The Name of the Church

[Duncan]

There was an interview with Elder LeGrand Richards of the Twelve in the late 1960's in the Improvement Era, "People we'd like to know more about" and he gave a little quotation

"For every problem under the sun there's a remedy or there's none

if there be one then hurry and find it

if there be none then never mind it"

it's the Lord's Church, he'll figure out these problems, IIRC Elder Richards saying

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thank you. 

I would advise you to put as much as you can into a 401K or other good retirement plan. And familiarize yourself with Social Security provisions. If you have access to the services of a good retirement planner (I got that free of charge through my company benefit provider) take advantage of it. It’s never too early. 

LOL!  Thank you for the advice, but I was just making friendly conversation using a little bit of self-deprecating humor.  I am a CPA; finance topics are within my sphere of knowledge.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

LOL!  Thank you for the advice, but I was just making friendly conversation using a little bit of self-deprecating humor.  I am a CPA; finance topics are within my sphere of knowledge.

I remember that. I should have thought before going on like that. If anything, I should probably be getting advice from you!

Edited August 20, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

For most people yes. Your mind just works differently than most - not saying that is a bad thing as my son's mind works differently as well and I believe that is a gift.

Apparently, my mind works like those of the Church leaders, because for so many years, they asked that we use the proper name of the Church, while at the same time they had no objection to its members being called Mormons. It is clear they saw a distinction between the Church itself being called Mormon and the members being called Mormons.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Skylla]

On 8/17/2018 at 2:40 PM, Nemesis said:

@Skylla get em!!!!

I will ban everyone.

[ALarson]

At these links, there is some history given regarding the name that I found interesting to read through:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Christ

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Christ_(Latter_Day_Saints)

Here are a  couple of quotes from this page:

Quote

 

The Church of Christ was the original name of the Latter Day Saint church founded by Joseph Smith. Organized informally in 1829 in New York and then formally on April 6, 1830, it was the first organization to implement the principles found in Smith's newly published Book of Mormon, and thus represents the formal beginning of the Latter Day Saint movement. Later names for this organization included the Church of the Latter Day Saints (by 1834 resolution),[1] the Church of Jesus Christ,[2] the Church of God,[2] the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints,[3][4] and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (by an 1838 revelation).[5][6]

Smith and his associates asserted that the Church of Christ was a restoration of the 1st-century Christian church, which Smith claimed had fallen from God's favor and authority because of what he called a "Great Apostasy". After Smith's death in 1844, there was a crisis of authority, with the majority of the members following Brigham Young to Utah Territory, but with several smaller denominations remaining in Illinois or settling in Missouri and in other states. Each of the churches that resulted from this schism considers itself to be the rightful continuation of Smith's original "Church of Christ", regardless of the name they may currently bear (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), Community of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), Church of Christ (Temple Lot), etc.).

This church is unrelated to other bodies bearing the same name, including the United Church of Christ, a Reformed church body, and the Churches of Christ, an offshoot of the Campbellite movement. Today, there are several Latter Day Saint churches called "Church of Christ", largely within the Hedrickite branch of the movement.

 

 

Quote

 

Up to the time of Smith's death, the church was known alternatively as the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" or the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints", that is, with or without a hyphen. After Smith's death, competing Latter Day Saint denominations organized under the leadership of a number of successors. The largest of these, led by Brigham Young and now based in Salt Lake City, Utah, continued using "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" until incorporating in 1851, when the church standardized the spelling of its name as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (LDS Church).[39] Followers of James J. Stranguse the spelling of the public domain name, "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", as the name of their church.[40]

The name "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" was also used by members who recognized Smith's son, Joseph Smith III, as his father's successor. The younger Smith became prophet-president of this group on April 6, 1860. However, the church incorporated in 1872 as the "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" (RLDS Church),[41] to distinguish it from the larger Utah church, at the time in the midst of federal issues related to polygamy.[42] In 2001, the RLDS Church changed its name again to "Community of Christ"—consciously echoing the original "Church of Christ" name.

 

 

[ALarson]

22 hours ago, JulieM said:

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?).

Yeah, I don't know.  I'm sure it could have been phrased with leaving out the part about it being an error.  But, I think most will just look forward and try from here on out (at least when speaking publicly or in writing) to follow the counsel to use the full, proper name of the church.

