Elder Ballard And The Church Of Jesus Christ

[Cobalt-70]

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.

I'm referring mainly to a cluster of news releases and sermons around February 2001, when the church not only discouraged the use of the terms "Mormon Church" and "LDS Church," but also said that it would "prefer" that Mormons be referred to as "Latter-day Saints" rather than "Mormons." Here is a news article from around that time period: http://www.nytimes.c...nted=all&src=pm. I remember a General Conference talk around that time (I think it was by Dallin Oaks) that said basically the same thing about the term "Mormon." But since then, I think the church has been slowly backing away from that. Now, of course, the church is branding the term "Mormon" and using the term "Mormon Church" on its own websites.

Still, some of the church hierarchy, such as Boyd Packer, apparently must disapprove of what the church is doing with its website and new branding efforts, because he said in the April 2011 Conference, "It is one thing for others to refer to the Church as the Mormon Church or to us as Mormons; it is quite another for us to do so." He had to have known, at that time, that the church had already began its "Mormon" branding effort, and would soon be putting up billboards in which we call ourselves "Mormon."

On a different note, as to 3 Nephi 27:8, I don't think that as Mormons we have the moral high ground to condemn any other church solely on this basis. Between 1834 and 1838, the church led by Joseph Smith was known as the "Church of the Latter Day Saints." If it is true that a church that is not officially called by the name of Christ is not Christ's church, then the Church of the Latter Day Saints was not Christ's church.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

{duplicate post}

Edited October 5, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm referring mainly to a cluster of news releases and sermons around February 2001, when the church not only discouraged the use of the terms "Mormon Church" and "LDS Church," but also said that it would "prefer" that Mormons be referred to as "Latter-day Saints" rather than "Mormons." Here is a news article from around that time period: http://www.nytimes.c...nted=all&src=pm. I remember a General Conference talk around that time (I think it was by Dallin Oaks) that said basically the same thing about the term "Mormon."

What you refer to is summarized here in this May 2001 Ensign article:

Church Emphasizes Its Official Name

Church leaders have called on members, news organizations, and others to use the Church’s full and correct name—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—and to avoid use of the terms “Mormon Church” or “LDS Church.”

A letter from the First Presidency was sent to more than 25,000 congregations worldwide in March asking members to “use the full name whenever possible.” A similar press release was sent to news media worldwide.

The letter reminded members that use of the revealed name of the Church “is increasingly important in our responsibility to proclaim the name of the Savior throughout all the world.” The name was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith in April 1838.

The term “Mormon” is still acceptable, the letter said, in some titles such as “Mormon Tabernacle Choir” and “Mormon Trail.” The term “Mormonism” is acceptable in describing the doctrine, culture, and lifestyle unique to Church members. When referring to members, the term “Latter-day Saints” is preferred.

But since then, I think the church has been slowly backing away from that. Now, of course, the church is branding the term "Mormon" and using the term "Mormon Church" on its own websites.

This was addressed in this general conference talk given this past weekend by Elder Ballard that is the subject of this thread. Since 2001, there has been much that has happened with the Internet. The Church is using the term "Mormon Church" on its websites in line with a strategy to have its links show up near the top on search engine hits when searchers use that term to find information about the Church. As Elder Ballard explained in his talk, once a searcher clicks on the Church's links, he soon finds that the official and preferred name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

So there has been no "backing away" from the doctrine or directive as such, merely a recognition and implementation of effective search-engine strategy. And, as is clear from the above quote, there never was an abandonment or prohibition of the terms Mormon or Mormonism as they pertain to the doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to Church members. This 2001 directive has been widely misunderstood, and that is why I said I was glad for this recent sermon by Elder Ballard.

And saying that the term "Latter-day Saints" is preferred does not forbid the use of "Mormons," nor does it even discourage such use; certainly it doesn't reflect embarrassment over the term, as you claim. As was pointed out here earlier, the president of the Church at the priesthood session on Saturday evening even applied the term Mormon to himself.

