Elder Ballard On The Proper Name Of The Church

[stemelbow]

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.

 

The principal seems to be proclaim the name of Jesus Christ throughout the world.  The letting them govern that principal would be to drop the directive of writing out and saying the whole name of the Church in every instance.  Just my take. 

 

There are plenty of opportunities to proclaim His name without saying the whole name of the Church. 

 

Sorry I disagree.  I guess you think me stubborn an unbending.  But I try to be good. 

[Scott Lloyd]

The principal seems to be proclaim the name of Jesus Christ throughout the world.  The letting them govern that principal would be to drop the directive of writing out and saying the whole name of the Church in every instance.  Just my take. 

 

Dropping the directive would be to abandon their responsibility to teach correct principles.

 

Clearly, they see this as very important implementation of the commandment to proclaim Christ, or they wouldn't keep bringing it up, wouldn't include a style note on news releases and such about the proper way to refer to the Church, wouldn't have codified it in Handbook 2.

 

If they thus see it as important, you can hardly expect them to drop it.

 

But, as I said, no one is being compelled to follow it. They don't even insist that the Deseret News do it, and that is a Church-owned property. (That's the "let them govern themselves" part of it.)

 

I think it's time we as a people realize we may be the ones who are in error in being so dismissive about a matter that is clearly important to the Brethren.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

Dropping the directive would be to abandon their responsibility to teach correct principles.

Clearly, they see this as very important implementation of the commandment to proclaim Christ, or they wouldn't keep bringing it up, wouldn't include a style note on news releases and such about the proper way to refer to the Church, wouldn't have codified it in Handbook 2.

If they thus see it as important, you can hardly expect them to drop it.

But, as I said, no one is being compelled to follow it. They don't even insist that the Deseret News do it, and that is a Church-owned property. (That's the "let them govern themselves" part of it.)

I think it's time we as a people realize we may be the ones who are in error in being so dismissive about a matter that is clearly important to the Brethren.

It may have been said, but it is they that may have started it, think the "I'm a Mormon" campaign. Mormon.org, Mormon Ad, Mormon Tabernacle Choir..it's late and I'm forgetting some. ETA: the Mormon Channel and the Mormon Times. Edited April 9, 2014 by Tacenda

[Alan]

The problem is that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is such a mouthful. You can actually see peoples eyes glaze over before you're through!

 

I think the Reorganised Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (even more of a mouthful) played a blinder when they changed their name to the Community of Christ.

I wish we'd have thought of that!

 

So while ever we persist in having such a long and awkward name, we'll probably always abbreviate it. That's just the way it is.

[Gray]

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.

 

That was definitely the case when this was first announced some time ago. I haven't heard anything more about it for years, and speakers get to choose their own topics, so I don't know whether or not this issue has really been resurrected or not

[Scott Lloyd]

It may have been said, but it is they that may have started it, think the "I'm a Mormon" campaign. Mormon.org, Mormon Ad, Mormon Tabernacle Choir..it's late and I'm forgetting some. ETA: the Mormon Channel and the Mormon Times.

This has repeatedly been addressed here on the thread.

 

There is scarcely any inconsistency in what you bring up, because the directive from the Brethren has never disallowed use of the term Mormon in virtually every usage except as a title for the Church itself as an institution.

 

As I have already posted previously,

 

Here again is the policy (and I'm prepared to re-explain it as many times as it takes to get people to understand:

 

1.  It is the expressed desire of the Brethren that we refer to the Church itself by its full and complete name (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) or, if a shortened form is needed, the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

2. When referring to the members themselves, it is acceptable to call them Mormons or Latter-day Saints or "the Mormon people," etc.

 

3.  It is acceptable to use the name Mormon to refer to things pertaining to the Church, such as the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, the Mormon pioneers and the Mormon Trail [the Mormon faith, or to the set of beliefs in the Church as Mormonism].

