The Name of the Church

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

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?

You’re wrong. The full and formal name of the Church appears in the lead paragraph. 

And “Latter-day Saints” is part of the formal name of the Church as directed in revelation from Jesus Christ; “Mormon” is not. Use of “Latter-day Saint” as a descriptor for a website is perfectly consistent with the updated style guide. 

[SouthernMo]

10 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:

 

Even this idea of a course correction seems odd. Is President Nelson conceding that President Monson was off-base to approve/launch the I’m a Mormon campaign?  Did President Monson need some course correction?

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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"  

 

Is there an official request from an authoritative source — say, the Pope or one of the cardinals in high authority— that such an elongated name be used? 

I am perfectly willing to comply with a reasonable request, say use of “Roman Catholic” instead of Catholic, if that were desired. 

Edited August 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

1 hour 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.  I think for some of this, we may just need to wait and see what effect this will even have (on the manner the journalists refer to us).  I think most will be respectful and will use the full name of our church (but won't state or add "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ").

I also think we sill still see a great deal of the use of the words "the Mormon Church" and "the LDS Church" or the use of "they are a Mormon" or "they are LDS".  I also feel that members will make an attempt to try to change, but will still most likely continue saying the same things in just general conversations with each other.  I'm sure we will see more usage of the proper name from over the pulpit or in more formal settings.

I do think we will receive more guidelines and more information regarding what is specifically supposed to be changed (ie. FairMormon, The Mormon Tabernacle Choir, and so on...).

Edited August 19, 2018 by ALarson

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is there an official request from an authoritative source — say, the Pope or one of the cardinals in high authority— that such an elongated name be used? 

I am perfectly willing to comply with a reasonable request, say use of “Roman Catholic” instead of Carholic, if that were desired. 

No, of course not. I was just making a joke  

[JulieM]

14 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Even this idea of a course correction seems odd. Is President Nelson conceding that President Monson was off-base to approve/launch the I’m a Mormon campaign?  Did President Monson need some course correction?

Yeah, using that phrase (as if it was a mistake) is odd.  

It’s obvious that this is something that has been bothering Pres. Nelson for years (and he’s spoken about it before too).  I wonder if there was disagreement behind the scenes about this and now he’s in the position to be more foreceful on it?

Well, we do know that Prophets are not infallible, so Pres. Nelson may be telling us this is one instance he believes they were.  I think that’s ok too.

Either way, I know I am going to try to follow the counsel (but I also know I’ll still call people “Mormon” or “LDS” at times).  

Edited August 19, 2018 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Even this idea of a course correction seems odd. Is President Nelson conceding that President Monson was off-base to approve/launch the I’m a Mormon campaign?  Did President Monson need some course correction?

President Nelson said something along the lines of an error having crept in over the ages. And no, I don’t consider it odd to point out such a thing. 

By way of comparison, for many years, the term “free agency” was idiomatic in the Church — until it was pointed out that the term “free agency” is not scriptural (it is “moral agency” or, simply, “agency”). Since that time, the earlier idiom has not been perpetuated in any official way. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

No, of course not. I was just making a joke  

Sorry. Didn’t mean to seem humorless. 

I hope you saw my post wherein I pointed out that a journalist may simply use “the church” on second reference and that would be fine. I agree that expecting them to say “the restored gospel” without quotation marks or attribution is too much to ask. 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Yeah, using that phrase (as if it was a mistake) is odd.  

It’s obvious that this is something that has been bothering Pres. Nelson for years (and he’s spoken about it before too).  I wonder if there was disagreement behind the scenes about this and now he’s in the position to be more foreceful on it?

Well, we do know that Prophets are not infallible, so Pres. Nelson may be telling us this is one instance he believes they were.  I think that’s ok too.

Either way, I know I am going to try to follow the counsel (but I also know I’ll still call people “Mormon” or “LDS” at times).  

