DeseretNews: Focusing on the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

[Avatar4321]

On 8/21/2019 at 1:39 PM, MiserereNobis said:

I think the hardest one is Mormonism, referring not just to the organization, but also to the beliefs, the culture, the practices, the history, the traditions, the worldview, on and on. Think of what "Catholicism" encompasses.

What is a simple replacement for Mormonism?

The restored gospel

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You didn't fully answer the question. What do you mean by "Church-controlled publications coming out of Utah?"

What is so hard for you to understand about "I was thinking the Deseret News"

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

Here's one!

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/our-communities/souwester/Church-of-Jesus-Christ-of-Latter-day-Saints-plans-Bridgwater-temple-393153831.html

Thanks Duncan.  I wish I could read the article.  They won't let me read the article in my area without a subscription.

[Avatar4321]

On 8/21/2019 at 3:58 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Not a great analogy either. President Nelson has made it clear the directive is not about “branding” or “marketing” in the commercial or worldly sense. It is about following the commandment of the Savior regarding the name of His Church and conveying the message to the world that it is indeed His Church. 

Furthermore, it is my opinion that President Nelson has been unprecedentedly stringent on this matter because the people have been slow to hearken to it in the past. We’re still seeing a lot of murmuring about it even now, but that won’t change what the Lord has impressed upon the mind of His spokesman. 

Agreed. 

I would also argue that one of our baptism covenants is to take upon ourselves the name of Christ. Following this command to use the proper name of the Church is one of the ways we keep that covenant.

It's also helping the missionary work. Sharing Mormon.org on social media usually wasnt shared. Comeuntochrist.org is shared frequently by non members .

[Duncan]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thanks Duncan.  I wish I could read the article.  They won't let me read the article in my area without a subscription.

oh whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat!!! that is no good! well, they don't use the word Mormon , if that helps any?

The neighbourhoods of Bridgwater could soon be home to Manitoba’s first temple for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

On Aug. 25, about 85 people gathered at the Winnipeg Manitoba Stake Centre to learn about the proposed Winnipeg Manitoba Temple, which is pending approval from the City. After approvals are in place, groundbreaking could begin by the end of the year, with an estimated construction time of about 20 months.

 

The Church already has four meeting houses, or chapels, in Winnipeg which serve as a hub of congregational worship and weekly activities. But Manitoba is yet to be home to a temple, which is not used for Sunday worship. Instead, temple entrance is given to members in good standing for individual worship, meditation and devotion, as well as for sacred ordinances such as marriage.

Public affairs director Christine Baronins said church president Thomas S. Monson announced the local temple at a general conference meeting of the church in 2011.

"It’s been in the works ever since," she said. "The temple department, based in Salt Lake City, as well as the architect for the temple and the City of Winnipeg have been working in collaboration."

The Manitoba location will be the ninth temple in Canada and the 145th worldwide. According to statistics provided by Baronins, Manitoba has more than 4,400 members in 12 congregations. The local temple district will cover all of Manitoba and portions of Northwestern Ontario.

"They determine the location based on membership and geographical distance to a temple. Currently, the members in Winnipeg need to travel to Regina if they want to attend a temple because that’s their nearest temple. They look at how their membership has to sacrifice and travel," she said.

"Since Manitobans need to go to another province, that was one of the factors that determined the temple being built here. They want the temple to be used by the membership, so they want the blessings of the temple to be more accessible to all people so they don’t have to incur all of the travel and the time and the cost."

Baronins' husband, Richard, is a regional church leader who joined the church at 20.

"We’ve been hoping for a temple for years. It’s the most important building in the church for us. The Winnipeg temple will probably be used two or three days a week for a few hours during those days," he said.

"It’s where special ordinances are performed, so it’s not a meeting house. You wouldn’t normally see large groups of people there. It will be a fairly large building but it’s not full of people all the time."

In addition to the temple, plans are also in the works for a meeting house to be built on the same site. Between 100 and 150 people will likely gather there for Sunday worship services.