 

Really, it seems to me that in bringing up points and objections that have already been responded to and in failing to listen to or endeavor to comprehend explanations that have already been given, folks are doing the intellectual equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and humming.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The problem is that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is such a mouthful. You can actually see peoples eyes glaze over before you're through!

 

This has already been addressed. The directive allows for the use of shortened forms on second and subsequent references, such as the Church of Jesus Christ or simply the Church.

 

And have you considered that the length of the name might actually be an advantage? It sets the Church apart from the numerous sects and denominations that comprise Christendom and may be a catalyst for people to ponder the reason for the name and the meaning inherent in it.

 

Here again from my prior post is Elder Ballard's analysis of that meaning, which is lost when we succumb to social pressure or our own insecurities about voicing the proper name of the Church:

 

 

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).

 

 

I think the Reorganised Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (even more of a mouthful) played a blinder when they changed their name to the Community of Christ.

I wish we'd have thought of that!

 

Comparisons to what the Community of Christ does or has done are of scarcely any value, as they are so very different from us these days in that they have abandoned so much of what we still believe and embrace.

 

In fact, considering the meaning inherent in the name as outlined by Elder Ballard in the above quote, it is hardly surprising that they discontinued use of their previous name.

 

So while ever we persist in having such a long and awkward name, we'll probably always abbreviate it. That's just the way it is.

 

It's not "just the way it is." Though some stubbornly resist it, I and others intend to follow the direction of the Brethren in this matter.

[Scott Lloyd]

That was definitely the case when this was first announced some time ago. I haven't heard anything more about it for years, and speakers get to choose their own topics, so I don't know whether or not this issue has really been resurrected or not

This has already been addressed.

 

Whether or not you have heard anything about it for years has no bearing on whether it is still in effect. As has been said before, it has remained on the Church website as a style guide for people writing about the Church, it is codified in the Church's Handbook 2, and Elder Ballard himself addressed it about three years ago using language consistent with and similar to what is in the handbook.

[stemelbow]

Dropping the directive would be to abandon their responsibility to teach correct principles.

 

Clearly, they see this as very important implementation of the commandment to proclaim Christ, or they wouldn't keep bringing it up, wouldn't include a style note on news releases and such about the proper way to refer to the Church, wouldn't have codified it in Handbook 2.

 

If they thus see it as important, you can hardly expect them to drop it.

 

But, as I said, no one is being compelled to follow it. They don't even insist that the Deseret News do it, and that is a Church-owned property. (That's the "let them govern themselves" part of it.)

 

I think it's time we as a people realize we may be the ones who are in error in being so dismissive about a matter that is clearly important to the Brethren.

 

I mostly agree with you.  that's why in the end, I do my best to abide by the teaching.  I just think it's over-wrought.  I don't know.  Someday I think it'll all disappear as a concern.  But I may be wrong.

[Scott Lloyd]

I mostly agree with you.  that's why in the end, I do my best to abide by the teaching.  I just think it's over-wrought.  I don't know.  Someday I think it'll all disappear as a concern.  But I may be wrong.

Some seem to think, erroneously, that it has already disappeared as a concern.

 

That may be one reason why Elder Ballard brings it up from time to time.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

This has already been addressed.

 

Whether or not you have heard anything about it for years has no bearing on whether it is still in effect. As has been said before, it has remained on the Church website as a style guide for people writing about the Church, it is codified in the Church's Handbook 2, and Elder Ballard himself addressed it about three years ago using language consistent with and similar to what is in the handbook.

 

Thanks, I wasn't aware.

 

I don't think it will ever stick, though, for the same reason a campaign to get people to stop using contractions wouldn't work 

Edited April 9, 2014 by Gray

[Bikeemikey]

Some seem to think, erroneously, that it has already disappeared as a concern.

That may be one reason why Elder Ballard brings it up from time to time.

How much time you going to waste on this... The whole topic is quite boring.

We've been asked.

Some will do, some won't.

That's its.

As for the church. The more they push the mormon brand the more people (members and others) will use the term mormon, doesn't matter what the apostles say about it.