In the Deseret News article I linked to, Elder Neal Anderson of the Quorum of the Twelve was quoted as saying the Twelve and the First Presidency are united in this matter. 

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sorry. Didn’t mean to seem humorless. 

I hope you saw my post wherein I pointed out that a journalist may simply use “the church” on second reference and that would be fine. I agree that expecting them to say “the restored gospel” without quotation marks or attribution is too much to ask. 

I had never thought of this angle from you and MiserereNobis. IMO, that is asking too much from the non-LDS to call us the restored gospel or even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I'll venture to add, because it's possible connotation that others aren't the church of Jesus Christ. 

Edited August 19, 2018 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I had never thought of this angle from you and MiserereNobis. That is asking too much from the non-LDS to call us the restored gospel or even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I'll venture to add, because it's possible connotation that others aren't the church of Jesus Christ. 

I earnestly disagree that using the full and formal name of the Church is too much to ask, and I hope you didn’t draw that notion from my comments. 

[Exiled]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Sorry. Didn’t mean to seem humorless. 

I hope you saw my post wherein I pointed out that a journalist may simply use “the church” on second reference and that would be fine. I agree that expecting them to say “the restored gospel” without quotation marks or attribution is too much to ask. 

Now, if only journalists would start calling it the "one true church" ..... we might get somewhere with those sagging convert numbers?

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In the Deseret News article I linked to, Elder Neal Anderson of the Quorum of the Twelve was quoted as saying the Twelve and the First Presidency are united in this matter. 

That doesn't mean that past Prophets felt as strongly about this as Pres. Nelson does (and did for years if we follow the history of him speaking about this) or felt there needed to be a change.  They may have disagreed with pushing for such a change.

There's nothing wrong with this either as if you'll study and read, I know you'll find that disagreements were not rare over the years (among The Prophet and Apostles).  It's naive to believe they always agree on everything.  But I do believe that in the end, they defer at least and support the Prophet even if they personally disagree.

This happens on every level in the church (local levels too within leadership) and it's understandable

Edited August 19, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

That doesn't mean that past Prophets didn't feel as strongly about this as Pres. Nelson does (and did for years if we follow the history of him speaking about this).  They may have disagreed with pushing for such a change.

There's nothing wrong with this either as I think if you study and read, you'll find that disagreement was not rare over the years (The Prophet and Apostles).  It's naive to believe they always agree on everything.  But I do believe that in the end, the defer at least and support the Prophet even if they personally disagree.

As I review the public record — including two very emphatic and fairly recent general conference talks by M. Russell Ballard — I have to think there has been unity of mind among the Brethren over many years on this matter. 

[Gray]

1 hour 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.

Yes, that's basically asking outsiders to affirm the unique truth claims of Mormonism, to the exclusion of other Christian faiths.

Edited August 19, 2018 by Gray

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That doesn't mean that past Prophets felt as strongly about this as Pres. Nelson does (and did for years if we follow the history of him speaking about this) or felt there needed to be a change.  They may have disagreed with pushing for such a change.

There's nothing wrong with this either as if you'll study and read, I know you'll find that disagreements were not rare over the years (among The Prophet and Apostles).  It's naive to believe they always agree on everything.  But I do believe that in the end, they defer at least and support the Prophet even if they personally disagree.

This happens on every level in the church (local levels too within leadership) and it's understandable

Oh, this is so true (speaking as a counselor in the YW presidency).

These leaders are human and are men with strong personalities (some more than others) who have opinions.  It would not be normal if there’s weren’t disagreements. 

But I’m sure they are putting their support behind the living Prophet.

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I review the public record — including two very emphatic and fairly recent general conference talks by M. Russell Ballard — I have to think there has been unity of mind among the Brethren over many years on this matter. 

We can’t know that.  If this was an “error” as stated, then it would have been corrected most likely.  It’s probably just that Pres. Monson or Pres. Hinckley didn’t feel this way about it.

