believe in the Trinity if you approach it as a little child, as Jesus encourages, and if we word it simply as the Fathers did. If we don't attempt to adorn it with our own analogies or explanations, it's elegant, simple, and transcendent.

replies(1): >>35790120 #
8. pseudalopex ◴[01 May 23 20:28 UTC] No.35778691{3}[source]▶
Jehovah's Witnesses are not more accepted than Mormons as Christians in my experience. Or any other church in Wikipedia's non trinitarian category.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nontrinitarian_denomi...

9. freedomben ◴[02 May 23 16:31 UTC] No.35790120{4}[source]▶
> I wouldn't call the doctrine "incomprehensible"; it's just beyond human understanding, in a way that we could contemplate it for the rest of eternity without reaching the fullness of what God has planted in that seed of knowledge.

I am trying but failing to see the difference here. It sounds like what you're saying is, "I wouldn't call the doctrine incomprehensible, it's just that we (as humans) can't comprehend it"

> It's easy to believe in the Trinity if you approach it as a little child, as Jesus encourages, and if we word it simply as the Fathers did.

If you approach it as a little child, it's also very easy to believe in Santa Claus, but that doesn't make it any more true (or any more likely to be true either).