That's a function of being human.

As long as the church is filled with humans that's going to he the way it is.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Scott Lloyd]

How much time you going to waste on this...

I'm willing to spend as much time as it takes to correct misconceptions and erroneous conclusions as they are reflected in posts on this thread. I notice they are still cropping up, as late as this very morning.

 

And I don't consider it a waste of time -- any more than Elder Ballard did when he made it a subject of his conference address.

 

The whole topic is quite boring.

 

For it being so boring, I notice you're devoting quite a bit of attention to it. Does it anger you that some people appear to be taking seriously the expressed desire and direction of the Brethren on this matter, that they don't share your eagerness to dismiss it? Or that there have been reasoned responses given to the objections and complaints of you and others?

 

In any event, you're welcome to bow out of thread participation at any time.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

As for the church. The more they push the mormon brand the more people (members and others) will use the term mormon, doesn't matter what the apostles say about it.

 

Again, there's has been no objection to using the term Mormon per se. The request and directive is that when referring to the Church itself as an institution that we use the full and complete title or, on subsequent references, the shortened form the Church of Jesus Christ or simply the Church. There is no objection to calling members Mormons or using the word Mormon as a descriptor for things pertaining to the Church such as Mormon Tabernacle Choir, Mormon pioneers, Mormon Trail, Mormon faith, the Mormon people or Mormonism.

 

Apparently even you haven't grasped this yet, notwithstanding your complaint about too much time being spent discussing it.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[omni]

I think the church should worry about cleaning its own house before requesting other media outlets refrain from the usage of "Mormon Church" or "LDS Church".  Two of the biggest offenders are Deseret News and KSL.com.  The church even has a website, ldschurchnews.com ( which was just recently merged into the Deseret News).

 

I understand the reason behind the request (to show we are Christian), but feel if I were to use the term "Church of Jesus Christ" in sacrament meeting, 90% of my ward would think I was referring to a generic Christian church.  I personally use the term "LDS Church" or "the Church" as it's brief and I believe still gives respect.  

[Scott Lloyd]

I think the church should worry about cleaning its own house before requesting other media outlets refrain from the usage of "Mormon Church" or "LDS Church".  Two of the biggest offenders are Deseret News and KSL.com. 

Biggest offenders? I highly doubt that. I've worked for the Deseret News for nearly 29 years, so I tend to be aware of such things. It seems to me it has been a good long while since I've seen the phrase "Mormon Church" in copy generated by the Deseret News. One is more likely to see "LDS Church," but that is largely because of the exigencies of layout: It's short enough to fit into a headline space and it's hard to find an alternative.

 

But even so, this only demonstrates that the Church doesn't exercise the heavy-handed control over its media properties that some would have us believe.

 

I'm curious though. Through an Internet search can you find the latest instance in which "Mormon Church" appeared in Deseret News content in something other than a wire story or a syndicated feature not generated in-house?

 

 

The church even has a website, ldschurchnews.com ( which was just recently merged into the Deseret News).

 

 

ldschurcnews.com has always been a Deseret News property and has always been associated with the Deseret News website. (I've been a staff writer at the Church News for nearly 29 years, so I should know.) It's true, though, that it has very recently come more directly under the Deseret News URL as opposed to being a separate self-contained website. Also, Church News content has very recently come to be featured on lds.org and in Church magazines such as the Ensign and Liahona.

 

All that is because of recent corporate restructuring that is too complicated to go into here and really has little to do with the subject at hand.

 

I can guarantee you one thing: You won't find the phrase "Mormon Church" cropping up in the Church News.

 

I understand the reason behind the request (to show we are Christian), but feel if I were to use the term "Church of Jesus Christ" in sacrament meeting, 90% of my ward would think I was referring to a generic Christian church.

 

 

Sad to think that 90 percent of the members of one of the wards in the Church are not bright enough to grasp a meaning from context.

