It'S Not The Mormon Church!

[MiserereNobis]

I can't think of any other church that I'd rather belong to than The Church of Jesus Christ. Anybody else find it kind of ironic how some people say that we are not true Christians when we are the only church of any size or significance that has the Lord's name in the name of our Church?

I understand what you are getting at here, but remember that anyone can call anything anything they want -- it doesn't make it so. For example:

China: People's Republic of China

North Korea: Democratic People's Republic of Korea

USA: United States of America

Now, if I wanted to live in a country that was a republican-style democracy, ostensibly ruled by and for the people, and I just went by the names, I'd sign up for North Korea. I mean, the US doesn't even have democratic in the name!

[volgadon]

I understand what you are getting at here, but remember that anyone can call anything anything they want -- it doesn't make it so. For example:

China: People's Republic of China

North Korea: Democratic People's Republic of Korea

USA: United States of America

Now, if I wanted to live in a country that was a republican-style democracy, ostensibly ruled by and for the people, and I just went by the names, I'd sign up for North Korea. I mean, the US doesn't even have democratic in the name!

Well, we all know that you guys aren't universal...

[MiserereNobis]

Well, we all know that you guys aren't universal...

As the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church most certainly is universal

[cinepro]

I prefer "Mormon Church" as it helps prevent the too oft repetition of Jesus' name.

Nephi 27:

7 Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake.

8 And how be it ^amy ^bchurch save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel

So whose priesthood is the Melchizedek Priesthood?

[Mark Beesley]

In my retirement, I work part-time at a Church-owned bookstore. We have the occasional non-member walk into the store, perhaps waiting for a movie to start, and it is not very difficult to spot them by the look of surprise or confusion as they realize they have not just wandered into a general interest bookstore. As I approach them to welcome them into the store, I will inquire if they are familiar with the bookstore. I will then introduce the bookstore as being owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or as it is more commonly known as the Mormons. The full name of the Church generally leaves the person looking a bit overwhelmed, but as soon as they hear the appellation "Mormon," the light of recognition comes on.

Now, in that brief interlude, has a person who may have previously not considered Mormons to be Christians, been given cause to reconsider. Perhaps. Perhaps not. I suspect the latter is usually the case. I have yet to have a customer in the store respond with, "Oh, so you DO believe in Jesus." It is going to take much more than simply a name to convert the ignorant.

The unstated but true benefit of referring to the Church by its proper name flows to us as individuals. Every time we identify ourselves as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or identify a temple as a temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or in any other way make reference to the complete name of the Church, we are forced to S-l-o-w D-o-w-n, think about what we are saying, and hopefully feel just a little bit of reverence for the name of the Savior and the privilege that is ours in being members of His Church.

So, while I also am proud to be a Mormon, I am profoundly grateful to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. At least that is the way I feel about it.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Mark Beesley

[Scott Lloyd]

Wait, were the first three names just guesses, with Jesus delivering his approved name in 1838? Or were all four of the names requested by Jesus?

This point was also discussed in the thread of a year ago to which I linked in my above response to Cobalt:

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.

Quote

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

That's not so strange. In 1834, the "Church of the Latter Day Saints" was church's official name. Don't knock it.

See my post immediately preceding this one.

I don't "knock it" except to say it reflected limited and still-developing understanding among the members and leaders of the infant Church about how to apply Christ's teachings.

We know better today.

[Scott Lloyd]

In my retirement, I work part-time at a Church-owned bookstore. We have the occasional non-member walk into the store, perhaps waiting for a movie to start, and it is not very difficult to spot them by the look of surprise or confusion as they realize they have not just wandered into a general interest bookstore. As I approach them to welcome them into the store, I will inquire if they are familiar with the bookstore. I will then introduce the bookstore as being owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or as it is more commonly known as the Mormons. The full name of the Church generally leaves the person looking a bit overwhelmed, but as soon as they hear the appellation "Mormon," the light of recognition comes on.