We did discuss this in Bishopric meeting yesterday and we all pretty much agreed that members would still use "Mormons" or "Mormon church", etc. in private conversations, but will make an effort to not do this from over the pulpit, etc. 

I saw kind of mixed reactions by the members as I observed some comments and discussions about it.  Some just kind of shrugged it off (like "whatever"...."I'm still going to use the word Mormon", etc.), some feelings are what I wrote above, and others were adamant about not using the word Mormon at all anymore. 

I think most everyone can see why this change would be good for the image of the church and they support that.  I heard a few comment that they feel it's because of the negative stereotypes attached to the word Mormon, such as polygamy and the blacks and the Priesthood, for example.  I do think that's true since almost everyone outside of the church thinks of polygamy when the hear the word Mormon..

Edited August 20, 2018 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yeah, I don't know.  I'm sure it could have been phrased with leaving out the part about it being an error.  But, I think most will just look forward and try from here on out (at least when speaking publicly or in writing) to follow the counsel to use the full, proper name of the church.

We did discuss this in Bishopric meeting yesterday and we all pretty much agreed that members would still use "Mormons" or "Mormon church", etc. in private conversations, but will make an effort to not do this from over the pulpit, etc. 

I saw kind of mixed reactions by the members as I observed some comments and discussions about it.  Some just kind of shrugged it off (like "whatever"...."I'm still going to use the word Mormon", etc.), some feelings are what I wrote above, and others were adamant about not using the word Mormon at all anymore. 

I think most everyone can see why this change would be good for the image of the church and they support that.  I heard a few comment that they feel it's because of the negative stereotypes attached to the word Mormon, such as polygamy and the blacks and the Priesthood, for example.  I do think that's true since almost everyone outside of the church thinks of polygamy when the hear the word Mormon..

I can understand some of their reasons to put forth this change with greater effort.  I understand..but it will be difficult and this means that the church, too, will have to use correct terms for others.  This does not concern me as I am a fomo pomo😋  My biggest concern with this being a revelation that older members will obviously from habit not able to conform.  Surely there is no penalty for this. 

Edited August 20, 2018 by Jeanne

[JAHS]

If Ezra Taft Benson were still here he would have to change his tune. 

 

[Calm]

It, imo, will provide more opportunities to discuss beliefs.

Many people who are familiar with the term "Mormon" probably assume they are also familiar with our beliefs when they may not be.  Not using familiar to them terms may cause them to ask questions about our beliefs where they wouldn't with "Mormon".

For members, making the conscious effort to change the way we speak about ourselves will likely trigger thoughts of why we are making that effort and cause us to think about the significance of our chosen label.

This could be beneficial in the same way that putting on garments reminds us of the covenants we keep, which action can also be a hassle and even burdensome at times (high heat, humidity).

Edited August 20, 2018 by Calm

[theplains]

On 8/17/2018 at 5:37 PM, RevTestament said:

So, then when you say Mormon, do you think "Christian?" You say using Mormon is not demeaning, but I think you use the term to differentiate from Christians. True?

Do you believe Hebrews and Acts that Yeshua was begotten when the Father told Him "this day I have begotten thee"? 

When I say Mormon, I think another 'group' that claims to follow Christ. Same for Jehovah's Witnesses. In this case, 'begotten'
does not mean 'procreated.'

Thanks,
Jim

[Guest]

On August 16, 2018 at 4:37 PM, theplains said:

By the time you say, "We are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" someone may have already
cut you off mid-sentence with "They're Mormons".  Using the shorter term is not demeaning nor does it take away from
your spiritual identity, but its just convenient for some.

Thanks,
Jim

The term "Mormon" has been a term that has led 10's of millions to Jesus Christ for nearly 200 years, now some are suggesting it is not, or is leading members away from Jesus Christ? President Nelson, who in this last General Conference spoke of knowing 10 Presidents of the Church in his lifetime. Each, using and utilizing the term, "Mormon". Using books and films about, well named "Meet the Mormons", Mormon.org, and so on. Now suddenly a number of websites and Facebook sites have changed their names, just since Aug 18, when this was announced. Now, we will have a letter read very soon, when our Bishop's will chide us for using the name. Priesthood lessons will be given where the same will happen, as we discuss the topic to death. Then the many who will talk about how inspired this is, saying things like, "it is about time", so they can claim it as their own, even though other Church Presidents have made mention of the same. But they have effectively used the name "Mormon" since this is how the world knows us. Or even worse, some of our friends will no doubt correct us if we slip up and use this "beloved term".    

