Scott Lloyd Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 Good conference talk by Elder Ballard on preference for use of the formal name of the Church of Jesus Christ and when it is OK to say "Mormon."I hope people take this to heart. I am puzzled by the ongoing confusion on this matter. 2
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 I actually rather like the "Mormon" nickname. I do think it's kinda weird to want to claim the name "Christian" while wanting to deny the Fundamentalist offshoots the name "Mormon".
Scott Lloyd Posted October 2, 2011 Author Posted October 2, 2011 I actually rather like the "Mormon" nickname. I do think it's kinda weird to want to claim the name "Christian" while wanting to deny the Fundamentalist offshoots the name "Mormon".It's as simple as widespread name association in the public mind. For millennia, people have associated the name Christian with any follower of Christ, regardless of certain disparities and nuances in belief among and between such followers.On the other hand, "Mormon," has long and widely been associated explicitly with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.And given that some of these "fundamentalist offshoots" you speak of are lawbreakers and worse, it should not be any surprise that members of the Church of Jesus Christ would object to the misapplication of the name Mormon.
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 "Those blasphemers following Joseph Smith are lawbreakers and worse! They can't possibly be Christians!"
Scott Lloyd Posted October 2, 2011 Author Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) "Those blasphemers following Joseph Smith are lawbreakers and worse! They can't possibly be Christians!"I had in mind the Lafferty brothers who slit the throat of their sister-in-law, the Ervil LeBaron clan who perpetrated murder and assassination, oppressive men who have committed child sexual abuse in the name of polygamy. By any objective standard, these would be regarded as lawbreakers and worse.Your words are in quotation marks; whom are you quoting? Edited October 3, 2011 by Scott Lloyd
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 No one, it was an exaggerated example of a stereotypical traditional-Christian response in the early days of the Church. I just think the name controversy is kinda overblown. If someone believes in the Book of Mormon, I say they're Mormons; we're Christians because we believe in Christ, no matter how much the Trinitarians don't like our interpretation of scripture. There are plenty of Christians who believe in the Bible and yet commit atrocious sins - it's not the appropriation of the name that's the problem, it's the sin. *shrug*
Sargon Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 I tend to agree with Jeremy. If a person believes that the Book of Mormon in an inspired document, aka scripture, they ought to be allowed to claim the title "Mormon" whether they are LDS or not. I say this as a faithful Latter-day Saint.
Deborah Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 Which is why the church wants people to know us by our proper name; too many apostates have kept the name Mormon and it can be confusing and misleading. 1
KevinG Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 The biggest fight we have on our hands for using the correct name of the Church is that it is a mouthful."LDS" and "Mormon" are much easier to slip into a conversation than "A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". I try to use "member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints... you may have heard us referred to by our nickname the Mormons".
Deborah Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 Well, he did say you can just say you belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.
zerinus Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 I actually rather like the "Mormon" nickname. I do think it's kinda weird to want to claim the name "Christian" while wanting to deny the Fundamentalist offshoots the name "Mormon".I think what Elder Ballard was questioning was calling the institutionalized Church itself as the "Mormon Church," rather than Mormons themselves referring to themselves as "Mormons". He seemed to be okay with the latter, while disapproving of the former. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 2, 2011 Author Posted October 2, 2011 I think what Elder Ballard was questioning was calling the institutionalized Church itself as the "Mormon Church," rather than Mormons themselves referring to themselves as "Mormons". He seemed to be okay with the latter, while disapproving of the former.However, the Church itself has taken this position, enunciated in the "Newsroom" section of lds.org:There Is No Such Thing as a "Mormon Fundamentalist" or "Mormon Sect"The term "Mormon" is a nickname commonly applied to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is no such thing as a "Mormon fundamentalist," nor are there "Mormon sects." A correct term to describe these polygamist groups is "polygamist sects." The inclusion of the word "Mormon" is misleading and inaccurate.Link here.
zerinus Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 However, the Church itself has taken this position, enunciated in the "Newsroom" section of lds.org:Link here. I did not understand. What I had said did not contradict your quote.
cdowis Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) When they announced the "I am a Mormon" program in my ward, the first thing I thought.... "Huh? mormon.org, I am a Mormon, etc. The church leaders keep telling me that word is verboten, and now they are announcing a major program around that name."Elder Ballard was answering my question. We can use that nickname for individual church members, and try to associate it with the church's full name. Surveys have shown that people have a high respect for the church's full name, but associate "Mormon" with cults. They are trying to tie the two together. Edited October 2, 2011 by cdowis
BCSpace Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 I hope people take this to heart. I am puzzled by the ongoing confusion on this matter. It's in the best interest of the church of the Devil for there to be continuing confusion on the matter.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 2, 2011 Author Posted October 2, 2011 I did not understand. What I had said did not contradict your quote.I realize that. But the post to which you were responding does.
