Elder Ballard On The Proper Name Of The Church

[omni]

I think in the church we can put too much emphasis on titles. I'm reminded of a time on my mission where we were told by our president to no longer use the acronym's ZL, DL, and AP because they were disrespectful.

Or a few years ago when a friend of mine was being called as the new EQP, after setting him apart, the SP instructed us to always refer to him as president because it showed respect for the office. This friend never really felt comfortable with the title, so I continued to refer to him by his first name.

One thing I'm not sure I'll ever understand is why in the last century we started to include middle initials for high ranking church leadership. Is it a sign of respect, tradition?

Edited April 8, 2014 by omni

[MiserereNobis]

What is "traditional Christianity"?

 

I've been reading the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers lately. I find them much closer to what i believe than I do much of today's Evangelical dogma.

 

I agree -- the Church Fathers certainly had some truth to share, which is unfortunately often contrary to the beliefs of our protestant brothers and sisters.

[MiserereNobis]

One thing I'm not sure I'll quite ever understand is why in the last century we started to always include middle initials for high ranking church leadership. I'd it a sign of respect, tradition?

 

 

I've wondered this, too.  Also, why is the business suit the official vestments of the LDS church?  Yes, I know there are temple vestments, but no one sees those outside of the temple, except for the internet, so the official clothing of the LDS church's highest leaders is a business suit.

 

I personally like the traditional Catholic vestments, with their symbolism and tradition, and especially since they set the one wearing them apart from others.  A man in a business suit could be a business man or the president of the LDS church, but a man wearing the Papal vestments is easily identified as the Pope.

[mfbukowski]

I've wondered this, too.  Also, why is the business suit the official vestments of the LDS church?  Yes, I know there are temple vestments, but no one sees those outside of the temple, except for the internet, so the official clothing of the LDS church's highest leaders is a business suit.

 

I personally like the traditional Catholic vestments, with their symbolism and tradition, and especially since they set the one wearing them apart from others.  A man in a business suit could be a business man or the president of the LDS church, but a man wearing the Papal vestments is easily identified as the Pope.

Garments, sir garments.

 

Think of a VERY large scapular.

 

And we would find it prideful to set oneself above others for holding the priesthood.  We don't boast about authority.

Edited April 8, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Shadrak]

I give him credit, he is consistent and likes this topic.  But it's like pushing a car uphill, may be a worthy effort but not likely to succeed.  "Mormon Church" is the brand, like it or not- Mormon Tabernacle Choir, Mormon Trail, I'm a Mormon, mormon.org etc.  No matter how many companies make facial tissue, I'll still call it Kleenex. No matter how many times this is addressed in General Conference, we'll still be the Mormon Church.

 

Practically, it's illogical to call yourself a Mormon but not have a Mormon Church.  The Catholics have the Catholic church, Baptists the Baptist Church, the French have France, Italians Italy, English England etc.  The rebranding of something short, distinctive and memorable to something longer and less unique is not how things work. He is fighting a losing battle.  

 

Mormon Church is descriptive and unique, connotes the "peculiar people" aspect we like to project (or is that campaign dead?).  Plus, we do not follow the many the tenets of the rest of the christian world. Claiming we are followers of Jesus Christ would be more appropriate, but this push to join the rest of the christian sects with some sort of euchumenical acceptance and harmoy is not accepted by the christian world and not by us as "...they were all wrong...all their creeds were [are?] an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt" JSH 1:19.  I say embrace the Mormon moniker!

[Shadrak]

Garments, sir garments.

 

Think of a VERY large scapular.

 

And we would find it prideful to set oneself above others for holding the priesthood.  We don't boast about authority.

Except we like to call those in authority President, or Bishop, or Prophet etc, other than that and the basis of the restoration that no one else has authority, I'd say we don't boast of it much.

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree -- the Church Fathers certainly had some truth to share, which is unfortunately often contrary to the beliefs of our protestant brothers and sisters.

I haven't read too far yet. But Clement is my favorite so far. He rocks!

[Scott Lloyd]

I give him credit, he is consistent and likes this topic. But it's like pushing a car uphill, may be a worthy effort but not likely to succeed. "Mormon Church" is the brand, like it or not- Mormon Tabernacle Choir, Mormon Trail, I'm a Mormon, mormon.org etc. No matter how many companies make facial tissue, I'll still call it Kleenex. No matter how many times this is addressed in General Conference, we'll still be the Mormon Church.