I have been a proud "Mormon" for 39+ years, happy to use the term, and now I must cast it aside. Having said all of this, I have never heard anyone in a Church meeting call our Church, "The Mormon Church", our primary children even sing the song about being the member of, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", not the "Mormon Church". I have never heard a Gospel Doctrine teacher refer to our Church as the Mormon Church, no Gospel Essential lessons ever do so, no missionary teaches people or invites them to join the, "Mormon Church". I guess I am just too old, and have lost any usefulness to the Church and Gospel. I just don't get the rush, and the idea that calling the Church by it entire name, as anything new, because it is not new. Other Prophets have counseled us to do the same in the past. All that is new now, is the desire to erase it from our rich history. But, I ramble to much.  

[RevTestament]

15 hours ago, theplains said:

When I say Mormon, I think another 'group' that claims to follow Christ. Same for Jehovah's Witnesses.

Which is a kind way of saying you do not think of LDS Christians as Christian - am I correct? So, my guess is you would rather not call me LDS Christian, but prefer the term Mormon, because in your mind I am outside your Christian box.

Quote

In this case, 'begotten' does not mean 'procreated.'

Thanks,
Jim

I agree. What do those scriptures mean to you? What does it mean when the Father says "thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee"? Does that mean He was begotten before the existence of days "before all aeon/ages/worlds?" If so, what does it mean to be begotten? Do you eliminate the meaning that this was the beginning of a Father-Son relationship? Or that it is referring to a covenantal relationship which did not exist before?

Edited August 21, 2018 by RevTestament

[He is life]

Mormon was a prophet as was Alma, Isaiah, Abraham, Ezekiel, etc. Just as we are not Abrahams, or Almas we are not Mormons per se. Mormons was a nickname given to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as a result of the Book of Mormon. The nickname stuck and that is what members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have been called for many years. Having been called Mormons for so long it is hard to change back to the original members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as the correct nomenclature. It is also long ans somewhat cumbersome. I like members of Christ's church better myself.

[jkwilliams]

Interesting study of the historical usage of Mormon/LDS vs. the full name of the church:

http://mormonscholar.org/history-of-the-church-name-and-emphasis-on-official-names-within-the-lds-movement/

Quote

The usage of the full name of the church by the early leaders was the exception and not the rule. However, by the 1870s it had reached a plurality and currently over 95% of the leadership references in General Conference use the preferred full name. ...

Terms such as “the Church” and “the Church of Jesus Christ” are used within the movement and this recommendation is not surprising. However, the “restored Church of Jesus Christ” was first used in General Conference in 1924 and remains obscure, even within the movement.  Given the inherent ambiguity of the terms, it is hard to imagine how using this title would cause anything but confusion. ...

The term Mormonism was commonly used early in the movement’s history, but its use has been dropping significantly and more than 90% of similar references use the church’s official title after 1970. ...

When looking for a short term, most General Conference speakers use the term “Latter-Day-Saints” rather than “Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” or “Mormons”. ...

When looking for an abbreviated term, speaker in conference use the phrase “the Church” about 99% of the time. ...

Terms such as the “restored church” and the “restored gospel” are fairly rare and recent in the mormon vernacular.

 

[USU78]

When I say I'm a Mormon, I'm doing it as a pugnacious declaration:  "I accept your denigracious appellation and make it my own, because despite your taking your best shot, I and mine are still standing and prospering."

[MiserereNobis]

14 hours ago, He is life said:

I like members of Christ's church better myself.

But then everyone will think you are Catholic...

 

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

But then everyone will think you are Catholic...

 

Touché

[theplains]

On 8/21/2018 at 10:36 AM, RevTestament said:

I agree. What do those scriptures mean to you? What does it mean when the Father says "thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee"? Does that mean He was begotten before the existence of days "before all aeon/ages/worlds?" If so, what does it mean to be begotten? Do you eliminate the meaning that this was the beginning of a Father-Son relationship? Or that it is referring to a covenantal relationship which did not exist before?

