The Name of the Church

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Way to avoid Cinepro's comment, with which I feel the same, it's difficult to see Pres. Nelson not commenting on more pressing things. But I'm not him.

"...by small and simple things are great things brought to pass... And the Lord God doth work by means to bring about his great and eternal purposes; and by very small means the Lord ...bringeth about the salvation of many souls."

"And who knoweth but what they will be the means of bringing many thousands ...to the knowledge of their Redeemer?"

"And thus we see that by small means the Lord can bring about great things."

 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Is "Mormon Funeral Potatoes" okay?

I think there may be some confusion on what to do for descriptions, especially if unsure the "Mormon" is part of a proper name or not.

This is one case I think it would be very beneficial to provide an extensive list of what is viewed as appropriate and provide context.

 

I never did call it “Mormon Funeral Potatoes.” Just funeral potatoes. 

[Jeanne]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

He focuses on the small things too, including you!

Aren't you getting a little personal on that?  😍

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Nevo said:

Since we're on the subject, when are we going to talk about the small d in "Latter-day Saints," which is in violation of CMOS 17, section 8, subsection 161 ("Hyphenated compounds in headline-style titles")? That's been bugging me for a long time  

Seriously, though. I raised my arm to sustain President Nelson in a solemn assembly just a little over 4 months ago, so I am hesitant to criticize this new direction too much. I knew what I was getting into. Having observed President Nelson over many years and having read a good chunk of his official biography, I knew he wouldn't simply be a caretaker president. And knowing myself, I had an inkling that he might do and say some things that would cause me heartburn at some point. But this isn't one of those things.  

 President Nelson's short statement on the front page of lds.org doesn't bother me at all, actually. I can accept it without reservation (even the part where he says that this is an "important matter"). And I'm mostly okay with the Newsroom style guide statement. The one line that chafes a bit is the sentence: "The term 'Mormonism' is inaccurate and should not be used." I think that could be more nuanced, as the term is useful (and probably indispensable) in academic and historical contexts.

The hyphen and small d comports perfectly with the Associated Press Style Book — which, I would argue, is the people’s style guide more so than the Chicago Manual of Style. 

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I never did call it “Mormon Funeral Potatoes.” Just funeral potatoes. 

At least this won't affect all of us jello eating folks!!

[rockpond]

I understand why President Nelson wants to do this.  But I don't think it will work.  As a Church we haven't been able to do it...

• mormon.org
• mormonnewsroom.org
• mormonchannel.org
• I'm a Mormon campaign
• Mormon Helping Hands
• Meet the Mormons movie
• etc

I think people will try.  The Brethren will try.  In the end, I think we'll still keep referring to ourselves as Mormons.  And the rest of the world will as well.

But, it is a good reminder of where our focus should be.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I understand why President Nelson wants to do this.  But I don't think it will work.  As a Church we haven't been able to do it...

• mormon.org
• mormonnewsroom.org
• mormonchannel.org
• I'm a Mormon campaign
• Mormon Helping Hands
• Meet the Mormons movie
• etc

I think people will try.  The Brethren will try.  In the end, I think we'll still keep referring to ourselves as Mormons.  And the rest of the world will as well.

But, it is a good reminder of where our focus should be.

Mormon Tabernacle Choir will be hard to rename.  Calling it the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints choir" will just not work

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Mormon Tabernacle Choir will be hard to rename.  Calling it the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints choir" will just not work

Tabernacle Choir works fine.

[Rain]

On 8/17/2018 at 9:28 AM, Tacenda said:

Why is the church fighting so hard to show our faith in Christ? Other religions don't have that problem, it's a given, and they are still named Catholics, Methodists, Protestants...

Catholics have had that problem and probably still do to some extent. I didn't realize it till there was quite a bit of discussion on it on another non religious board I participate in. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

President Nelson is doubling down. It would seem the Brethren are making this move with their eyes wide open. It’s not a name change, it’s a course correction:

During an appearance in Canada:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900028690/were-correcting-a-name-church-president-russell-m-nelson-tells-latter-day-saints-in-canada.html?user=app

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

President Nelson is doubling down. It would seem the Brethren are making this move with their eyes wide open. It’s not a name change, it’s a course correction:

During an appearance in Canada:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900028690/were-correcting-a-name-church-president-russell-m-nelson-tells-latter-day-saints-in-canada.html?user=app

I think it is pretty ironical when the Deseret News runs an article the same day they report on President Nelson's doubling down speech and refuses to use the proper name of the church even in it's headline.

Name changes already underway at Latter-day Saint websites, Facebook pages and Twitter accounts

Is the church now going to be known as the Latter-Day Saint church?  It appears that is where things are headed.   In fact the Deseret News doesn't use the full name of the church even ONCE in the article.  And they are praising groups that change from Mormon to Latter-day Saints.   I thought the whole point of all of this is to use the full name of the church as God commanded?  Where is the name of Christ in Latter-day Saints?  How is that any different than using the name Mormon?  If the church can not get the Deseret News to comply, just who will?

