Elder Ballard And The Church Of Jesus Christ

[LeSellers]

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.

Geography might have something to do with it, too.

Our youngest son served in the Missouri Independence Mission. "Mormon" had acquired a bit of that generic "penumbra" there (I believe there are more than a half-dozen Restoration churches headquartered on or near the Temple Lot, in addition to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).

That is unique, or nearly so, to that area in my view (Kirtland may be another such place, since the Reorg/CoC own the Temple there, even though they can't maintain it without our help.

Lehi

Edited October 2, 2011 by LeSellers

[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.

But OUmd, I didn't say that; nor does that follow from what I did say. All I did was put your own statements together and ask if the logical conclusion was correct. If it is really true that the talk in question would "make those that have any knowledge about church history more confused," then it must follow that those who are not "confused" thereby must not actually know anything about Church history; isn't that true?

With that in mind, your sureness that Elder Ballard's talk "was a benefit to many (including yourself)" would seem, with hindsight, to be at least a little bit patronising, wouldn't it?

Doesn't it rather tend to set you up as the superior, all-knowing one, and Scott as the dumb/ignorant one for liking a talk that people as knowledgeable as you could only find confusing?

Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, and if you say you did not, I'll believe you. But doesn't it sound a lot like some snooty film critic saying something like "Nobody with any taste could possibly like that movie; but I'm sure it was entertaining to many (including yourself)"?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mark Beesley]

CFR that "the term Mormon has been a generic term for over a century."

It's axiomatic . . .

[Mark Beesley]

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

[Cobalt-70]

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.

That's why media organizations use the term "Fundamentalist Mormons" (a term that this faction of Mormons embraces). The "fundamentalist" is a clue to the reader that these aren't just run-of-the-mill Mormons. Besides, if your intent is to refer to Mormons as a denomination, there is no possibility of confusion by calling fundamentalist Mormons "Mormons." It's not really about confusion. It is about the LDS Church not wishing to be a species within a genus that includes their more conservative brethren, much the same as evangelicals don't want to be a species within a genus of Christianity that includes Mormons.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I had in mind the Lafferty brothers who slit the throat of their sister-in-law, the Allred 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?

Why should I take your opinions seriously when you can't get your facts straight?

It was the Ervil LeBaron clan that killed Rulon C. Allred, who was, in fact, a very respected member of the community. The Apostolic United Brethren stay to themselves and don't bother a soul. You would do well to follow their example.

BTW, sexual abuse happens in all churches under the guise of religion.

[Cobalt-70]

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.

I could give many examples of 19th century generic uses of the term "Mormon," but here are three: the 1882 book Mormonism, or, Life among the Mormons, by Austin & Morgan, who wrote, "Mormonism out here [in Utah] is divided into several classes: the Brighamites, and the Godbeites, and the Joseph-ites [i.e. RLDS], and it puts their wits end to know which is right." (p. 214). Another is Church bells by Clarke, who wrote in 1872 that "There are two schisms in the Mormon body--the Josephites and the Godbeites. The Josephites do not admit polygamy to be part of the New Revelation..." (p. 185). Appletons' handbook of American Travel, vol. 2, states, "The Mormons, as a religious body, are fast losing their footing. Schisms and divisions are common among them. They have three visible organizations in the city [sLC], each with its regular services: the Josephites, the Godbeites, and the orthodox Brighamites."

The nickname "Mormon" was originally applied to members of the Church of Christ. From the LDS perspective, that church was the same organization as the LDS Church, but other Mormon sects don't see it that way. Some scholars agree, as does one U.S. federal court. The press can't take sides on that fight.

Also, there are many Mormons who are former members of the LDS Church, or who have no ties to the LDS Church organization, who still consider themselves to be Mormons.

[Cobalt-70]

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).

See http://principlevoices.org/archives/19, which is statement by fundamentalist Mormons asking the media to use their preferred term "fundamentalist Mormons" despite requests by the LDS Church that the press not use the term. Among the signatories is the Apostolic United Brethren, which I believe is the second largest fundamentalist Mormon church.