Practically, it's illogical to call yourself a Mormon but not have a Mormon Church. The Catholics have the Catholic church, Baptists the Baptist Church, the French have France, Italians Italy, English England etc. The rebranding of something short, distinctive and memorable to something longer and less unique is not how things work. He is fighting a losing battle.

Mormon Church is descriptive and unique, connotes the "peculiar people" aspect we like to project (or is that campaign dead?). Plus, we do not follow the many the tenets of the rest of the christian world. Claiming we are followers of Jesus Christ would be more appropriate, but this push to join the rest of the christian sects with some sort of euchumenical acceptance and harmoy is not accepted by the christian world and not by us as "...they were all wrong...all their creeds were [are?] an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt" JSH 1:19. I say embrace the Mormon moniker!

I don't agree it's a losing battle. As with other prophetic teaching it is successful among the humble and faithful.

And there has been no rejection of the Mormon "brand" -- just an admonition to call the Church by its proper name as Christ directs. Hence, Church members can still be called Mormons, things appertaining to the Church can still bear the Mormon label, the set of beliefs can be called Mormonism, etc.

I think I've made that point a few times in this thread already. Perhaps you haven't looked thru it yet. I think I was pretty clear in the opening post though. And I know Elder Ballard has been clear.

Incidentally the scriptural term "peculiar people" doesn't mean strange or weird. It means chosen or treasured. Chosen for what? To bring the gospel to the rest of Heavenly Fathers children and bring them into the fold of God whereby they also become chosen.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

The problem is that out here in the mission field most everyone understands "mormon" and many understand "lds."  Hardly anyone associates "The Church of Jesus Christ" with our faith.  From a marketing perspective, there are just way too many "Church of Christ"s and "Church of Jesus Christ" for those phrases to become a unique identifier for "The Church of Jesus Christ of Lattery-day Saints." 

 

I am sympathetic to the need to emphasize that we are Christians, not followers of Mormon.  There's obviously a lot of confusion on that point where I live to.  But conversations are 2-way.  I don't get to define all the terms that others use.  To communicate well, I have to use terms they understand, and I have to grant all others equal privilege to the terms I use (thus FLDS have as much right to call themselves "mormon" as I do; they use the label with just as much sincerity and reason as I would).  Because of this, I usually say "mormon" and "church of jesus christ" in the same sentence.  In the US public's mind, "mormon" is not just a choir or landmark, it is a faith.

I think the last sentence in the instructions given address this:

"As the Church grows across boundaries, cultures, and languages, the use of its revealed name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see D&C 115:4), is increasingly important in the responsibility of the Church and its members to proclaim the name of the Savior throughout all the world. Accordingly, references to the Church should include its full name whenever possible. Following an initial reference to the full name of the Church, the contractions “the Church” or “the Church of Jesus Christ” are acceptable.

Referring to the Church as “the Mormon Church,” “the Latter-day Saints Church,” or “the LDS Church” is discouraged.

When referring to Church members, it is preferable to use the phrase “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” As a shortened reference, “Latter-day Saints” is preferred and “Mormons” is acceptable.

The word Mormon will continue to be used in proper names like the Book of Mormon and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. It will also continue to be used as an adjective in phrases such as “Mormon pioneers.” In addition, it may be necessary to use the word Mormon to identify the Church as it is commonly known in some countries."

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#21.1.31

[Calm]

I think in the church we can put too much emphasis on titles. I'm reminded of a time on my mission where we were told by our president to no longer use the acronym's ZL, DL, and AP because they were disrespectful. Or a few years ago when a friend of mine was being called as the new EQP, after seeing him apart, the SP instructed us to always refer to him as president because it showed respect for the office. This friend never really felt comfortable with the title, so I continued to refer to him by his first name.

One thing I'm not sure I'll quite ever understand is why in the last century we started to always include middle initials for high ranking church leadership. I'd it a sign of respect, tradition?

Names have significance. Just ask Adam. Why was it so important he name the animals?

I do agree we can take the respect for the office too far. There is still the friend relationship present in many cases which deserves respect as well.

[Calm]

And we would find it prideful to set oneself above others for holding the priesthood. We don't boast about authority.