"These are very expensive buildings and they’re usually very high quality, so they try to put them in high-quality neighbourhoods. We were originally looking to build in Tuxedo. It didn’t work out there, so they purchased land in Bridgwater," he said.

"It looks like it will fit in very nicely. In particular, we wanted to emphasize that the grounds would be meticulously landscaped. The temple itself is only accessible to members, but the grounds will be a little oasis in the middle of that town centre for people to use."

FWIW the Temple is across the street from a Liquor Mart🍺🥴

Edited August 24, 2019 by Duncan

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

The restored gospel

That doesn’t work when talking about the community, culture, history...only doctrinal, a small part of what is usually labeled “Mormonism”.  It can certainly work for that though it is unlikely those who don’t believe it is the Restored Gospel will call it that. 

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Duncan said:

oh whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat!!! that is no good! well, they don't use the word Mormon , if that helps any?

The neighbourhoods of Bridgwater could soon be home to Manitoba’s first temple for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

On Aug. 25, about 85 people gathered at the Winnipeg Manitoba Stake Centre to learn about the proposed Winnipeg Manitoba Temple, which is pending approval from the City. After approvals are in place, groundbreaking could begin by the end of the year, with an estimated construction time of about 20 months.

 

The Church already has four meeting houses, or chapels, in Winnipeg which serve as a hub of congregational worship and weekly activities. But Manitoba is yet to be home to a temple, which is not used for Sunday worship. Instead, temple entrance is given to members in good standing for individual worship, meditation and devotion, as well as for sacred ordinances such as marriage.

Public affairs director Christine Baronins said church president Thomas S. Monson announced the local temple at a general conference meeting of the church in 2011.

"It’s been in the works ever since," she said. "The temple department, based in Salt Lake City, as well as the architect for the temple and the City of Winnipeg have been working in collaboration."

The Manitoba location will be the ninth temple in Canada and the 145th worldwide. According to statistics provided by Baronins, Manitoba has more than 4,400 members in 12 congregations. The local temple district will cover all of Manitoba and portions of Northwestern Ontario.

"They determine the location based on membership and geographical distance to a temple. Currently, the members in Winnipeg need to travel to Regina if they want to attend a temple because that’s their nearest temple. They look at how their membership has to sacrifice and travel," she said.

"Since Manitobans need to go to another province, that was one of the factors that determined the temple being built here. They want the temple to be used by the membership, so they want the blessings of the temple to be more accessible to all people so they don’t have to incur all of the travel and the time and the cost."

Baronins' husband, Richard, is a regional church leader who joined the church at 20.

"We’ve been hoping for a temple for years. It’s the most important building in the church for us. The Winnipeg temple will probably be used two or three days a week for a few hours during those days," he said.

"It’s where special ordinances are performed, so it’s not a meeting house. You wouldn’t normally see large groups of people there. It will be a fairly large building but it’s not full of people all the time."

In addition to the temple, plans are also in the works for a meeting house to be built on the same site. Between 100 and 150 people will likely gather there for Sunday worship services.

"These are very expensive buildings and they’re usually very high quality, so they try to put them in high-quality neighbourhoods. We were originally looking to build in Tuxedo. It didn’t work out there, so they purchased land in Bridgwater," he said.

"It looks like it will fit in very nicely. In particular, we wanted to emphasize that the grounds would be meticulously landscaped. The temple itself is only accessible to members, but the grounds will be a little oasis in the middle of that town centre for people to use."

FWIW the Temple is across the street from a Liquor Mart🍺🥴

Thanks for posting this so I could read it.  I guess this is one way to address the problem.  The author just used the word "they" and let you figure out who the heck he is referring to.  It will be interesting to see how others deal with this problem.

[Damien the Leper]

On 8/21/2019 at 1:58 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Not a great analogy either. President Nelson has made it clear the directive is not about “branding” or “marketing” in the commercial or worldly sense. It is about following the commandment of the Savior regarding the name of His Church and conveying the message to the world that it is indeed His Church. 