By the way, it appears that the term "fundamentalist Mormon" was invented by LDS apostle Mark E. Peterson. See Ken Driggs (2001), "'This Will Someday Be the Head and Not the Tail of the Church': A History of the Mormon Fundamentalists at Short Creek", Journal of Church and State 43:49, 51. So the LDS's church's beef with this term is of relatively recent origin.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[OUmd]

But OUmd, I didn't say that; nor does that follow from what I did say. All I did was put your own statements together and ask if the logical conclusion was correct. If it is really true that the talk in question would "make those that have any knowledge about church history more confused," then it must follow that those who are not "confused" thereby must not actually know anything about Church history; isn't that true?

With that in mind, your sureness that Elder Ballard's talk "was a benefit to many (including yourself)" would seem, with hindsight, to be at least a little bit patronising, wouldn't it?

Doesn't it rather tend to set you up as the superior, all-knowing one, and Scott as the dumb/ignorant one for liking a talk that people as knowledgeable as you could only find confusing?

Perhaps you didn't mean it that way, and if you say you did not, I'll believe you. But doesn't it sound a lot like some snooty film critic saying something like "Nobody with any taste could possibly like that movie; but I'm sure it was entertaining to many (including yourself)"?

Regards,

Pahoran

My answer would be "no" to all of your above questions, but I am not bothered if you believe they are "yes".

To ME his talk was not inspirational and to ME it was illogical and confusing based on my understanding that the church was called many different things prior to it's current name, including The Church of Latter-day Saints. According to the BoM and Elder Ballard's talk today this would have meant that at that time the church could not have been Christ's church (it would be the church of latter-day saints). This is a bit confusing to me. Doesn't mean that I don't believe the gospel (or that it wasn't Christ's church), just means that I don't think we have a full understanding of this issue and perhaps the name is, in reality, not that important.

To ME I find it wonderful that something I found confusing was actually inspirational to others. I even actually said it was beautiful. These experiences edify my testimony of conference.

[Pahoran]

I could give many examples of 19th century generic uses of the term "Mormon," but here are three: the 1882 book Mormonism, or, Life among the Mormons, by Austin & Morgan, who wrote, "Mormonism out here [in Utah] is divided into several classes: the Brighamites, and the Godbeites, and the Joseph-ites [i.e. RLDS], and it puts their wits end to know which is right." (p. 214). Another is Church bells by Clarke, who wrote in 1872 that "There are two schisms in the Mormon body--the Josephites and the Godbeites. The Josephites do not admit polygamy to be part of the New Revelation..." (p. 185). Appletons' handbook of American Travel, vol. 2, states, "The Mormons, as a religious body, are fast losing their footing. Schisms and divisions are common among them. They have three visible organizations in the city [sLC], each with its regular services: the Josephites, the Godbeites, and the orthodox Brighamites."

So you appeal to 19th century anti-Mormon propaganda. Got it.

As an aside, it has always been a matter of some interest to me that anti-Mormons regularly promote the claims of apostate groups. Some, with no visible sense of irony, promote the mutually exclusive claims of multiple apostate groups concurrently, such as the Reorgs (no polygamy and Brigham and the Twelve had nothing to do with succession in the Church) and one or more polygamist groups (claiming to keep alive Brigham's teachings.)

The nickname "Mormon" was originally applied to members of the Church of Christ. From the LDS perspective, that church was the same organization as the LDS Church, but other Mormon sects don't see it that way.

Note the question-begging formulation, "Mormon sects." Can't you make your argument without smuggling your conclusions into it?

The fact that the Church underwent a couple of name changes between 1830 and 1838 is neither here nor there. There is really no serious question (apart from ideology) that it is the same institution.

Some scholars agree,

Which ones?

as does one U.S. federal court.

I've read about the RLDS cases. The religious question is, of course, beyond the competence of any earthly court, and was initially smuggled into a secular lawsuit as a way to trick the court into ruling on a religious matter in order to decide a civil one.

It didn't work.

The press can't take sides on that fight.

Except for the little fact that it has:

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [rel] - notice “Latter-day” capitalization in the official name. Mormon Church is acceptable on second reference at most publications, LDS at others. AP prefers Mormon Church. (See here.)

Also, there are many Mormons who are former members of the LDS Church, or who have no ties to the LDS Church organization, who still consider themselves to be Mormons.