I think many see it this way and therefore it is a good reason for us not to do it, but difference in dress can be about setting apart rather than setting above. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong in ministers wearing special clothing signifying their calling if they do so in humility. Edited April 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[Bikeemikey]

I don't agree it's a losing battle. As with other prophetic teaching it is successful among the humble and faithful.

And there has been no rejection of the Mormon "brand" -- just an admonition to call the Church by its proper name as Christ directs. Hence, Church members can still be called Mormons, things appertaining to the Church can still bear the Mormon label, the set of beliefs can be called Mormonism, etc.

I think I've made that point a few times in this thread already. Perhaps you haven't looked thru it yet. I think I was pretty clear in the opening post though. And I know Elder Ballard has been clear.

Incidentally the scriptural term "peculiar people" doesn't mean strange or weird. It means chosen. Chosen for what? To bring the gospel to the rest of Heavenly Fathers children and bring them into the fold of God whereby they also become chosen.

You've been very clear, it is the church that's been inconsistent. They dropped off this emphasis about 6 years or so ago, then launched the in a mormon campaign.

Now we are meant to start it all up again.

As for prophetic - sure the teaching came from a member of the 12 but when I tell my friends, we have living prophets and they ask what kind of things do they say, i don't then say well one of them spent a lot of time telling us how to say the name of the church.

[Scott Lloyd]

You've been very clear, it is the church that's been inconsistent. They dropped off this emphasis about 6 years or so ago, ...

I don't agree there has been inconsistency.

Just because something is not mentioned for a period of time, it cannot reasonably be concluded it has been rescinded. If everything is emphasized all of the time (an impossibility), then, comparatively speaking, nothing is emphasized. It's like the correlated truism, "If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority."

Besides, in those six years or so that you say the Church dropped this, the Church's preference on this matter has consistently remained on the Church website as a guide to those writing about the Church.

Moreover, I have already twice quoted a previous conference sermon from Elder Ballard on this topic that was given only about three years ago. He was as explicit (perhaps more so) then as he was this past weekend.

... then launched the in a mormon campaign.

We've been over this. There was never any objection to calling Church members Mormons or to an individual Church member referring to him/herself as a Mormon. Why do you persist in this mistaken understanding?

Now we are meant to start it all up again.

See above. That it was ever stopped is a mistaken conclusion on your part. You might have indulged in wishful thinking that it had gone away, but it never did.

As for prophetic - sure the teaching came from a member of the 12 but when I tell my friends, we have living prophets and they ask what kind of things do they say, i don't then say well one of them spent a lot of time telling us how to say the name of the church.

It didn't just come from one member of the Twelve. Elder Ballard has only affirmed what has been the official position of the Church (I.e. First Presudency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) for well over a decade now.

And just because some teachings may have less priority than others does not justify dismissing them as having no value or verity. Such dismissal is fatuous reasoning and transparently fallacious.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Bikeemikey]

I don't agree there has been inconsistency.

Just because something is not mentioned for a period of time, it cannot reasonably be concluded it has been rescinded. If everything is emphasized all of the time (an impossibility), then, comparatively speaking, nothing is emphasized. It's like the correlated truism, "If everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority."

Besides, in those six years or so that you say the Church dropped this, the Church's preference on this matter has consistently remained on the Church website as a guide to those writing about the Church.

Moreover, I have already twice quoted a previous conference sermon from Elder Ballard on this topic that was given only about three years ago. He was as explicit (perhaps more so) then as he was this past weekend.

We've been over this. There was never any objection to calling Church members Mormons or to an individual Church member referring to him/herself as a Mormon. Why do you persist in this mistaken understanding?

See above. That it was ever stopped is a mistaken conclusion on your part. You might have indulged in wishful thinking that it had gone away, but it never did.

It didn't just come from one member of the Twelve. Elder Ballard has only affirmed what has been the official position of the Church (I.e. First Presudency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) for well over a decade now.

And just because some teachings may have less priority than others does not justify dismissing them as having no value or verity. Such dismissal is fatuous reasoning and transparently fallacious.

 

Oh, Don't get me wrong. I fully agree what you have said above.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Five Solas]

Again, what's so difficult about writing or saying, "the Church of Jesus Christ"?

Your fellow posters have made some good observations Scott.  

Calling it “The Church of Jesus Christ” is “rather presumptuous” (teancum).  *All* Bible-believing Christians consider themselves part of the body or church of Jesus Christ, regardless of denomination (see Ephesians 5:29-30).  An uninformed reader would have no idea you were referring to a specific religious organization headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.  Clarity (“LDS,” “Mormon”) would be replaced with ambiguity and confusion.

