Elder Ballard And The Church Of Jesus Christ

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

It's a matter of relying on individuals' professionalism and good judgment. That's all we can hope for, but it doesn't hurt to ask.

And do Hasidic Jews really lay exclusive claim to the name Jews? I hadn't understood that to be the case.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Anecdotes by themselves don't refute what is generally the case, that the public mind generally associates the word Mormon with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with headquarters in Salt Lake City, tracing its origins to Joseph Smith and led west under the leadership of Brigham Young. Terms such as "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" and "Mormon Pioneer Trail" have cemented that association in a way that no schismatic group can lay claim to.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[zerinus]

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.

I am puzzled by that, because the RLDS people were more averse to calling themselves "Mormons" precisely because they did not want to be identified with us.

[Mark Beesley]

Anecdotes by themselves don't refute what is generally the case.

Fine, you don't like anecdotal evidence . . . You stated, "On the other hand, "Mormon," has long and widely been associated explicitly with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

CFR for the truth of your allegation.

[Scott Lloyd]

Fine, you don't like anecdotal evidence . . . You stated, "On the other hand, "Mormon," has long and widely been associated explicitly with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

CFR for the truth of your allegation.

It's axiomatic.

[Mark Beesley]

I am puzzled by that, because the RLDS people were more averse to calling themselves "Mormons" precisely because they did not want to be identified with us.

That has not been my experience. They were adverse to being known as Brighamites. There was no problem clairfying that they were not affilliated with those folks in Utah. Just took a few more words, something the Twitter-generation seems to abhor . . . using a few more words.

[Scott Lloyd]

I am puzzled by that, because the RLDS people were more averse to calling themselves "Mormons" precisely because they did not want to be identified with us.

That had been my understanding as well.

Add on:

From a Community of Christ website:

The Community of Christ was formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints -- the "RLDS Church". They were organized on 1860-APR-6 in Amboy, IL. Their head office moved several times and finally settled in Independence MO in 1920.

They do not refer to themselves as "Mormons" -- a term long associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and some other LDS Restorationist denominations and sects -- because of the term's association with polygyny -- group marriage between one man and multiple women. In addition, they believe the name was not part of the original church.

I'll get a link in a second.

Here it is.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Mark Beesley]

It's axiomatic.

This is why I don't waste much time here anymore.

[Scott Lloyd]

That has not been my experience. They were adverse to being known as Brighamites. There was no problem clairfying that they were not affilliated with those folks in Utah. Just took a few more words, something the Twitter-generation seems to abhor . . . using a few more words.

I don't think anybody ever called them "Brighamites." Some of their own members may have used that as a term of disparagement to refer to followers of Brigham Young.

Why would anyone call them Brighamites if they rejected the leadership of Brigham Young? That makes no sense.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[OUmd]

If the name of the church is so important (which was a huge part of his talk), why did the Lord take so long to "reveal" it to Joseph Smith?

[Scott Lloyd]

If the name of the church is so important (which was a huge part of his talk), why did the Lord take so long to "reveal" it to Joseph Smith?

"Line upon line, precept upon precept." Much of the time, the Lord doesn't reveal something until somebody thinks to ask about it. That's the way He works.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

This is why I don't waste much time here anymore.

It is argumentative to demand that someone substantiate an axiom. Are you going to "CFR" that the sun rises in the east?

[OUmd]

"Line upon line, precept upon precept." Much of the time, the Lord doesn't reveal something until somebody thinks to ask about it. That's the way He works.

Perhaps. A more plausible answer, for me, would be that we don't know. After all, the prophet should have known how "important" the name of the church should be just by his translation of the BoM. Elder Ballard used the same analogy himself in his talk.

This wasn't one of the most memorable talks of the conference, for me. Talks like that make those that have any knowledge about church history more confused.

Nevertheless, I am sure his talk was a benefit to many (including yourself), and that is what is beautiful about conference.

[Mark Beesley]

It is argumentative to demand that someone substantiate an axiom. Are you going to "CFR" that the sun rises in the east?

Do you know anyone who would dispute the rising of the sun? The fact that there is anecdotal evidence contradicting your allegation would seem to remove it from the realm of being an axiom . . .

[Scott Lloyd]

Do you know anyone who would dispute the rising of the sun? The fact that there is anecdotal evidence contradicting your allegation would seem to remove it from the realm of being an axiom . . .

I used the qualifier "general" or "generally" as in "generally understood." That does not preclude occasional exceptions.

Consider an analogy: It is axiomatic that most Democrats who voted in the last U.S. presidential election voted for Obama, though there may have been and probably were some who did not.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps. A more plausible answer, for me, would be that we don't know. After all, the prophet should have known how "important" the name of the church should be just by his translation of the BoM. Elder Ballard used the same analogy himself in his talk.

It's easy to say in hindsight what the Prophet "should have known." These were the formative days of the Church in which the Latter-day Saints were striving to understand and apply the Lord's will. I perceive a bit of the presentist fallacy in your remark.

Even today, many Church members have read the Book of Mormon, yet we still need the occasional reminder to call the Church by its proper name and to not drop the name of Christ from it.