Still, some of the church hierarchy, such as Boyd Packer, apparently must disapprove of what the church is doing with its website and new branding efforts, because he said in the April 2011 Conference, "It is one thing for others to refer to the Church as the Mormon Church or to us as Mormons; it is quite another for us to do so." He had to have known, at that time, that the church had already began its "Mormon" branding effort, and would soon be putting up billboards in which we call ourselves "Mormon."

I see in President Packer's remark a gentle admonition for Latter-day Saints to recognize the doctrinal truth that this is Christ's Church, that its members aspire to sanctification as did Christ's followers in former days, and to convey that message in our everyday language and usage. I don't see in his remark an absolute prohibition against use of the name "Mormon" nor do I seen any inconsistency with other members of the Church leadership.

On a different note, as to 3 Nephi 27:8, I don't think that as Mormons we have the moral high ground to condemn any other church solely on this basis.

Recognizing Christ's words and trying to conform to them on this matter does not amount to condemning another church.

Between 1834 and 1838, the church led by Joseph Smith was known as the "Church of the Latter Day Saints." If it is true that a church that is not officially called by the name of Christ is not Christ's church, then the Church of the Latter Day Saints was not Christ's church.

Apparently, you did not bother to read the article by Richard Lloyd Anderson that I copied and pasted in full in a post just preceding yours. It would seem, to adapt the words of an adage, you can lead a critic to text but you can't make him read.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Scott Lloyd

[Sky]

While the Church occasionally uses the term ‘Mormon Church’ on its own websites, the official revealed name of the church – ‘The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ – is always given prominence and precedence. The revealed name of the church can be found on every page of its website – exactly as it should be.

The GA’s are simply encouraging members to use the full, revealed name of the church when possible. There are obviously times when it is not always convenient and the use of the word ‘Mormon’ is acceptable.

I think we utilize the word ‘Mormon’ primarily because it is the primary identifier by which the rest of the world recognizes us. It comes in handy when we are trying to get other people to understand us better.

I don’t really understand all the fuss about this or why it has to be so complicated.

[Pahoran]

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.

Sheer unmitigated rot.

If you change your name by deed poll, will you legally dissolve? Will that activate your Will, distribute your assets to your heirs and cut off your oxygen supply?

What about if you change your posting handle? Will that cause you to "legally dissolve?"

I've seen some pearlers in my time, but the notion that changing the name of an entity "legally" causes that entity to "dissolve" is one of the most hilarious yet.

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.

No, but they can rely upon unbroken institutional persistence. It was not the case that the Church of Christ that went into its conference on May 3 1834 burst into flames, and the Church of the Latter Day Saints that came out of that same conference was somehow born from the ashes. It was simply the case that the one continuing institution underwent a name change. When the same body changed its name again in 1838 there was no actual or implied dissolution then, either; just a change of name.

After Joseph died, various pretenders jockeyed for position, and some led away a few confused individuals. But the Church continued. And journalists can rely upon that.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cobalt-70]

If you change your name by deed poll, will you legally dissolve? Will that activate your Will, distribute your assets to your heirs and cut off your oxygen supply?

...

No, but they can rely upon unbroken institutional persistence. It was not the case that the Church of Christ that went into its conference on May 3 1834 burst into flames, and the Church of the Latter Day Saints that came out of that same conference was somehow born from the ashes. It was simply the case that the one continuing institution underwent a name change. When the same body changed its name again in 1838 there was no actual or implied dissolution then, either; just a change of name.

The actual legal dissolution of the New York Church of Christ could have been much earlier than that in 1831, when the church moved from New York, where it had apparently been incorporated (though no official record of incorporation has yet been found), to Ohio and merged with the significantly larger Church of Christ led by Sidney Rigdon. The two churches both had the same name, but I don't think anyone thought to ensure any legal continuity, during this merger, of the New York church as a corporation. At some point--probably then--the corporation died, and the church reverted to an unincorporated association, because from then afterwards, they were treating the church as an unincorporated association.

[Cobalt-70]

Apparently, you did not bother to read the article by Richard Lloyd Anderson that I copied and pasted in full in a post just preceding yours. It would seem, to adapt the words of an adage, you can lead a critic to text but you can't make him read.