Furthermore, it is my opinion that President Nelson has been unprecedentedly stringent on this matter because the people have been slow to hearken to it in the past. We’re still seeing a lot of murmuring about it even now, but that won’t change what the Lord has impressed upon the mind of His spokesman. 

It seems that any person who prior to Nelson's stance were also in a state of apostasy considering how big an issue this is. The "I'm a Mormon" campaign was a deliberate apostate program for using the term Mormon. Same with mormon.org. There is much apostasy and lack of commandment abiding taking place internally prior to Nelson's request.

[MiserereNobis]

9 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

The restored gospel

 

8 hours ago, Calm said:

That doesn’t work when talking about the community, culture, history...only doctrinal, a small part of what is usually labeled “Mormonism”.  It can certainly work for that though it is unlikely those who don’t believe it is the Restored Gospel will call it that. 

I agree with Calm. And it has a truth claim to it that is inappropriate for journalists to use, and uncomfortable or awkward for non-LDS. While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also has a truth claim (namely, that it is Christ's Church), it is appropriate and acceptable because it is the official name of the organization. The restored gospel is not official.

Imagine a conversation I'm having with a friend.

Friend: why do you spend so much time on that Mormon discussion board?

Me: Because the restored gospel intrigues me and I enjoy learning about it.

See how that doesn't work? I'd never say that because it strongly implies that I believe that Mormonism is the restored gospel, when obviously I don't. But it is true that Mormonism intrigues me (doctrine, practices, history, culture, etc) and that's why I'm here.

It's not a big deal to me, really, I just point it out as what I see as a difficult part in the change. Maybe I'll just use LDS culture or something. Easy to type.

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I agree with Calm. And it has a truth claim to it that is inappropriate for journalists to use, and uncomfortable or awkward for non-LDS. While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also has a truth claim (namely, that it is Christ's Church), it is appropriate and acceptable because it is the official name of the organization. The restored gospel is not official.

Imagine a conversation I'm having with a friend.

Friend: why do you spend so much time on that Mormon discussion board?

Me: Because the restored gospel intrigues me and I enjoy learning about it.

See how that doesn't work? I'd never say that because it strongly implies that I believe that Mormonism is the restored gospel, when obviously I don't. But it is true that Mormonism intrigues me (doctrine, practices, history, culture, etc) and that's why I'm here.

It's not a big deal to me, really, I just point it out as what I see as a difficult part in the change. Maybe I'll just use LDS culture or something. Easy to type.

Oh, darn. I thought I had convinced you to use restorationism/restorationist! It doesn't appear it will stick... Even SDAs have Adventism. I guess that leaves Saintism for us  

[Calm]

I would use Restorationism save it is already taken.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism

[changed]

His name wasn't even Jesus... it was Yahshua, so...

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, changed said:

His name wasn't even Jesus... it was Yahshua, so...

God has always spoken to people within their cultural context. So, it got translated into English as Jesus, and Yeshua picked up with it. I agree that is not the way His name was pronounced, but we seem to disagree even there. I think it was Yeshua. Anyways, in the process of getting translated through Greek Messiah became Christos and then Christ, because we kept the Greek form, so one could argue we are wrong there too. It is more just a translation issue. But yeah, The Church of Yeshua Meshiach of Latter-Day Saints - has a nice ring to it even if we will all end up spitting on each other when trying to pronounce the gutteral ch of Meshiach.

[RevTestament]

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would use Restorationism save it is already taken.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism

It's not really taken. We would just have to share it with a number of other Christian groups. The term doesn't apply to any single one of them. There were the Old World Restorationists and the American Restorationists, which we fit into. Even Mormonism is not quite singular in reference, but is often used for offshoots of the Church - some of whom we really  don't want to be identified with like FLDS. So I don't have a problem leaving it behind.