Now, in that brief interlude, has a person who may have previously not considered Mormons to be Christians, been given cause to reconsider. Perhaps. Perhaps not. I suspect the latter is usually the case. I have yet to have a customer in the store respond with, "Oh, so you DO believe in Jesus." It is going to take much more than simply a name to convert the ignorant.

The unstated but true benefit of referring to the Church by its proper name flows to us as individuals. Every time we identify ourselves as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or identify a temple as a temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or in any other way make reference to the complete name of the Church, we are forced to S-l-o-w D-o-w-n, think about what we are saying, and hopefully feel just a little bit of reverence for the name of the Savior and the privilege that is ours in being members of His Church.

So, while I also am proud to be a Mormon, I am profoundly grateful to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. At least that is the way I feel about it.

I think Richard Lloyd Anderson put it well in the article I quoted above:

And it is more than a name—it is a public commitment to a holy life through the Savior’s power.

[David T]

Some journalists and other speakers and writers think they are being respectful when they call it "the Church of the Latter-day Saints," and maybe they are

To be fair, that did used to be the full name of the Church for a time

[Calm]

.

Now, in that brief interlude, has a person who may have previously not considered Mormons to be Christians, been given cause to reconsider. Perhaps. Perhaps not. I suspect the latter is usually the case. I have yet to have a customer in the store respond with, "Oh, so you DO believe in Jesus." It is going to take much more than simply a name to convert the ignorant.

I have. He was an orthodox priest in fact and it was all of Greg Olson's paintings that convinced him.

[Scott Lloyd]

To be fair, that did used to be the full name of the Church for a time

See my posts, #56 through #58.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Cobalt-70]

Just over a year ago on a thread on this board, I posted the followingin response to a post from Cobalt:

"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 the church is intentionally using the term "Mormon Church" to get more online attention to its websites. Following the LDS Church's example, there may be many other reasons why one might use the term "Mormon Church." Good PR, apparently, can sometimes trump this overblown concern about using the church's official name.

Ultimately, however, I really don't think it matters much. There is a tradeoff at work here. On the one hand, using the church's full awkward name includes the word "Jesus Christ," and therefore might indicate to someone totally unfamiliar to Mormonism that we at least claim to be a Christian organization. On the other hand, the church's official name is almost totally ineffective as a trademark. It is a name that people cannot even remember, let alone identify with positive feelings like they do with much better trademarks like "Panera Bread" or "Apple."

I think that speaking from a pure branding perspective, it would be much more effective to embrace the phrase "Mormon Church," and then just make prominent use of the Christian cross. The cross is an incredibly effective trademark for Christianity. Everybody recognizes it, and it has a built-in positive association.

[Cobalt-70]

And if removing any vestige of uniquely Mormon doctrine or teaching until we resemble every other garden-variety Protestant sect is the price demanded for acceptance, well, the price is obviously too great.

If we have gotten to the point where the only thing that distinguishes us from a "garden-variety Protestant sect" is the fact that we don't talk much about Jesus in our meetings, then perhaps we need to start adding more "meat" into our "milk"-laden meetings. We have dumbed down our Sunday curriculum, but we haven't done so by adding material about basic Christian doctrines or the life of Christ. The pablum is all about things like modesty, parenthood, tithing, and obedience to the Prophet.

But again, if others insist on denying our Christianity, there's no reason we have to support that intent by acquiescing to the removal of Jesus Christ from our name.

I haven't heard of anybody insisting that the LDS Church remove the name "Jesus Christ" from its name. I think this is a strawman.

[Cobalt-70]

See my post immediately preceding this one.

I don't "knock it" except to say it reflected limited and still-developing understanding among the members and leaders of the infant Church about how to apply Christ's teachings.

We know better today.

Yet, even in 1834, the Book of Mormon had been translated, and Joseph Smith was aware of 3 Nephi 27:8. The issue is that the Book of Mormon and early church discourse refers to two different senses of the term "church." 3 Nephi 27:8, and the Book of Mormon as a whole, refer to "the church" as the larger body of Christ, not as a specific building or a specific corporation or legal association. The 1834 name "Church of the Latter Day Saints" was the church's corporate name--the name it used to distinguish itself legally, and from a branding perspective, from other churches.