 

In my ward, I'm not apt to say "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or "the Church of Jesus Christ" in sacrament meeting. I simply say "the Church" and everyone knows what I'm talking about.

 

I should count my blessings, perhaps.

 

 

I personally use the term "LDS Church" or "the Church" as it's brief and I believe still gives respect.

 

I, on the other hand, intend to follow the apostles and prophets on this matter, as their reasoning, as given elsewhere on this thread, makes sense to me, especially as it pertains to the importance of conveying to the world Whose Church this is.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[MiserereNobis]

I understand the reason behind the request (to show we are Christian), but feel if I were to use the term "Church of Jesus Christ" in sacrament meeting, 90% of my ward would think I was referring to a generic Christian church.  

 

Yeah, it would be a bummer if your ward members kept thinking you were talking about the Catholic Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

As for the church. The more they push the mormon brand the more people (members and others) will use the term mormon, doesn't matter what the apostles say about it.

That's a function of being human.

As long as the church is filled with humans that's going to he the way it is.

George Bernard Shaw said:

 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

 

 

[Bikeemikey]

Again, there's has been no objection to using the term Mormon per se. The request and directive is that when referring to the Church itself as an institution that we use the full and complete title or, on subsequent references, the shortened form the Church of Jesus Christ or simply the Church. There is no objection to calling members Mormons or using the word Mormon as a descriptor for things pertaining to the Church such as Mormon Tabernacle Choir, Mormon pioneers, Mormon Trail, Mormon faith, the Mormon people or Mormonism.

Apparently even you haven't grasped this yet, notwithstanding your complaint about too much time being spent discussing it.

No I've fully grasped it. The issue is not with the logic of the request of the coherence of the argument. Human beings are however not consistently reasoned or rational in their actions.

The point is you can be as reasoned and rational as you want... As long as your communicating with humans that is never going to be as fully persuasive as custom, habit, comfort and ease.

As long as the church continues to tolerate the dual custom and habit of utilizing the mormon brand specifically you are going to run into the conflict of custom and habit vs rational persuasion.

[Scott Lloyd]

No I've fully grasped it. The issue is not with the logic of the request of the coherence of the argument. Human beings are however not consistently reasoned or rational in their actions.

The point is you can be as reasoned and rational as you want... As long as your communicating with humans that is never going to be as fully persuasive as custom, habit, comfort and ease.

As long as the church continues to tolerate the dual custom and habit of utilizing the mormon brand specifically you are going to run into the conflict of custom and habit vs rational persuasion.

Did you see the George Bernard Shaw quote I just posted?

 

Perhaps it fits better here, so I'll repeat it:

 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

 

[Bikeemikey]

Did you see the George Bernard Shaw quote I just posted?

 

Perhaps it fits better here, so I'll repeat it:

 

It is a great quote... A shame more people aren't this form of "unreasonable"...

 

However, it is also a tough dilemma as a common critique of "opposition" to the Church is that people aren't willing to modify their behavior to match the Churches expectation. We can browse any of the recent threads on the OW movement as an example.

 

Are dissenters just being brilliantly unreasonable? or are they being foolish and not willing to accept the requirements the World is asking of them?

 

There is no point going out and reinventing the wheel every day just to resist the urge to adapt to the world... however, to great a willingness to adapt to the world and change comes to a hault.

 

It is a great quote... how do you practically implement it in a way that doesn't create total chaos? I have no idea.

[mfbukowski]

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

He was clearly Mormon.

Well maybe not so clearly, but he is so dang close, to me his beliefs are great evidence that our beliefs were there and already going under.

[mfbukowski]

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)

It's hard to tell if you are so profoundly insulting intentionally or by ignorance.

Either way, it doesn't say much in your favor.

[mfbukowski]

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...

COJCLDS is not that hard to write.

[Disciple?]

The emphasis put on the use the full name of the church is to illustrate to folks we are Christian. With that in mind, it does not seem necessary to write the full name out on this forum. I will stick with Mormon Church or The Church when I post.