From President Nelsons address that you linked to

Quote

“The name of the church is not negotiable, because the Lord has told us what his church shall be called,” he said, citing the faith’s scriptural verse of Doctrine and Covenants 115:4: “Thus shall my church be called … The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

And

Quote

The topic first came up during his evening devotional before a group of 4,000 in the Palais de congrès de Montréal, as President Nelson testified of the truthfulness of the church by using and emphasizing its full, formal name. “And I might add that it’s not the Mormon Church. It’s not the LDS Church. It’s not the Church of the Latter-day Saints,” he said.

Talk about a mixed message.  Continuing to refer to the church and still not mentioning Christ seems pointless.  

Sorry, but this thing has disaster in capital letter written all over it.

 

Edited August 19, 2018 by california boy

[Stargazer]

Of course, this whole thing has been talked about before, but it appears to me that the leadership of the Church feels it is especially important now.  I'm perfectly OK about it, since using the full name of the church has been my tendency for quite some time.

[Kenngo1969]

The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30) comes to mind, especially vss. 21 and 23, in which the Lord praises those who earned increase:

Quote

21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

Yes, change is hard for creatures of habit such as we are.  Still, this seems to be one of the "few things" over which we are asked to be "faithful" (and as at least one other poster, quoting Alma 37, has pointed out a "small and simple" thing, at that), yet, still, there seems to be opposition even among some seemingly faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

One wonders, if we're not faithful over a "few . . . small and simple things," how is it that we can expect to be made "ruler over many things" or to enter into the joy of the Lord?  Is such a reward as that not worth any price, let alone such a relatively small price as this one?  Yet, still, many seem reluctant to pay.  My "natural man" (see Mosiah 3:19), to a degree, can understand such reluctance: "If I start talking it more, that means I'll have to start walking it more, too, and I don't know if I'm ready for that!"   https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2017-01-020-i-belong-to-the-church-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

And as for the logistical complexities which might be involved in this re-emphasis on both an individual and an institutional level, my "natural man" notwithstanding ("How are leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ going to pull this off?  How do they expect me/us to pull it off?"  ) as for me and my house (see Joshua 24:15), I'll try to take a 1 Nephi 3:7 approach.

Edited August 19, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[Exiled]

So when is this board going to change its name? Also, can we say FAIR Mormon any longer or will that have to change too?

I think this change will prove to be highly problematic as people like shorter names. Also, people tend to resist being told how to officially refer to something. So, trying to force this change again might backfire as it did in the past. However, "mormon" might become more popular due to the resistance.

[Calm]

FairMormon was licensed to us from the Church.  I guess it will depend much on how they view it.  Perhaps it qualifies as a proper noun?

Quote

"Mormon" is correctly used in proper names such as the Book of Mormon or when used as an adjective in such historical expressions as "Mormon Trail."

They need to provide many examples, imo.

Edited August 19, 2018 by Calm

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

FairMormon was licensed to us from the Church.  I guess it will depend much on how they view it.  Perhaps it qualifies as a proper noun?

They need to provide many examples, imo.

If the church disallows FairMormon, can you think of an alternative that would be similar enough so the organization doesn’t loose the years of name recognition it has built up?

That seems to be pretty challenging. I haven’t been able to come up with anything unless everyone just s substitutes Mormon with Latter-day Saints. If that happens then I see little point in that kind of change.  It is just swapping one nickname for another, neither one fulfilling the revelation to only use the official name of the church given by God. Neither option includes the name of Christ 

[USU78]

A good reminder.

It'll last about as long as the one just before the Salt Lake Olympics.

[rockpond]

I just happened to re-read the newly published style guide.  I think this bullet is going to be particularly problematic for those outside 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."

It's one thing to ask a journalist to use a certain name for your church.  It's another to ask them to describe you in a way that is more than a name but a validation of your authoritative claim. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if a journalist is going to be required to refer to Mormonism as "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" they'll likely put something like "alleged" or "so-called" in front of it to avoid the appearance of making a factual claim about the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

I think it is pretty ironical when the Deseret News runs an article the same day they report on President Nelson's doubling down speech and refuses to use the proper name of the church even in it's headline.

Name changes already underway at Latter-day Saint websites, Facebook pages and Twitter accounts

Is the church now going to be known as the Latter-Day Saint church?  It appears that is where things are headed.   In fact the Deseret News doesn't use the full name of the church even ONCE in the article.  And they are praising groups that change from Mormon to Latter-day Saints.   I thought the whole point of all of this is to use the full name of the church as God commanded?  Where is the name of Christ in Latter-day Saints?  How is that any different than using the name Mormon?  If the church can not get the Deseret News to comply, just who will?