Do you think there are as many of them as there are people who "consider themselves" to be Napoleon?

Again: people "who are former members of the LDS Church" are ex-Mormons.

People "who have no ties to the LDS Church organization" are non-Mormons.

See how simple it is?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

So you appeal to 19th century anti-Mormon propaganda. Got it.

No, you "CFR'ed" me as to my statement that the term "Mormon" had been used in a generic sense for over a century. I did a Google Books search and provided just a few examples of such generic use in the 1800s. You can take or leave whatever else those books say. That's not the point.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

The fact that the Church underwent a couple of name changes between 1830 and 1838 is neither here nor there. There is really no serious question (apart from ideology) that it is the same institution.

I've read about the RLDS cases. The religious question is, of course, beyond the competence of any earthly court, and was initially smuggled into a secular lawsuit as a way to trick the court into ruling on a religious matter in order to decide a civil one.

Yes, but we're talking about what journalists should do. Most journalists are not Mormon, and cannot rely on faith to assume that the 1830-34 Church of Christ, the 1834-1838 Church of the Latter Day Saints, and the 1838-1844 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are the same The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that was incorporated by Brigham Young in 1851 (and then disincorporated in 1887).

[Cobalt-70]

Except for the little fact that it has:

Quote

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [rel] - notice “Latter-day” capitalization in the official name. Mormon Church is acceptable on second reference at most publications, LDS at others. AP prefers Mormon Church. (See here.)

I think the AP is making an error here. But it's hard to blame them. Even the LDS Church uses the term "Mormon Church" a couple of times on its own websites (do a search for "Mormon Church" within the site mormon.org), plus the term "Mormon Church" is still in common use.

[Pahoran]

Yes, but we're talking about what journalists should do. Most journalists are not Mormon, and cannot rely on faith to assume that the 1830-34 Church of Christ, the 1834-1838 Church of the Latter Day Saints, and the 1838-1844 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are the same The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that was incorporated by Brigham Young in 1851 (and then disincorporated in 1887).

No, we don't rely upon faith; we rely upon facts.

It is a rather egregious un-fact that there is any actual disjunction between "the 1830-34 Church of Christ, the 1834-1838 Church of the Latter Day Saints, and the 1838-1844 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." Why are you so set on pretending that there is?

It is indeed a fact that the Church was "disincorporated" in 1887 under the Edmunds-Tucker Act (I take it you approve) but there is no question -- at all -- that it is the same institution in 2011, is there?

So the various incorporations and disincorporations -- which really had nothing to do with anything except the Church's ability to own property and pay bills -- don't actually change the Church's institutional identity in any way, do they?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

I think the AP is making an error here.

Yes, but as you yourself said: "we're talking about what journalists should do." And they should do what professional organisations tell them to do in order to enhance clarity of communication, not what anonymous internet pundits think they ought to do for ideological reasons.

But it's hard to blame them. Even the LDS Church uses the term "Mormon Church" a couple of times on its own websites (do a search for "Mormon Church" within the site mormon.org), plus the term "Mormon Church" is still in common use.

So it is.

As a reference to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The one founded in upstate New York in 1830 and currently headquartered just across the street from Temple Square in Salt Lake City.

That is the "Mormon Church." Nothing else is.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

As a reference to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The one founded in upstate New York in 1830 and currently headquartered just across the street from Temple Square in Salt Lake City.

That is the "Mormon Church." Nothing else is.

No, I totally agree that only one organization is being referred to when you say "Mormon Church." I thought you were referring to the fact that the LDS Church wants news organizations not to use that term. But the term "Mormon Church " has always been a specific organization, at least since the Brigham Young era. Mormons and Mormonism are generic terms, however, and have been for over a century.

[Cobalt-70]

It is a rather egregious un-fact that there is any actual disjunction between "the 1830-34 Church of Christ, the 1834-1838 Church of the Latter Day Saints, and the 1838-1844 Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." Why are you so set on pretending that there is?

It is indeed a fact that the Church was "disincorporated" in 1887 under the Edmunds-Tucker Act (I take it you approve) but there is no question -- at all -- that it is the same institution in 2011, is there?