This wasn't one of the most memorable talks of the conference, for me. Talks like that make those that have any knowledge about church history more confused.

Nevertheless, I am sure his talk was a benefit to many (including yourself), and that is what is beautiful about conference.

I liked it because it was badly needed. It serves to clear up what I have noticed has been a point of continuing confusion among a portion of the Church membership, even though, from my perspective, it has been clearly explained before.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Pahoran]

Talks like that make those that have any knowledge about church history more confused.

Nevertheless, I am sure his talk was a benefit to many (including yourself), and that is what is beautiful about conference.

Okay.

Since such talks "make those that have any knowledge about church history more confused," does that mean that those who, like Scott's self, gain some benefit from the talk have no knowledge of Church history?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Scott Lloyd]

Okay.

Since such talks "make those that have any knowledge about church history more confused," does that mean that those who, like Scott's self, gain some benefit from the talk have no knowledge of Church history?

Regards,

Pahoran

A pertinent question, to be sure. Thanks, Pahoran!

For the record, I am well aware of the history pertaining to the naming of the Church in this dispensation and, in light of what I tried to explain to OUmd about the nature of revelation, am not bothered at all by the fact that it took a while to settle on a name.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Cobalt-70]

In general, the press calls organizations and groups by the name they wish to be called. For example, when Prince became "the artist formerly known as Prince," the media respected his preference. Fundamentalist Mormons wish, very strongly and under no uncertain terms, to be called Mormon. The press has respected that for many years now, despite the LDS Church's stated intention to reclaim that word. The press generally doesn't let one group dictate what the press calls that group's rival.

Moreover, from an academic perspective, the term Mormon has been a generic term for over a century. It doesn't have an exclusive connection to the LDS Church. The term Mormon is like Methodist. Mormonism is a denomination, not a specific church.

[Scott Lloyd]

In general, the press calls organizations and groups by the name they wish to be called. For example, when Prince became "the artist formerly known as Prince," the media respected his preference. Fundamentalist Mormons wish, very strongly and under no uncertain terms, to be called Mormon. The press has respected that for many years now, despite the LDS Church's stated intention to reclaim that word. The press generally doesn't let one group dictate what the press calls that group's rival.

Moreover, from an academic perspective, the term Mormon has been a generic term for over a century. It doesn't have an exclusive connection to the LDS Church. The term Mormon is like Methodist. Mormonism is a denomination, not a specific church.

The overriding intent, it seems to me, should be to communicate in a way to avoid misunderstanding or misconception on the part of readers/listeners/viewers/consumers. Again, in light of the general association with the name, calling an offshoot group a "Mormon sect" does not accomplish that end.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Pahoran]

In general, the press calls organizations and groups by the name they wish to be called. For example, when Prince became "the artist formerly known as Prince," the media respected his preference. Fundamentalist Mormons wish, very strongly and under no uncertain terms, to be called Mormon. The press has respected that for many years now, despite the LDS Church's stated intention to reclaim that word. The press generally doesn't let one group dictate what the press calls that group's rival.

Moreover, from an academic perspective, the term Mormon has been a generic term for over a century. It doesn't have an exclusive connection to the LDS Church. The term Mormon is like Methodist. Mormonism is a denomination, not a specific church.

CFR that "the term Mormon has been a generic term for over a century." I don't believe it is or ever has been. Rather, I think the recent attempt to make it into a generic term is done by those who have an agenda to try to smear the Church of Jesus Christ by association with various apostates, especially those who commit crimes.

The fact is that the nickname "Mormon" was originally applied to the Church of Jesus Christ and its members. Thus, those who leave the Church -- whether they jump or are pushed -- are properly termed "ex-Mormons" or "former Mormons." Those who were never part of the Church in the first place don't even need to be called that.

Thus, the YFZ crowd and other so-called "fundamentalists" are actually non-Mormons. Likewise, former members who apostatise become ex-Mormons, regardless of the direction they go when they leave. Put another way, Brian Mitchell, the Lafferty brothers, Ed Decker and the Ranting fanatical Maniacs club (RfM) are all ex-Mormons together.

Regards,

Pahoran

[OUmd]

Okay.

Since such talks "make those that have any knowledge about church history more confused," does that mean that those who, like Scott's self, gain some benefit from the talk have no knowledge of Church history?

Regards,

Pahoran

If you prefer to make what I said a negative, so be it. My point was that I was happy that someone was able to find Elder Ballard's words inspiring. I did not find them inspiring, but confusing. So I guess you caught me. I am dumb/ignorant and Scott is all knowing and I should accept all of his opinions superior to mine.

Thanks for uplifting me. My hope is you feel better.

[Calm]

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.

When we lived in Kansas, my son's best friend was RLDS. They did not call themselves "Mormon".

[Calm]

Fundamentalist Mormons wish, very strongly and under no uncertain terms, to be called Mormon.

If someone has not already asked, CFR please as I have read elsewhere the opposite for at least one of the larger groups (will try and find it).

[Scott Lloyd]

When we lived in Kansas, my son's best friend was RLDS. They did not call themselves "Mormon".

And thus calmoriah's anecdote cancels out Mark Beesley's.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Scott Lloyd