Suspect you recognize this too.  Nonetheless, you seem pretty enthusiastic about implementing it.  So is there more to this admonition than trying to stick a finger in the eye of critics who say LDS theology isn’t Christian?  Do you believe ambiguity and confusion over the name suits the purposes of the LDS Church?  If so, please tell us how.

--Erik

PS.  But if you’re sincere about wanting to shorten the name without reference to LDS and you wished to maintain a distinctive and thereby avoid confusion, I’m sure the critics would be happy to meet you half-way—you could brand/re-brand it, Church of the Mormon Jesus.

;0)

[Calm]

"Besides, in those six years or so that you say the Church dropped this, the Church's preference on this matter has consistently remained on the Church website as a guide to those writing about the Church."

And I believe it has been in the Handbook.

[Scott Lloyd]

Your fellow posters have made some good observations Scott.  

Calling it “The Church of Jesus Christ” is “rather presumptuous” (teancum).  *All* Bible-believing Christians consider themselves part of the body or church of Jesus Christ, regardless of denomination (see Ephesians 5:29-30).  An uninformed reader would have no idea you were referring to a specific religious organization headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.  Clarity (“LDS,” “Mormon”) would be replaced with ambiguity and confusion.

Suspect you recognize this too.  Nonetheless, you seem pretty enthusiastic about implementing it.  So is there more to this admonition than trying to stick a finger in the eye of critics who say LDS theology isn’t Christian?  Do you believe ambiguity and confusion over the name suits the purposes of the LDS Church?  If so, please tell us how.

 

This has already been answered on this thread. It is easy enough to get the correct meaning from context, especially when the formal name of the Church occurs in the spoken or written discourse, preferably near the beginning. As I said, I myself frequently use on this board the shortened form Church of Jesus Christ to refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To date no one has appeared in the least confused as to my meaning.

 

PS.  But if you’re sincere about wanting to shorten the name without reference to LDS and you wished to maintain a distinctive and thereby avoid confusion, I’m sure the critics would be happy to meet you half-way—you could brand/re-brand it, Church of the Mormon Jesus.

 

 

Yeah, I'm sure that as an antagonistic ex-Mormon you would love that.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

"Besides, in those six years or so that you say the Church dropped this, the Church's preference on this matter has consistently remained on the Church website as a guide to those writing about the Church."

And I believe it has been in the Handbook.

Yes, it is in the "Selected Church Policies" section of Handbook 2.

 

21.1.34

Referring to the Church and Its Members

As the Church grows across boundaries, cultures, and languages, the use of its revealed name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see D&C 115:4), is increasingly important in the responsibility of the Church and its members to proclaim the name of the Savior throughout all the world. Accordingly, references to the Church should include its full name whenever possible. Following an initial reference to the full name of the Church, the contractions “the Church” or “the Church of Jesus Christ” are acceptable.

Referring to the Church as “the Mormon Church,” “the Latter-day Saints Church,” or “the LDS Church” is discouraged.

When referring to Church members, it is preferable to use the phrase “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” As a shortened reference, “Latter-day Saints” is preferred and “Mormons” is acceptable.

The word Mormon will continue to be used in proper names like the Book of Mormon and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. It will also continue to be used as an adjective in phrases such as “Mormon pioneers.” In addition, it may be necessary to use the word Mormon to identify the Church as it is commonly known in some countries.

 

 

Edited April 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

I try to get in line, but it's stuff like this that kind of makes me crazy.  Who cares about writing out the whole name?  Who cares if we use Mormon or LDS to describe the Church?  Context matters.  It's easy enough to say LDS in conversation.  Context often helps everyone know what we're talking about.  Seems like a waste to worry about this. 

 

Its like we're trying to make a fuss for some sort of PR reason and seeing as less important the poor and the needy or something.  or forgetting the simplicity of the gospel.  God is not going to send us to eternal hell for saying LDS Church on occasion. 

 

Sometimes I fear we major in the petty while the real issues are left unaddressed. 

 

Okay...now everyone get upset with me...

[Scott Lloyd]

I try to get in line, but it's stuff like this that kind of makes me crazy.  Who cares about writing out the whole name?  Who cares if we use Mormon or LDS to describe the Church?  Context matters.  It's easy enough to say LDS in conversation.  Context often helps everyone know what we're talking about.  Seems like a waste to worry about this. 