[bluebell]

We just had a three hour regional leadership training meeting in our stake (only bishops, EQ, RS, YM, YW Presidents, and stake leadership) with Elder Uchtdorf and Elders Peterson, Clayton, and Christiansen of the 70 and the topic was minister/missionary work and calling the church by the correct name.

Elder Uchtdorf made the comment that using the full and correct name of the church shouldn't be a big deal and that we should be normal and natural about it, not making it a big deal or apologizing if we slip up but to do our best, and that saying the full name, Church of Christ, restored church, restored church of Jesus Christ, Latter-day Saints, or even just the church (if everyone already knows what church you are talking about) is perfectly acceptable depending on the audience.

He focused on the importance of being willing to make the change, the power and blessings that will come as we do, and then not being weird or strident about it.  It seemed like a pretty common-sense approach to it.

[Stormin' Mormon]

The challenge I've encountered is coming up with a word to describe the culture that surrounds the membership of the church, but which does not give the false impression that such cultural features are institutionally sanctioned. 

For example, books like "The Work and the Glory" used to be referred to as "Mormon fiction."  But if that word is no longer acceptable, and calling it "fiction of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" gives the wrong impression, then what do we call those books?  And this is an issue that goes beyond fiction:  Mormon film, Mormon taboos, Mormon rites-of-passage.  My daughter just had a movie party with her friends last night and watched "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" for the first time.  That's a "Mormon rite-of-passage, but definitely not a rite-of-passage of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

[SettingDogStar]

42 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The challenge I've encountered is coming up with a word to describe the culture that surrounds the membership of the church, but which does not give the false impression that such cultural features are institutionally sanctioned. 

For example, books like "The Work and the Glory" used to be referred to as "Mormon fiction."  But if that word is no longer acceptable, and calling it "fiction of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" gives the wrong impression, then what do we call those books?  And this is an issue that goes beyond fiction:  Mormon film, Mormon taboos, Mormon rites-of-passage.  My daughter just had a movie party with her friends last night and watched "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" for the first time.  That's a "Mormon rite-of-passage, but definitely not a rite-of-passage of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Exactly. There’s the church itself and the culture surrounding it. Like you said, some things are culturally embedded into The LDS members (and other churches) lives and history, but have nothing to do with the church itself.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, Valentinus said:

It seems that any person who prior to Nelson's stance were also in a state of apostasy considering how big an issue this is. The "I'm a Mormon" campaign was a deliberate apostate program for using the term Mormon. Same with mormon.org. There is much apostasy and lack of commandment abiding taking place internally prior to Nelson's request.

Even during the “I’m a Mormon” years, it was the long-standing, expressed desire of the Church leaders that it not be called “the Mormon church.” They did not want the name of Christ being severed from the name of the Church in contravention of the words of Christ in scripture, not even as a nickname. Those who doubt or deny this are showing their own lack of awareness. 

It’s true that the name “Mormon” was tolerated in some usages during that time. But President Nelson has chosen to be more rigid on this matter. Already in this thread I have given my opinion as to why. I think it’s because for too long people have not hearkened  to the Lord’s directive as given through His prophet-leaders. There has been too much of murmuring if not outright ignoring of the teachings on this doctrinal point. Allowing the use of “Mormon” in names like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the “I Am a Mormon” campaign has made it too easy for Church members themselves, not to mention outsiders, to slip into the old habit of saying “the Mormon church.” 

Now, with this most recent directive, the Church President is signaling that he means business on this point, or rather, the Lord through the instrumentality of the prophet is showing that He means business. 

Edited August 25, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

The challenge I've encountered is coming up with a word to describe the culture that surrounds the membership of the church, but which does not give the false impression that such cultural features are institutionally sanctioned. 

For example, books like "The Work and the Glory" used to be referred to as "Mormon fiction."  But if that word is no longer acceptable, and calling it "fiction of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" gives the wrong impression, then what do we call those books?  And this is an issue that goes beyond fiction:  Mormon film, Mormon taboos, Mormon rites-of-passage.  My daughter just had a movie party with her friends last night and watched "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" for the first time.  That's a "Mormon rite-of-passage, but definitely not a rite-of-passage of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Maybe in the eyes of heaven, it is good that we be known to the world as followers of Christ as distinct from adherents to some sort of cultural ethnicity, similar to the Jews whose Jewishness does not necessarily imply religious commitment. 