I think it’s been a pet peeve of Pres. Nelson for years.  And now he’s making sure a change is at least going to be attempted.  I will support him too.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

We can’t know that.  If this was an “error” as stated, then it would have been corrected most likely.  It’s probably just that Pres. Monson or Pres. Hinckley didn’t feel this way about it.

I think it’s been a pet peeve of Pres. Nelson for years.  And now he’s making sure a change is at least going to be attempted.  I will support him too.

I think you're right.  This wording:

 "We’re correcting an error that has crept in over the ages", is revealing, IMO.  I do believe that President Nelson has wanted this to happen for years and now he's in the position to correct "an error".  With him stating that, there's not much wiggle room around the impression that he believes past Prophets were using the wrong name in "error".  Prophets are fallible and do make mistakes.  This is most likely an instance where President Nelson believes one was made.  

I'm sure this will be discussed in our Bishopric meeting today and also at church.  I'll be interested to see people's reactions.  I am going to express my full support and that my effort will be to make this change.

(Heading out the door soon....  )

Edited August 19, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

We can’t know that.  If this was an “error” as stated, then it would have been corrected most likely.  It’s probably just that Pres. Monson or Pres. Hinckley didn’t feel this way about it.

I think it’s been a pet peeve of Pres. Nelson for years.  And now he’s making sure a change is at least going to be attempted.  I will support him too.

The evidence is far more compelling that they have been unified over the years than the contrary. Again, the earlier official expression has been part of the Church handbook for years and has been voiced from time to time in general conference. I reject that this is merely a Russell M. Nelson power play devoid of divine inspiration. If I thought that, I could not support it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I think you're right.  This wording:

 "We’re correcting an error that has crept in over the ages", is revealing, IMO.  I do believe that President Nelson has wanted this to happen for years and now he's in the position to correct "an error".  With him stating that, there's not much wiggle room around the impression that he believes past Prophets were using the wrong name in "error".  Prophets are fallible and do make mistakes.  This is most likely an instance where President Nelson believes one was made.  

I'm sure this will be discussed in our Bishopric meeting today and also at church.  I'll be interested to see people's reactions.  I am going to express my full support and that my effort will be to make this change.

(Heading out the door soon....  )

What mistake was made? Church leaders for years have tried to get us to refer to the Church properly. 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The evidence is far more compelling that they have been unified over the years than the contrary. 

Not really.  Or there would have already been a change made, IMO. 

Or do you believe that past Prophets were guided to continually call the church by the name that was an "error"?  

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What mistake was made? Church leaders for years have tried to get us to refer to the Church properly. 

Come on Scott, I don't know how much more clear he could have been. He called it "an error".

Quote

 

er·ror

ˈerər/

noun

a mistake.

 

 

Are you one that claims that past Prophets are incapable of making an error or mistake?

Edited August 19, 2018 by ALarson

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What mistake was made? Church leaders for years have tried to get us to refer to the Church properly. 

Church leaders have officially endorsed:

Mormon Newsroom twitter handle

I'm a Mormon campaign

mormon.org

Meet the Mormons movie

Mormon Tabernacle Choir

It appears that President Nelson views all of these as errors or mistakes.

Edited August 19, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I earnestly disagree that using the full and formal name of the Church is too much to ask, and I hope you didn’t draw that notion from my comments. 

Not at all Scott, that was my opinion. I really appreciate that you believe news outlets or others could put "church of the restored gospel" in quotes as to differientiate that they don't have to believe it is so. Does that make sense? IOW, I like what you had to say. It brought to my mind, how it might be difficult for others to say The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I had never thought of it that way before, how it might be difficult to say that. As if our church is the only church, where they may not believe that, and by saying that, to them, it feels disingenious to say if they aren't latter day saints.

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Come on Scott, I don't know how much more clear he could have been. He called it "an error".

I wonder if he will regret using those exact words.  Maybe it could have just been left with this being an inspired new emphasis or direction for the church that will be reflected in the importance of using the full name (instead of saying it was an error that needed to be corrected?).