From President Nelsons address that you linked to

And

Talk about a mixed message.  Continuing to refer to the church and still not mentioning Christ seems pointless.  

Sorry, but this thing has disaster in capital letter written all over it.

 

Your point is not well taken. 

“Latter-day Saint Church” does not appear here. Nothing here is inconsistent with the updated style guide. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

A good reminder.

It'll last about as long as the one just before the Salt Lake Olympics.

That one lasted right up to the moment. It has been part of Book 2 of the Handbook. 

[Rajah Manchou]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I just happened to re-read the newly published style guide.  I think this bullet is going to be particularly problematic for those outside 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."

It's one thing to ask a journalist to use a certain name for your church.  It's another to ask them to describe you in a way that is more than a name but a validation of your authoritative claim. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if a journalist is going to be required to refer to Mormonism as "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" they'll likely put something like "alleged" or "so-called" in front of it to avoid the appearance of making a factual claim about the Church.

I think I'm just going to call it "The Only True and Living Church Upon the Face of the Whole Earth" from now on.
D&C 1:30 

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I just happened to re-read the newly published style guide.  I think this bullet is going to be particularly problematic for those outside 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."

It's one thing to ask a journalist to use a certain name for your church.  It's another to ask them to describe you in a way that is more than a name but a validation of your authoritative claim. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if a journalist is going to be required to refer to Mormonism as "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" they'll likely put something like "alleged" or "so-called" in front of it to avoid the appearance of making a factual claim about the Church.

Your point is well taken. 

But a journalist could simply say “the church” as a shortened form in second and subsequent references. That would be consistent with the updated style guide, and it’s not an unreasonable request. 

Edited August 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your point is not well taken. 

“Latter-day Saint Church” does not appear here. Nothing here is inconsistent with the updated style guide. 

Neither does the name of the church appear even once. And web sites being praised are just substituting Latter-day Saints instead of Mormon. Is this just going to be a nickname switch?  What is the point of that?

[bluebell]

55 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I just happened to re-read the newly published style guide.  I think this bullet is going to be particularly problematic for those outside 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."

It's one thing to ask a journalist to use a certain name for your church.  It's another to ask them to describe you in a way that is more than a name but a validation of your authoritative claim. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if a journalist is going to be required to refer to Mormonism as "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" they'll likely put something like "alleged" or "so-called" in front of it to avoid the appearance of making a factual claim about the Church.

I can imagine most journalists using a “claims to be” qualifier in such instances. 

And I agree with your point completely about asking nonmembers to acknowledge doctrinal claims when referring to the church. However, even if such qualifiers are used by journalists (such as alleged or whatever), it’s kind of a genius request. Every time a journalist writes “restored church of Jesus Christ” it will teach the reader the most important aspect of our doctrine. 

Mormonism is much easier to use and much more sterile and unbiased for journalists, but people can read that word a hundred times and never know that we worship Jesus Christ.  It’s not informational in any significant way.

Pres. Nelson’s request will teach many nonmembers more about our church in one article than they have ever understood in all their years of seeing the word Mormonism in the news. 

Edited August 19, 2018 by bluebell

[MiserereNobis]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I just happened to re-read the newly published style guide.  I think this bullet is going to be particularly problematic for those outside 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."

It's one thing to ask a journalist to use a certain name for your church.  It's another to ask them to describe you in a way that is more than a name but a validation of your authoritative claim. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if a journalist is going to be required to refer to Mormonism as "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" they'll likely put something like "alleged" or "so-called" in front of it to avoid the appearance of making a factual claim about the Church.

I agree, and not just for journalists. I love you guys, you know that, but I'm not going to refer to your church in a way that validates its truth claims. Using the official name of the church is one thing, because it is the official name and using an official name is not an endorsement of the claims of that name. I can say "The Democratic People's Republic of North Korea" and not believe a word of it, but if Kim Jung Un asked us to use "The True Korea" instead of "North Korea" when using a shortened version, I wouldn't do it because that validates his ideas in an unofficial name. 

I hope this makes sense and I hope using North Korea as an example isn't taken negatively, ha. It just came to mind because the official name is long and I can use the official name without believing what it says, just like "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is long and I can also use it without believe what it says. For non-Mormons, and especially non-Mormons who are Christian, "Mormonism" and "restored gospel of Jesus Christ" are not synonyms.

I hope you all will forgive me but I'm going to continue with my current usages. I'm not being disrespectful because I don't believe my current usages are in any way disrespectful.

However, I'll make you a deal. I'll use the long name of your church if you'll use the long name of mine. In the Nicene Creed, it says, "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church." So, instead of Catholic Church, you'll need to say "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"