D&C 115 is not inconsistent with any of that. All D&C 115:4 says is that in the latter days, "my church" (i.e., the Church of Christ) shall be called the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." That doesn't mean it can't be called something else, too. Since the church was disincorporated in 1887, the church has actually been composed of several legal entities, none of which are called the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." That term is now merely a trademark. It is one name that, by scripture, refers to the Church of Christ. It is our "d/b/a." But there is no doctrinal reason why it is the exclusive name of the church.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Scott Lloyd]

So the church is intentionally using the term "Mormon Church" to get more online attention to its websites. Following the LDS Church's example, there may be many other reasons why one might use the term "Mormon Church." Good PR, apparently, can sometimes trump this overblown concern about using the church's official name.

The functional equivalent of following the example of the Church of Jesus Christ on this matter would be for someone who uses the term "Mormon church" in conversation or written discourse to be careful to include the full name The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in that same conversation or piece of writing. That's what the Church, in effect, does by attracting hits to its website, where the full name of the Church is given along with the expression of preference that it be used.

Do you do that when you say "Mormon church" or "LDS Church"? I doubt it. I doubt very many other people who use those terms do so either.

Ultimately, however, I really don't think it matters much. There is a tradeoff at work here. On the one hand, using the church's full awkward name includes the word "Jesus Christ," and therefore might indicate to someone totally unfamiliar to Mormonism that we at least claim to be a Christian organization. On the other hand, the church's official name is almost totally ineffective as a trademark. It is a name that people cannot even remember, let alone identify with positive feelings like they do with much better trademarks like "Panera Bread" or "Apple."

It might be more memorable if more people used it. There was a pop-rock duo popular in the '70s called England Dan and John Ford Coley. That struck me then (and still does) as a mouthful to say. However, those who enjoyed their music soon learned to remember their names.

I think that speaking from a pure branding perspective, it would be much more effective to embrace the phrase "Mormon Church," and then just make prominent use of the Christian cross. The cross is an incredibly effective trademark for Christianity. Everybody recognizes it, and it has a built-in positive association.

meh

Edited October 29, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

If we have gotten to the point where the only thing that distinguishes us from a "garden-variety Protestant sect" is the fact that we don't talk much about Jesus in our meetings, then perhaps we need to start adding more "meat" into our "milk"-laden meetings. We have dumbed down our Sunday curriculum, but we haven't done so by adding material about basic Christian doctrines or the life of Christ. The pablum is all about things like modesty, parenthood, tithing, and obedience to the Prophet.

You didn't pay attention very well to what I wrote. I totally reject and contradict your premise that the basic doctrines and teachings of Christ are neglected or absent from our meetings. That is the strawman.

I haven't heard of anybody insisting that the LDS Church remove the name "Jesus Christ" from its name. I think this is a strawman.

The problem is not that anyone insists the Church remove the name of Christ from the Church's name, it's that they themselves neglect or refuse to use the proper name of the Church, which contains the name of Christ. As I've said repeatedly here, it's tolerable when outsiders do that; it's inexcusable when professed Church members do it.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[rodheadlee]

Honestly, I don't know anyone with a triple-digit IQ that thinks all church names automatically reflect who or what that group worships.

Well the thing of it is even people with a 2 digit IQ should have the opportunity to know that the blessings of belonging to Christ's church are available to them now in the present. They would be more likely to approach the gospel and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in a childlike manner as Christ instructed us to do . So I think it's important to use the proper name of the Church whenever possible to enhance the missionary effort.

Edited October 30, 2012 by rodheadlee

[Sky]

I think it's going to take a lot more than putting an extra-large "JESUS CHRIST" in our logo to convince people that we are Christian. That doesn't hurt, but it would be a lot more convincing if we started using the cross again as a Christian symbol.

Our logo has served us well all these years since it was first introduced in 1995, and will continue to do so for many years to come. It has become almost universally recognized - and particularly associated with our missionaries and their black name tags.