 

Its like we're trying to make a fuss for some sort of PR reason and seeing as less important the poor and the needy or something.  or forgetting the simplicity of the gospel.  God is not going to send us to eternal hell for saying LDS Church on occasion. 

 

Sometimes I fear we major in the petty while the real issues are left unaddressed. 

 

Okay...now everyone get upset with me...

Have you considered the purpose given in the Handbook 2 entry (quoted above)?

 

As the Church grows across boundaries, cultures, and languages, the use of its revealed name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see D&C 115:4), is increasingly important in the responsibility of the Church and its members to proclaim the name of the Savior throughout all the world. Accordingly, references to the Church should include its full name whenever possible. Following an initial reference to the full name of the Church, the contractions “the Church” or “the Church of Jesus Christ” are acceptable.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

The prophets and apostles (whose role and responsibility is to care about such things) have determined that it Is important, for the above reason.

 

Also, have you considered Elder Ballard's insightful analysis (which I quoted earlier) about the meaning inherent in and conveyed by the Church's name?

 

I have thought a lot about why the Savior gave the nine-word name to His restored Church. It may seem long, but if we think of it as a descriptive overview of what the Church is, it suddenly becomes wonderfully brief, candid, and straightforward. How could any description be more direct and clear and yet expressed in such few words?

Every word is clarifying and indispensable. The word The indicates the unique position of the restored Church among the religions of the world.

The words Church of Jesus Christ declare that it is His Church. In the Book of Mormon, Jesus taught: “And how be it my church 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 [like Mormon] 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” (3 Nephi 27:8).

Of Latter-day explains that it is the same Church as the Church that Jesus Christ established during His mortal ministry but restored in these latter days. We know there was a falling away, or an apostasy, necessitating the Restoration of His true and complete Church in our time.

Saints means that its members follow Him and strive to do His will, keep His commandments, and prepare once again to live with Him and our Heavenly Father in the future. Saint simply refers to those who seek to make their lives holy by covenanting to follow Christ.

The name the Savior has given to His Church tells us exactly who we are and what we believe. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior and the Redeemer of the world. He atoned for all who would repent of their sins, and He broke the bands of death and provided the resurrection from the dead. We follow Jesus Christ. And as King Benjamin said to his people, so I reaffirm to all of us today: “Ye should remember to retain [His] name written always in your hearts” (Mosiah 5:12).

 

Edited April 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

I see it as the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve see it.

 

Or at least Elder Ballard.

[ksfisher]

Names have significance. Just ask Adam. Why was it so important he name the animals?

 

Because you wouldn't want to send Cain or Able out in the field and have them confuse which large hairy thing that they're supposed to milk

Edited April 8, 2014 by ksfisher

[stemelbow]

Have you considered the purpose given in the Handbook 2 entry (quoted above)?

 

(emphasis mine)

 

The prophets and apostles (whose role and responsibility is to care about such things) have determined that it Is important, for the above reason.

 

Also, have you considered Elder Ballard's insightful analysis (which I quoted earlier) about the meaning inherent in and conveyed by the Church's name?

 

 

I have.  I'm still thinking it's remarkably overly tedious to worry about this so pervasively.  This is a "let people govern themselves" type of thing In my estimation.  But I'll take a swift smack on my hand from my SP for thinking as much.  And as I said, I still try to stay in line with it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Or at least Elder Ballard.

No. The directive originated as an initiative from the First Presidency and the Twelve acting unitedlly. Elder Ballard has done nothing beyond supporting the established position of the Church on this. In fact, his wording in his conference sermons is strikingly similar to what is in the Church handbook, already cited.

[Scott Lloyd]

I have.  I'm still thinking it's remarkably overly tedious to worry about this so pervasively.  This is a "let people govern themselves" type of thing In my estimation.  But I'll take a swift smack on my hand from my SP for thinking as much.  And as I said, I still try to stay in line with it. 

Bear in mind that the first half of that "let the people govern themselves" formula is "teach them correct principles."

 

The stubborn (and often uncomprehending) resistance I have witnessed on this thread alone tells me that this is a matter on which the people need to be taught correct principles.

 

And, by the way, they are being allowed to govern themselves. No one is being placed under compulsion in this matter.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd