The Name of the Church

[Nemesis]

@Skylla get em!!!!

[Jeanne]

If I am not ex mormon...what am I??

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Please allow me to introduce you to one of your long-time coworkers, Tad Walch:

https://www.deseretnews.com/author/9061/Tad-Walch.html

I knew that.

Of course, it does me no good to go back and correct it now, as you have already busted me. Thanks a lot!

[strappinglad]

Well, we have strained that gnat, where is the camel?

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Will see how it works out. 

If Yahoo News feed is any indication, not so well... 

It doesn't look like any of the other news outlets are much better.  In fact one local cbs link in a google search reads like this:

Quote

 

Moron Church Leader Wants People To Stop Calling Them “Mormons ...

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2018/08/.../moron-church-leader-stop-calling-them-mormon...

 

Intentional?  I'll let you decide.

I think Exiled is right, the PR department has a lot of work to do.  

[california boy]

37 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh...I know!  I just had to chuckle when I heard him say that 

But then I also had to admit that I could understand why he may have thought it was true, after hearing the announcement.  It's a bit confusing to hear that we now want to avoid the use of the term "Mormons', but then continue calling our choir the "Mormon Tabernacle Choir".  I'll be very surprised if any type of change is made though.

Honestly, I can't see how the church could not change the name to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Tabernacle Choir.  One of the main purposes of having the choir is to promote good will and give the church exposure.  President Nelson is essentially saying that the Mormon Church no longer exists and shouldn't be referred to again.  How could the church possibly keep the choir name as it is?

[rongo]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I've mentioned before that I spent some time in the Czech Republic and speak Czech. I looked up the official name of your church (I'm afraid to say LDS church now, ha) in Czech and there's a translation problem going on there that would make using "Mormon" perhaps a better fit. In Czech, the name is (without accent marks, forgive me): Cirkev Jezise Krista Svatych Poslednich Dnu. That literally means: The Church of Jesus Christ of the Holy Last Days. The problem is that there is no difference between latter and last in Czech. Also, in Czech, there is no noun for "saint." Only an adjective is used and it is the same as holy. So if someone introduced themselves as belonging to the LDS church using the full name, all non-Mormon Czechs would hear Church of Jesus Christ of the Holy Last Days, which definitely has a weird ring to it.

Note: I checked google translate and people have definitely suggested edits to the translator to make it pop up the official name of your church (including "Latter-day"), but that's not how a Czech would hear it. I can't think of anyway to translate the name to make it sound/mean what it does in English. It just doesn't work in the Czech language.

In German, the Church also elected to say "Saints of the last days" instead of "Saints of the latter-days" (which is possible in German). It sounds more apocalyptic than we actually are. 

An inside joke we had was that a common modern German word for "floor of a building" is from French: etage (eh-tazh). A missionary who served in Russia said that they also use that word for floor. We had an inordinate number of members on the top floor of apartment buildings, so the joke was that you only had to tract the top floor apartments. If they weren't interested, no one else in the building would be (naturally, we "doored" out the apartments just the same). The joke was that this state of things was inherent in the name: Die Kirche Jesu Christi der Heiligen der letzeten Tage (The Church of Jesus Christ of the Saints of the last Days) ----- Die Kirche Jesus Christ der Heiligen der letzten Etage (The Church of Jesus Christ of the Saints of the last Floor).   

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

Honestly, I can't see how the church could not change the name to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Tabernacle Choir.  One of the main purposes of having the choir is to promote good will and give the church exposure.  President Nelson is essentially saying that the Mormon Church no longer exists and shouldn't be referred to again.  How could the church possibly keep the choir name as it is?

I see your point.  I just highly doubt that people outside the church could even remember that longer name, much less use it!  I imagine most would still use the name "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" and then qualify it with "or used to be" .....something like that.  I guess we will just have to wait and see if the name is changed.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

If Yahoo News feed is any indication, not so well... 