I think Prof. Anderson does a good job of answering why Mormons at the time considered the church to still be the Church of Christ despite the name change, but it doesn't directly answer 3 Nephi 27:8's central question, "And how be it my church save it be called in my name?" I think the answer is simple: the verse was written at a time when the idea of a corporate, institutional church was not considered. The "Church of Christ" of the Book of Mormon and pre-1830 Smith revelations was supposed to be a rather informal organization. There was no hierarchy, just people with different charismatic gifts, all preaching nothing but "faith and repentance." It was supposed to be non-sectarian. The need to distinguish an institutional church's name for legal or trademark purposes was entirely foreign to this way of thinking. So I have no problem with changes to the church's name. I just don't think that LDS Mormons can condemn other churches for not having the word "Christ" in their official name.

[Pahoran]

The actual legal dissolution of the New York Church of Christ could have been much earlier than that in 1831, when the church moved from New York, where it had apparently been incorporated (though no official record of incorporation has yet been found), to Ohio and merged with the significantly larger Church of Christ led by Sidney Rigdon. The two churches both had the same name, but I don't think anyone thought to ensure any legal continuity, during this merger, of the New York church as a corporation. At some point--probably then--the corporation died, and the church reverted to an unincorporated association, because from then afterwards, they were treating the church as an unincorporated association.

Thank you for that hilarious bit of revisionism. The reality is that a large number of Sidney Ridgon's Campbellite congregation were converted to "Mormonism" and formally joined the Church by accepting baptism from its missionaries. The corporate bits and pieces, in whatever shape they may have been in at any given moment, may be interesting (to those who are interested in that sort of thing) but are not relevant to the point at issue. AFAICT, they represent nothing more or less than an effort to stay on the right side of the law by ticking various bureaucratic boxes.

Whatever influence Sidney Rigdon may or may not have had in the Church's policies and programs at that period, the fact remains that you cannot in good faith seriously expect anyone to go along with your description of the Kirtland conversions as a "merger."

The fact that the Church was a single ongoing instution from 1830 to (at least) 1844 seems to me to be utterly incontrovertible. I am astonished that you are trying to obscure this simple fact.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Paddy]

Perhaps ironically (?), we were asked in the recent Australian census to put the name of our religion as "Mormon".

The whole thing about the name of the church just seems silly. Why would an apostle spend 15-20 minutes of a conference talk on the name of the church. He is preaching to the choir. IMO it was a complete waste of time and something completely lost on anyone outside the US.

Paddy

[Sky]

Perhaps ironically (?), we were asked in the recent Australian census to put the name of our religion as "Mormon".

The whole thing about the name of the church just seems silly. Why would an apostle spend 15-20 minutes of a conference talk on the name of the church. He is preaching to the choir. IMO it was a complete waste of time and something completely lost on anyone outside the US.

Paddy

I don’t think we should be criticizing an apostle for what he chooses to speak about. He must have thought it was important or he wouldn’t have talked about it. And I don’t see what being inside or outside of the U.S. has to do with anything.

We are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! We are Mormons! We are scattered over different parts of the earth. We just want to be understood! What’s so wrong with that?

The term ‘Mormon’ is most often and properly associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

When people realize that the Church is trying to distinguish itself between polygamous and other groups that have similar sounding names, it makes perfect sense what the Church is trying to accomplish.

[Calm]

. IMO it was a complete waste of time and something completely lost on anyone outside the US.

Even if this was so, there is still a little under half of LDS living in the US so that's no more waste of time then addressing primarily the youth or women or men or members outside the US.

And BTW, I have lived in both Russia and Canada and it was an issue in both places (confusion with the polygamous sects and whether or not we were Christian). In Russia, the elders related a story of how once they were followed by an old woman yelling at them for being magicians practicing the black arts.

And I have been told by quite a few nonmembers that they watch a bit of conference from time to time over the years so while the vast majority are probably Saints, there are still some nonmembers who watch...seriously honestly on this board is one of them, for example.

Edited October 6, 2011 by calmoriah