I usually refer to this site for questions and answers.  What it says makes sense to me. Let me know :

https://www.gotquestions.org/only-begotten-son.html

Thanks,
Jim

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

I usually refer to this site for questions and answers.  What it says makes sense to me. Let me know :

https://www.gotquestions.org/only-begotten-son.html

Thanks,
Jim

Quote

The first definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship." This is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son" (KJV)

I can agree to that, but that article also seeks to separate the rest of God's sons as adopted, as if Yeshua is not. That is not what scripture says. 

Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Sounds like adoption to me. So do you believe the Father actually told the Son that? If so what was Yeshua before that?

[canard78]

On 8/20/2018 at 1:00 AM, Calm said:

I would appreciate learning what his solution ends up being.  I am rather at a loss myself for a practical solution that doesn't require a considerable explanation when used.

He said he's considering a few phrases. He wants to use it as a chance to move on from seeing the church as an "-ism" at all and instead be an "-ity"... he's considering "Restoration Christianity" or "Restored Christianity"... similar to Calvinism also being called "Reformed Christianity." 

I can't imagine it will stick but could it's quite a nice idea. I'm not sure whether a non-member academic will be comfortable making the shift from "Mormonism" to "Reformed Christianity."

With my background in marketing research, I've seen a lot of re-brands. Snickers in UK used to be called Marathon. It took a lot of time, consistency, focus and money to make it stick. People insisted, locally, on calling it a Marathon for at least 5 years after the change. Nowadays no-one calls it a Marathon... it's a Snickers.

To make this work, the church would need to remove pretty much all references to Mormon/Mormonism (and LDS) from any "live" or new publications. If I were offering them advice, I'd suggest removing it from everything other than the Book of Mormon. It should go from the Tabernacle Choir (just call them the Tabernacle Choir), from the Mormon Trail name (unless they don't own that name).

They need to pick, at most, 2 ways of referencing the church and its members. The current style guide is flawed, based on the lack of clarity it offers. They've offered 5 or 6 ways of describing the church and its members. We live in a short-hand world. If they want people to move on from Mormon/Mormonism as a name, a short alternative needs to be made consistently available.

You could go with (for example):

• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• "Restored Christians" (or -ity) OR "Latter-day Saints" 

Having all these isn't going to stick:

• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• "the Church"
• "Church of Jesus Christ"
• "restored Church of Jesus Christ"
• "Latter-day Saints"
• "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ"

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

He said he's considering a few phrases. He wants to use it as a chance to move on from seeing the church as an "-ism" at all and instead be an "-ity"... he's considering "Restoration Christianity" or "Restored Christianity"... similar to Calvinism also being called "Reformed Christianity." 

I can't imagine it will stick but could it's quite a nice idea. I'm not sure whether a non-member academic will be comfortable making the shift from "Mormonism" to "Reformed Christianity."

With my background in marketing research, I've seen a lot of re-brands. Snickers in UK used to be called Marathon. It took a lot of time, consistency, focus and money to make it stick. People insisted, locally, on calling it a Marathon for at least 5 years after the change. Nowadays no-one calls it a Marathon... it's a Snickers.

To make this work, the church would need to remove pretty much all references to Mormon/Mormonism (and LDS) from any "live" or new publications. If I were offering them advice, I'd suggest removing it from everything other than the Book of Mormon. It should go from the Tabernacle Choir (just call them the Tabernacle Choir), from the Mormon Trail name (unless they don't own that name).

They need to pick, at most, 2 ways of referencing the church and its members. The current style guide is flawed, based on the lack of clarity it offers. They've offered 5 or 6 ways of describing the church and its members. We live in a short-hand world. If they want people to move on from Mormon/Mormonism as a name, a short alternative needs to be made consistently available.

You could go with (for example):

• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• "Restored Christians" (or -ity) OR "Latter-day Saints" 

Having all these isn't going to stick:

• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• "the Church"
• "Church of Jesus Christ"
• "restored Church of Jesus Christ"
• "Latter-day Saints"
• "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ"

 

I like Restored Christianity. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

He said he's considering a few phrases. He wants to use it as a chance to move on from seeing the church as an "-ism" at all and instead be an "-ity"... he's considering "Restoration Christianity" or "Restored Christianity"... similar to Calvinism also being called "Reformed Christianity." 