It doesn't look like any of the other news outlets are much better.  In fact one local cbs link in a google search reads like this:

Intentional?  I'll let you decide.

I think Exiled is right, the PR department has a lot of work to do.  

The most pressing task might be among among our own people who profess to heed the words of a living prophet yet some of  whom are pushing back on this.

At the end of the day, outsiders will do what they will do, and all we can do is make reasonable requests of them and hope they will be civil and congenial in their response (which might be a lot to hope for, given what I see on the televised White House press briefings).

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

If Yahoo News feed is any indication, not so well... 

It doesn't look like any of the other news outlets are much better.  In fact one local cbs link in a google search reads like this:

Intentional?  I'll let you decide.

I think Exiled is right, the PR department has a lot of work to do.  

Broken link

[bluebell]

51 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh...I know!  I just had to chuckle when I heard him say that 

But then I also had to admit that I could understand why he may have thought it was true, after hearing the announcement.  It's a bit confusing to hear that we now want to avoid the use of the term "Mormons', but then continue calling our choir the "Mormon Tabernacle Choir".  I'll be very surprised if any type of change is made though.

I think it’s workable if we think of MOTAB as being a proper noun such as with the Mormon trail or BOM (both of which president Nelson said would go unchanged). 

[SouthernMo]

From the Style Guide — The Name of the Church:  The term "Mormonism" is inaccurate and should not be used. When describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" is accurate and preferred.

I have a hard time seeing honest journalists with an understanding of the English language to do this consistently because it would come across so biased in the Christian faiths.

For example, in an article about baptism for the dead, would the journalist call it a doctrine of Mormonism, or a doctrine of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ?  He would seem to be weighing in on a matter of faith by utilizing the latter phrasing.

@Scott Lloyd  Journalist question:  How would you handle this?  Would a skilled journalist refer to another faith by the name it wants to be called if it created confusion or conveyed bias in the report?

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Broken link

That's weird.

Use this google search: church leader: stop calling us mormons

It will be around the third link down.  It still reads and works the same that way. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

That's weird.

Use this google search: church leader: stop calling us mormons

It will be around the third link down.  It still reads and works the same that way. 

nah. not that interested 

[cinepro]

I predict the most practical way of implementing this will be for the people around President Nelson to put him in a bubble and make it appear to him as if this new directive is working to great effect (modifying his news clippings, having congregations he visits focus on their usage etc.) 

"Oh yes, President Nelson, everyone is referring to us by the proper name now.  When you speak, the world listens!"

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

From the Style Guide — The Name of the Church:  The term "Mormonism" is inaccurate and should not be used. When describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" is accurate and preferred.

I have a hard time seeing honest journalists with an understanding of the English language to do this consistently because it would come across so biased in the Christian faiths.

For example, in an article about baptism for the dead, would the journalist call it a doctrine of Mormonism, or a doctrine of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ?  He would seem to be weighing in on a matter of faith by utilizing the latter phrasing.

@Scott Lloyd  Journalist question:  How would you handle this?  Would a skilled journalist refer to another faith by the name it wants to be called if it created confusion or conveyed bias in the report?

I would make an effort to use the formal name of the church high in the story, if not on first reference. On subsequent references, I would refer to it as "the church," as in "a doctrine of the church" or "the lifestyle of the church's members" or "the culture of the church."

If I thought it necessary, depending on the assumed readership, I might mention that outsiders refer to the church's members as Mormons.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The most pressing task might be among among our own people who profess to heed the words of a living prophet yet some of  whom are pushing back on this.

At the end of the day, outsiders will do what they will do, and all we can do is make reasonable requests of them and hope they will be civil and congenial in their response (which might be a lot to hope for, given what I see on the televised White House press briefings).

Steve Evans at By Common Consent says this:

Quote

 

Evans predicts this undertaking will only “confuse outsiders,” he said. “I don’t think it substantively alters external perspectives of the church, but I do think it makes us look a little persnickety.”