So the various incorporations and disincorporations -- which really had nothing to do with anything except the Church's ability to own property and pay bills -- don't actually change the Church's institutional identity in any way, do they?

I certainly don't approve of Congress' disincorporation of my church in the Edmunds-Tucker Act. I think that act was an example of extreme intolerance and bigotry on the part of the United States. My point is that any linkage between the existing LDS Church (which is, in its current legal incarnation, an unincorporated association) with the original Church of Christ (apparently) incorporated in 1830 is not a legal linkage. Legally, that Church of Christ dissolved in 1834. What survived to the present day is only a spiritual linkage (from the perspective of LDS Mormons). But journalists can't rely on spiritual linkages in their reporting.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Yirgacheffe]

Well, he did say you can just say you belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.

But wouldn't this just lead to more confusion since there is a church already with the name "Church of Jesus Christ"?

[Cobalt-70]

But wouldn't this just lead to more confusion since there is a church already with the name "Church of Jesus Christ"?

I see some cross-purposes here. On the one hand, the LDS Church is trying to brand the name "Mormon," and on the church's mormon.org website, the church even uses the term "Mormon Church." On the other hand, we hear statements over the pulpit and through the LDS newsroom that work against that branding effort, and seem almost embarrassed about the word "Mormon."

[Robert F. Smith]

Well, he did say you can just say you belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.

Or "Latter Day Saint," which is what my dogtags had on them. That was half a century ago. I don't know what abbreviation they use in the military nowadays. CJCLDS seems hardly appropriate.

However, you may have heard Pres Monson recall during Conference that, during World War II, the petty officer in charge of his boot camp unit in San Diego asked what religion he was: He and his buddies responded in unison "Mormons!"

Edited October 3, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Orthodox Jews (which includes the Hasidim, sometimes termed "ultra-orthodox") do not consider converts to Reform or Conservative Judaism as real "Jews." Indeed, as a legal matter, any attempt by such a convert to immigrate to Israel is rebuffed until an Orthodox conversion is obtained. The Orthodox Chief Rabbinate in Israel has full jurisdiction and authority in all such matters, including marriage (only an Orthodox rabbi can perform a marriage in Israel) and religious law (Jewish courts are exclusively Orthodox), etc.

Thus, Orthodox Judaism determines who is and who is not a Jew, although they naturally accept as Jewish any child born of a Jewish mother, and who has not converted to a non-Jewish religion. American Jews, most of whom are Reform or Conservative (and some Reconstructionists) are not really bothered by this since most of them were born into Judaism and are automatically considered Jewish, either in their home community or in the State of Israel (where the Law of Return allows any Jew automatic citizenship). Intermarriage or conversion only become a potential problem at the moment of immigration to Israel.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why should I take your opinions seriously when you can't get your facts straight?

It was the Ervil LeBaron clan that killed Rulon C. Allred, who was, in fact, a very respected member of the community. The Apostolic United Brethren stay to themselves and don't bother a soul. You would do well to follow their example.

Thank you for pointing this out.

It was a slip made in "the heat of battle," as it were, and I have gone into my post and fixed the error.

And though I don't concede that the error justifies the hostility in your rejoinder, I do beg your pardon.

[Scott Lloyd]

Or "Latter Day Saint," which is what my dogtags had on them. That was half a century ago. I don't know what abbreviation they use in the military nowadays. CJCLDS seems hardly appropriate.

However, you may have heard Pres Monson recall during Conference that, during World War II, the petty officer in charge of his boot camp unit in San Diego asked what religion he was: He and his buddies responded in unison "Mormons!"

As Elder Ballard made clear in his talk, there is nothing wrong with, nor do Church leaders object to, Church members referring to themselves as Mormons. It is in identifying the Church by name that we need to be careful and to not drop from it the name of Christ.

[Scott Lloyd]

I see some cross-purposes here. On the one hand, the LDS Church is trying to brand the name "Mormon," and on the church's mormon.org website, the church even uses the term "Mormon Church." On the other hand, we hear statements over the pulpit and through the LDS newsroom that work against that branding effort, and seem almost embarrassed about the word "Mormon."