Just thinking out loud here.

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Even during the “I’m a Mormon” years, it was the long-standing, expressed desire of the Church leaders that it not be called “the Mormon church.” They did not want the name of Christ being severed from the name of the Church in contravention of the words of Christ in scripture, not even as a nickname. Those who doubt or deny this are showing their own lack of awareness. 

It’s true that the name “Mormon” was tolerated in some usages during that time. But President Nelson has chosen to be more rigid on this matter. Already in this thread I have given my opinion as to why. I think it’s because for too long people have not hearkened  to the Lord’s directive as given through His prophet-leaders. There has been too much of murmuring if not outright ignoring of the teachings on this doctrinal point. Allowing the use of “Mormon” in names like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the “I Am a Mormon” campaign has made it too easy for Church members themselves, not to mention outsiders, to slip into the old habit of saying “the Mormon church.” 

Now, with this most recent directive, the Church President is signaling that he means business on this point, or rather, the Lord through the instrumentality of the prophet is showing that He means business. 

I know it is a common practice to blame the members and never ever question the leaders, but this practice often does not reflect reality. For decades and decades PR programs, marketing campaigns, books, magazine articles, conference talks, church websites, and internet material, not to mention the Mo Tab all had and used the name Mormon.  This was not something that was "tolerated".  It was something that was activity promoted.  This all came right from the top.  The leaders you adore are the ones responsible for keeping and promoting the name Mormon. It is disingenuous to blame this on the membership.

As to your other point.  I think you were right the first time.  It is Nelson that means business, and this is becoming a costly pet project.  I think there is some question as to if this effort sustainable in the long term.  After all, this wouldn't be the first time one of Nelson's "revelations" had to be walked back.

[Damien the Leper]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Even during the “I’m a Mormon” years, it was the long-standing, expressed desire of the Church leaders that it not be called “the Mormon church.” They did not want the name of Christ being severed from the name of the Church in contravention of the words of Christ in scripture, not even as a nickname. Those who doubt or deny this are showing their own lack of awareness. 

It’s true that the name “Mormon” was tolerated in some usages during that time. But President Nelson has chosen to be more rigid on this matter. Already in this thread I have given my opinion as to why. I think it’s because for too long people have not hearkened  to the Lord’s directive as given through His prophet-leaders. There has been too much of murmuring if not outright ignoring of the teachings on this doctrinal point. Allowing the use of “Mormon” in names like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the “I Am a Mormon” campaign has made it too easy for Church members themselves, not to mention outsiders, to slip into the old habit of saying “the Mormon church.” 

Now, with this most recent directive, the Church President is signaling that he means business on this point, or rather, the Lord through the instrumentality of the prophet is showing that He means business. 

I get what you're saying and find it very reasonable. For me, possibly in my own ignorance, I don't believe that Christ can be severed in any way from Mormonism, Mormon, LDS and to the very least degree The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't members called Mormons during the oppressions of Missouri and Illinois? While some may look back and think of the label as pejorative, I believe it to be a badge of honor to stand in loyalty to the faith and in loyalty to God. Perhaps i am being unreasonable now.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/24/2019 at 9:18 AM, MiserereNobis said:

 

I agree with Calm. And it has a truth claim to it that is inappropriate for journalists to use, and uncomfortable or awkward for non-LDS. While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also has a truth claim (namely, that it is Christ's Church), it is appropriate and acceptable because it is the official name of the organization. The restored gospel is not official.

Imagine a conversation I'm having with a friend.

Friend: why do you spend so much time on that Mormon discussion board?

Me: Because the restored gospel intrigues me and I enjoy learning about it.