The church already has “a popular brand — why not embrace it and use it? … We should be leveraging those names instead, while simultaneously teaching the real name of the church and reinforcing why it is something holy to us.”

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/08/16/lds-church-wants-everyone/

 

I think you might be right about getting our own members on board.  I think most will give it a diligent effort to heed the prophets counsel, but probably are not really happy with the change and probable have little hope of any real change after previous failed attempts at the same goal.  I think some are discouraged after giving it a diligent effort before, only to see the church itself use the term later in promotional videos, etc.:

Quote

This effort to distance itself from the Mormon name isn't new. Leaders of the faith -- which has more than 16 million members worldwide -- made similar efforts in 1982, 2001 and 2011, CNN affiliate KSTU reported.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/17/us/mormon-church-name-trnd/index.html

Some might lack the will/faith to try again after previous ditched efforts.  Some might question what success might entail?  What good will it do if only members follow this rule, when we already know and respect the official name of the church?  I don't think the change is for us as much as it is for outsiders to understand what we are all about - Christ.  Without a mighty intervention of God, any real change on the outside will take decades upon decades of expensive effort, even then, I don't expect much change.

I personally don't like the change, I didn't like it before, but I will give it another go if that is the direction of the prophet.  If this is indeed the Lord's will, it will all work out, but we shouldn't expect the Lord's will to be easy on the palate of His people, based on history. 

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by pogi

[Lagrange]

14 hours ago, california boy said:

If the name The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints had been legally challenged when it first started to be used, then I doubt very much that they would have been allowed to legally use that name.  To my knowledge, it was never legally challenged.  To do so even 10 years later is too late.

Ok, I will let a lawyer comment on how copyright laws work.  I doubt very  much that you would accept much of what I am saying. 

 

Actually a court or two agreed that the RLDS Church is the legal successor of the Church that was founded in 1830.  Temple Lot Case, if memory serves. 

[stemelbow]

51 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I predict the most practical way of implementing this will be for the people around President Nelson to put him in a bubble and make it appear to him as if this new directive is working to great effect (modifying his news clippings, having congregations he visits focus on their usage etc.) 

"Oh yes, President Nelson, everyone is referring to us by the proper name now.  When you speak, the world listens!"

Lol.  The worst penalty for getting put on limited (for not breaking any rules) is I can’t simply rep great posts.   

[strappinglad]

If only the Brethren had copyrighted/trademarked ( ya I know they are different ) the word Mormon way back when , there would be little to fight over .All the anti/ex/ stuff would need approval to use the name as a title.

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, pogi said:

I personally don't like the change, I didn't like it before, but I will give it another go if that is the direction of the prophet.  If this is indeed the Lord's will, it will all work out, but we shouldn't expect the Lord's will to be easy on the palate of His people, based on history. 

 

Good point.

[rongo]

49 minutes ago, pogi said:

Some might lack the will/faith to try again after previous ditched efforts.  Some might question what success might entail?  What good will it do if only members follow this rule, when we already know and respect the official name of the church?  I don't think the change is for us as much as it is for outsiders to understand what we are all about - Christ.  Without a mighty intervention of God, any real change on the outside will take decades upon decades of expensive effort, even then, I don't expect much change.

I personally don't like the change, I didn't like it before, but I will give it another go if that is the direction of the prophet.  If this is indeed the Lord's will, it will all work out, but we shouldn't expect the Lord's will to be easy on the palate of His people, based on history. 

I feel just like you do. I will do what I can, but will continue to do what seems natural and feel's best (in most cases, "Mormon" and "Mormonism").