There will always be some willfully ignorant people who refuse to accept that we are Christians no matter what we do. I doubt that using the cross would change that. But if you or anybody else wants to adorn your neck or any other part of your body with a cross, then nobody will stop you. You might get a few awkward glances or stares though. The most powerful symbol of our Christianity should be how we live our lives.

It also wouldn't hurt if we mentioned the life or teachings of Jesus once in a while in our sacrament, Priesthood, and Relief Society meetings. If we really want to be convincing, maybe we could try jettisoning our non-scriptural "salvation by works" theology.

You don't seem to believe that Mormonism is a Christian faith, or maybe you and I go to different churches. Because what you are saying doesn't ring true with my own experiences as an LDS person.

[Deardorff]

the Church leaders do not object to the use of the name Mormon as a descriptor of things pertaining to the Church of Jesus Christ, EXCEPT in referring to the name of the Church itself. In that case, it should be called the Church of Jesus Christ

The Church of Jesus Christ belongs to another group. Use of this name is misleading on the part of Mormons.

As for Jesus giving the name of the L-dS church. He did not do so until after at least three other names were used. One even without Jesus or Christ in the name at all.

I think you are taking offense at the breeze as even The Mormon Church uses that name in advertising worldwide.

I am new to posting but not to this site. I realize folks get kicked off here for little things. Hope that does not happen because of what I have posted. But, it seems to me the L-dS Church as constituted now does not even use the "Official" name as given in the Doctrine and Covenants originally. It was changed to add a hyphen. Different from what was supposedly 'revealed'.

[volgadon]

I have. He was an orthodox priest in fact and it was all of Greg Olson's paintings that convinced him.

I have even seen Greg Olson's paintings used as icons by Russian Orthodox.

[Calm]

I have even seen Greg Olson's paintings used as icons by Russian Orthodox.

That's very interesting. I was told by a nonLDS art dealer he was the top selling Christian artist.

[MiserereNobis]

I have even seen Greg Olson's paintings used as icons by Russian Orthodox.

Really -- I find that interesting. Orthodox icons are very stylized art -- my perusal of Greg Olson doesn't seem to fit the standard icon form. I'm not saying what you say isn't true, I'm just saying that it would be odd to walk into an Orthodox church and see an Olson painting revered as an icon (unless there are iconic paintings of his that I haven't seen).

[Walden]

All this hubbub about the "official" name of the Mormon church reminds me of a famous Shakespeare line from Romeo and Juliet.....

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet."

With all the debatable, controversial and unconventional intricacies, rituals, beliefs and practices embraced by the LDS church, I think the offense taken by some posters with regard to what people call the church and/or use of the "official name" of the church is a tad overblown.

If strict adherence to the official name is a missionary tool, I imagine lots of missionaries arriving on doorsteps, proclaiming that they are from "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" only to be met by puzzled looks from potential investigators, who have never known the church as anything but the Mormon church. I don't think that correcting them as to the official name of the church is going to make them change their own feelings, experiences, biases or favoritism that they already possess with regard to the Mormon church.

As long as I am going with Shakespeare cliches, I think that this is "much ado about nothing."

[thesometimesaint]

Walden:

A rose can smell just as sweet being called garlic. However if the intent is to deny that rose legitimacy then it is a lie. Furthering the Shakespeare cliche; One shouldn't conflate Romeo with Tybalt

[Cobalt-70]

There will always be some willfully ignorant people who refuse to accept that we are Christians no matter what we do. I doubt that using the cross would change that....The most powerful symbol of our Christianity should be how we live our lives.

If that were true, then why would we need to keep reminding people that the word "Jesus Christ" is in the church's official name? Why not just live a righteous lifestyle and let our actions speak for themselves?

You don't seem to believe that Mormonism is a Christian faith, or maybe you and I go to different churches. Because what you are saying doesn't ring true with my own experiences as an LDS person.

I am LDS and I believe that Mormonism is a Christian faith. I just think that (1) reminding people that the words "Jesus Christ" are in the church's official name does not in itself convince anyone that we are Christian, and (2) if we are in the business of looking for outward professions of our Christianity, we are completely ignoring the most potent symbol of Christianity, which is the cross.