See how that doesn't work? I'd never say that because it strongly implies that I believe that Mormonism is the restored gospel, when obviously I don't. But it is true that Mormonism intrigues me (doctrine, practices, history, culture, etc) and that's why I'm here.

It's not a big deal to me, really, I just point it out as what I see as a difficult part in the change. Maybe I'll just use LDS culture or something. Easy to type.

What you say here makes eminent sense. I would never expect you or anyone else who does not belong to our church or does not embrace the doctrines of our faith to refer to them as “the restored gospel.”

But I see the instruction from President Nelson as being primarily directed toward believing and committed members of the Church. I regard it as more than reasonable to expect those in that category to comply with the Church president’s teaching and to do it without murmuring or complaining or publicly disparaging the Church or its leaders. 

If we want to convey accurately to the outside world how we see ourselves, we ought to self-identify in a way that supports that message. If we pretend to be non-members or unbelievers, or if we behave or speak in a way that appears we are doing so, we can hardly blame others for being confused about who and what we claim to be. 

We claim to be no less than the covenant people of God and custodians of the gospel of Christ with its attendant authority and salvific ordinances and covenants that we offer to all of God’s children. We need to own that self concept in all we do and say. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I get what you're saying and find it very reasonable. For me, possibly in my own ignorance, I don't believe that Christ can be severed in any way from Mormonism, Mormon, LDS and to the very least degree The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't members called Mormons during the oppressions of Missouri and Illinois? While some may look back and think of the label as pejorative, I believe it to be a badge of honor to stand in loyalty to the faith and in loyalty to God. Perhaps i am being unreasonable now.

You are quite right. The Mormon label did originate as a pejorative that was later embraced by our people as a badge of honor. 

The concern today is that the name has been embraced so readily and widely that it has come to supplant the name of Christ as the name of His Church. That ought not be. 

There’s an interesting parallel here with the word Christian, which also began as a pejorative but was later embraced by its targets. The obvious difference, of course, is that Christian contains the name of Christ, while Mormon does not. 

[Damien the Leper]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are quite right. The Mormon label did originate as a pejorative that was later embraced by our people as a badge of honor. 

The concern today is that the name has been embraced so readily and widely that it has come to supplant the name of Christ as the name of His Church. That ought not be. 

There’s an interesting parallel here with the word Christian, which also began as a pejorative but was later embraced by its targets. The obvious difference, of course, is that Christian contains the name of Christ, while Mormon does not. 

This makes me curious. When and why did the church add the subtitle to the BoM? It doesn't make sense to add it after so long a time so that having Christ's name on the book grabs the attention of nonmembers or to soothe nonmembers Christian sensibilities so as to provide a common ground. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, the article "The" was not part of the original book binding or title page. Likewise an odd addition.

Edited August 26, 2019 by Valentinus

[Tacenda]

On 8/24/2019 at 4:09 PM, bluebell said:

We just had a three hour regional leadership training meeting in our stake (only bishops, EQ, RS, YM, YW Presidents, and stake leadership) with Elder Uchtdorf and Elders Peterson, Clayton, and Christiansen of the 70 and the topic was minister/missionary work and calling the church by the correct name.

Elder Uchtdorf made the comment that using the full and correct name of the church shouldn't be a big deal and that we should be normal and natural about it, not making it a big deal or apologizing if we slip up but to do our best, and that saying the full name, Church of Christ, restored church, restored church of Jesus Christ, Latter-day Saints, or even just the church (if everyone already knows what church you are talking about) is perfectly acceptable depending on the audience.

He focused on the importance of being willing to make the change, the power and blessings that will come as we do, and then not being weird or strident about it.  It seemed like a pretty common-sense approach to it.

Elder Uchtdorf spoke in stake conference this morning. The doors opened at 9:00 and the meeting was set to start at 10:00. When my husband and I arrived it was 9:15 and the place was packed! I guess people got there much earlier and waited in line. Luckily we got a seat at the back by the stage. People were sitting on the floor in the lobby even, haha. He's a well loved man! 

He is a very down to earth, common sense kind of guy for sure!