CFR that there are statements over the pulpit and through LDS Newsroom that reflect embarrassment about applying the name Mormon. Show us where it is discouraged in Church usage in anything other than the formal name of the Church itself, where we are admonished, consistent with 3 Nephi 27:8, to retain the name of Christ to reflect the fact that it is His Church.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Regarding establishment of the name of the Church in this dispensation, this article by Richard Lloyd Anderson provides some good perspective. It is from the January 1979 Ensign magazine. It points out that the name from the beginning had the name of Christ in it, and that even during the brief period when it was called "the Church of the Latter-day Saints," the members did not believe they were de-emphasizing the name of Christ.

As for the question posed earlier in the thread to the effect of "why did it take the Lord so long to reveal the name of the Church?" I would respond that the revelation was already there as contained in 3 Nephi 27:8, though it took the early Church members in this dispensation a while to understand and implement it properly.

What changes have been made in the name of the Church? Its full designation does not appear in the revelations until 1838. (D&C 115:4)

Richard Lloyd Anderson, professor of religion and history, Brigham Young University A concise answer to this question is found by comparing the name of the Church on the title pages of the first three printings of the revelations: “The Church of Christ” (Book of Commandments, 1833), “The Church of the Latter Day Saints” (Doctrine and Covenants, 1835), and “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” (Doctrine and Covenants, 1844).

The Savior told the Nephites that his church should be called in his name. (See 3 Ne. 27:8.) As a result, the restored Church’s official title from 1830 to 1834 was “The Church of Christ.” That title is found in the revelation on the organization and government of the Church (D&C 20:1) and in early minute books. During this period, however, members of the Church regularly called themselves “saints”; the word saint is used approximately three dozen times in the D&C before 1834.

On 3 May 1834, official action modified the name of the Church. In a priesthood conference presided over by Joseph Smith, a motion passed “by unanimous voice” that the Church be known as “The Church of the Latter Day Saints.” (See The Evening and the Morning Star, May 1834, 2:160.) This alteration was not seen as a de-emphasis of Christ; on the contrary, it was done in hopes that the name of the Church would more clearly reflect the fact that Christ was at its head.

In the same issue of the Kirtland newspaper in which the announcement appeared, an editorial explained that the change stemmed from a misleading nickname: the “Mormonite” church. The new name also had these advantages: (1) Since American Christians, including Congregationalists and reformers, frequently designated themselves as “The Church of Christ,” that title did not distinguish the restored gospel from a host of Protestant sects. (2) Since Paul and Peter used the Greek word saint (“a holy person”) to refer to believers in Christ, the term Latter-day Saints implied that Church members were modern followers of Christ. Thus it also asserted the claim of restoration.

Just as the term saint flourished when the official name was “The Church of Christ,” the name of Christ regularly supplemented the official name of “The Church of the Latter Day Saints.” For example, in 1835, the church was referred to as “the church of Christ” and the Twelve apostles were commissioned as “special witnesses of the name of Christ.” (D&C 107:59, 23) The Saints certainly did not feel that the Church was leaving out the name of Christ.

Sometimes during this period the first and second titles would be combined—“the church of Christ of Latter Day saints”—as they were in priesthood minutes (Messenger and Advocate, Feb. 1836, 2:266) and in the publication of the first high council minutes (see headnote, D&C 5, 1835 edition).

A vivid illustration of the way members then understood the official name of the Church is found in a letter from John Smith, the Prophet’s uncle, to his son Elias before the latter was converted. Writing 19 Oct. 1834, Uncle John answers the question of why the name could be changed:

“The Church of Christ is the Church of Saints and always was. This is the reason why the apostle directed letters sometimes to the Church of God, others to the Church, and again to the Brethren, sometimes to the Saints, always meaning the Church of Christ.” (Archives, University of Utah)

Thus, the final version of the Church’s name was no radical shift from the previous practice of using both “Christ” and “Saints” in designating the restored Church and its members. Revealed on 26 April 1838 (D&C 115:4), the full title, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” is striking by comparison to the names of the scores of churches that obscure their Christianity under the label of their founders or of some characteristic belief or aspect of church organization. It is a highly effective name, for while it is distinctive, it indicates that Jesus is at its head. It is also descriptive of divine restoration. And it is more than a name—it is a public commitment to a holy life through the Savior’s power.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Scott Lloyd