Cobalt-70 Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 Nobody in the press or academia is going to listen to calls by the LDS Church not to use the word "Mormon" with respect to other organizations and people who call themselves Mormons. The term "Mormon" is a generic term as a practical matter and as a matter of U.S. law. The LDS Church never owned it, and there is nothing the LDS Church can do now to reclaim that term. I can see why the LDS Church would want to give it a try, though, but I'm afraid it won't work. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 2, 2011 Author Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) It's in the best interest of the church of the Devil for there to be continuing confusion on the matter.And thus a very good reason, it seems to me, why the devil would want the public to regard schismatic groups, however malevolent, as "Mormon." Edited October 2, 2011 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted October 2, 2011 Author Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) Nobody in the press or academia is going to listen to calls by the LDS Church not to use the word "Mormon" with respect to other organizations and people who call themselves Mormons.I agree that some — perhaps many — will not. Are you really insisting, though, that "nobody" will, or are you just using hyperbole?I work professionally in the mass media. I see it as one of my primary duties to be clear and accurate. That is not accomplished by deliberately using terms in a way that causes or perpetuates confusion or misconception. Edited October 2, 2011 by Scott Lloyd
Cobalt-70 Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 I agree that some — perhaps many — will not. Are you really insisting, though, that "nobody" will, or are you just using hyperbole?I don't think that any of the mainstream news organizations will listen. It's like a Hasidic Jewish organization asking the media not to call Reform Jews "Jews." It ain't gonna happen.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 2, 2011 Author Posted October 2, 2011 I agree that some — perhaps many — will not. Are you really insisting, though, that "nobody" will, or are you just using hyperbole?I work professionally in the mass media. I see it as one of my primary duties to be clear and accurate. That is not accomplished by deliberately using terms in a way that causes or perpetuates confusion or misconception.
zerinus Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 I realize that. But the post to which you were responding does.Okay, I get it. I hadn't read his post very carefully. I suppose there is a kind of perverse logic to his post; but there is also an answer to it. The answer is that Christianity has been around long enough that by calling any church "Christian" is not going to cause confusion in anybody else's mind about what particular denomination one belongs to. If I just said that I am a Christian, I could be Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Baptist, or anything else. Nobody is going to get confused about what particular denomination I belong to. But Mormonism hasn't been around long enough for the word Mormon to acquire the same generic quality as the word Christian does. When people hear the word Mormon, they most often think about us, because it is by far the largest and most ubiquitous of any church that could be called by that name. Therefore there is a potential for confusion with using the word Mormon that does not exist with using the word Christian.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 2, 2011 Author Posted October 2, 2011 Okay, I get it. I hadn't read his post very carefully. I suppose there is a kind of perverse logic to his post; but there is also an answer to it. The answer is that Christianity has been around long enough that by calling any church "Christian" is not going to cause confusion in anybody else's mind about what particular denomination one belongs to. If I just said that I am a Christian, I could be Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Baptist, or anything else. Nobody is going to get confused about what particular denomination I belong to. But Mormonism hasn't been around long enough for the word Mormon to acquire the same generic quality as the word Christian does. When people hear the word Mormon, they most often think about us, because it is by far the largest and most ubiquitous of any church that could be called by that name. Therefore there is a potential for confusion with using the word Mormon that does not exist with using the word Christian.Very well stated.
zerinus Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) Nobody in the press or academia is going to listen to calls by the LDS Church not to use the word "Mormon" with respect to other organizations and people who call themselves Mormons.I don't think that any of the mainstream news organizations will listen. It's like a Hasidic Jewish organization asking the media not to call Reform Jews "Jews." It ain't gonna happen.Of course they will, and already have. They have as much interest in accurate news reporting as we do. Edited October 2, 2011 by zerinus
Mark Beesley Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 On the other hand, "Mormon," has long and widely been associated explicitly with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.That is simply not true. I had a penpal when I was 15 or 16. She was RLDS. She called herself a Mormon. Others thought of her, and referred to her as a Mormon. And though my mom objected to my penpal claiming the appellation "Mormon," that objection seems to be limited to members of the Church. Many offshoot member have historically been know as Mormons.
Recommended Posts