The article you linked to, citing similar efforts in 1982, 2001, and 2011, brought to mind something that happened years ago. At bishopric training, the stake presidency announced that they had called and set apart a couple to teach a marriage relations class. This would be for eight consecutive Friday nights, they wanted us to invite our couples who needed it the most, and we needed to stress that they needed to move heaven and earth to make it for eight consecutive Friday nights. Then, we would reload with another "class" to move through the system. Thoughts? We bishoprics had several, none of them good. One of the better suggestions was that the couple be an "itinerant" couple, and systematically visit the 9 wards over two years, teaching the class during the 2nd hour. We were told that the class was taking place as planned, and that it was our job to make it happen as ordered. I commented that we should keep in mind the principle behind the expression "governments derive their just authority from the consent of the governed." Applying that to our situation, I said that they could order it as planned, but that it was almost certainly doomed to fail because they weren't heeding the united feedback and counsel of the council. Simply ordering us to make it happen wouldn't do much if we actually, in our hearts, didn't accept it and support it. 

When the class's turnout was disappointing, the stake presidency ordered that it be filled, one way or another. So, it ended up with . . . bishoprics and their wives, other active members and their wives, etc. (who could have seen that coming?). It went defunct before it even hit eight weeks. 

We tried to do what we were asked to do. I invited the couples they wanted for it, but they all either didn't want to do the class for two whole months of Friday nights, or they physically couldn't, etc. Judging from the target audience turnout, the other wards had the same reaction. 

If general membership's response to this doesn't genuinely authentically embrace it (cheerfully and enthusiastically), it will suffer the same fate as it did in 1982, 2001, and 2011. Even revelatory directives die on the vine if the people reject them (or even are lukewarm or tepid in their fulfillment. Scouting, we're looking at you!). The graphic example was the stake president (mentioned in the Smoot hearings) who was rejected by a sustaining vote by the stake. The furious apostle had no choice but to scramble and submit another candidate for sustaining. That's a bold local action that is highly unlikely to ever be replicated in the modern era, but it illustrates what happens if an imposed action from the hierarchy doesn't actually have the genuine support of the people. The ending of prohibition is another example. Utah casting the deciding vote to end it broke President Grant's heart --- many Mormons voted in droves in opposition to the Church's pleas. 

I agree that Gamaliel's counsel is relevant here: if it is God's will, it will work out, and if it isn't, it won't. 

The war will be won in the trenches, each of our daily lives and conversations and interactions. And if there isn't genuine support, it will die on the vine. 

I wonder if this is more meant for the institutional church in dealing with media, than it is for individual members? It sounded, from what little was released, that it is both, but we will all know a lot more when the Church gives more in the coming months. The statement mentioned months of preparation leading up to this. Why is it going to take more months to clarify and explain? Why wasn't the Church ready yesterday? This seems like a pattern: April 1, the 1.0 launch of ministering, but wouldn't be available until August (and there were some technical hiccups then). Again, why wasn't everything ready to go when it was announced April 1? 

Edited August 17, 2018 by rongo

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

If I am not ex mormon...what am I??

I'm not sure - let me know when you work through your new faith crisis.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

57 minutes ago, pogi said:

Steve Evans at By Common Consent says this:

I think you might be right about getting our own members on board.  I think most will give it a diligent effort to heed the prophets counsel, but probably are not really happy with the change and probable have little hope of any real change after previous failed attempts at the same goal.  I think some are discouraged after giving it a diligent effort before, only to see the church itself use the term later in promotional videos, etc.:

Some might lack the will/faith to try again after previous ditched efforts.  Some might question what success might entail?  What good will it do if only members follow this rule, when we already know and respect the official name of the church?  I don't think the change is for us as much as it is for outsiders to understand what we are all about - Christ.  Without a mighty intervention of God, any real change on the outside will take decades upon decades of expensive effort, even then, I don't expect much change.

I personally don't like the change, I didn't like it before, but I will give it another go if that is the direction of the prophet.  If this is indeed the Lord's will, it will all work out, but we shouldn't expect the Lord's will to be easy on the palate of His people, based on history. 

 

I fear what consequences await the membership of the Church if the people collectively reject what the prophet declared the Lord has “impressed upon [his] mind.”

Edited August 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Jeanne]

22 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I'm not sure - let me know when you work through your new faith crisis.

 

I guess I am an ex member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints...what mouthful!!☺️