I can't imagine it will stick but could it's quite a nice idea. I'm not sure whether a non-member academic will be comfortable making the shift from "Mormonism" to "Reformed Christianity."

With my background in marketing research, I've seen a lot of re-brands. Snickers in UK used to be called Marathon. It took a lot of time, consistency, focus and money to make it stick. People insisted, locally, on calling it a Marathon for at least 5 years after the change. Nowadays no-one calls it a Marathon... it's a Snickers.

To make this work, the church would need to remove pretty much all references to Mormon/Mormonism (and LDS) from any "live" or new publications. If I were offering them advice, I'd suggest removing it from everything other than the Book of Mormon. It should go from the Tabernacle Choir (just call them the Tabernacle Choir), from the Mormon Trail name (unless they don't own that name).

They need to pick, at most, 2 ways of referencing the church and its members. The current style guide is flawed, based on the lack of clarity it offers. They've offered 5 or 6 ways of describing the church and its members. We live in a short-hand world. If they want people to move on from Mormon/Mormonism as a name, a short alternative needs to be made consistently available.

You could go with (for example):

• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• "Restored Christians" (or -ity) OR "Latter-day Saints" 

Having all these isn't going to stick:

• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• "the Church"
• "Church of Jesus Christ"
• "restored Church of Jesus Christ"
• "Latter-day Saints"
• "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ"

 

My background is in marketing as well.  I have helped a couple of companies rebrand themselves.  Small companies that had not yet spent a lot of money on marketing.  Other companies that I admit had horrible names, but brand recognition in the marketplace, I talked them out of it.  The cost is huge.  And the commitment has to be total.  

I agree that if the church is serious about purging the use of the name Mormon from everything except in reference to Mormon the prophet and the Book of Mormon, everything else in its control has to go.  There. is no middle ground on these kinds of things.  If the church creates a middle ground such as keeping The Mormon Tabernacle Choir, then the name won't go away.  People have to get to the point where they forget the name even existed such as your example with marathon bars or another example would be Datsun becoming Nissan.  If you say the name Datsun, then it is more a vague memory and perhaps most people have even forgot that Nissan used to be Datsun.  It is very much like an entirely new company/organization.  You have to be willing to pretty much trash all of the current name recognition Mormon has.  This is why The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints just completely wiped out that name and went with The Community of Christ.  In 10 years it will be like the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints never existed.  

And then there is the added problem with those that have an ax to grind with the Mormon Church.  They may never let go of that name.  And there is nothing the church can do about that.  

The church also has this added problem.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is way too long.  Can anyone think of a major brand/organization that has this many words in its name?  There is a reason for that.  They don't generally work.  I am not saying it can't work.  I am saying it is extremely difficult.

These comments are ALL just comments reflecting my professional background and what I would bring up in a meeting.  That said, none of this might matter if President Nelson thinks it is God's will.  And in that case I wish the church all the luck in this endeavor.  

I personally have not called the church except by its official name since the announcement.  I can easily respect this request from the church.  It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 5 years.

[Gray]

20 hours ago, USU78 said:

When I say I'm a Mormon, I'm doing it as a pugnacious declaration:  "I accept your denigracious appellation and make it my own, because despite your taking your best shot, I and mine are still standing and prospering."

https://media.giphy.com/media/8dBraiz0P0aJ2/giphy.gif

[canard78]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

My background is in marketing as well.  I have helped a couple of companies rebrand themselves.  Small companies that had not yet spent a lot of money on marketing.  Other companies that I admit had horrible names, but brand recognition in the marketplace, I talked them out of it.  The cost is huge.  And the commitment has to be total.  

I agree that if the church is serious about purging the use of the name Mormon from everything except in reference to Mormon the prophet and the Book of Mormon, everything else in its control has to go.  There. is no middle ground on these kinds of things.  If the church creates a middle ground such as keeping The Mormon Tabernacle Choir, then the name won't go away.  People have to get to the point where they forget the name even existed such as your example with marathon bars or another example would be Datsun becoming Nissan.  If you say the name Datsun, then it is more a vague memory and perhaps most people have even forgot that Nissan used to be Datsun.  It is very much like an entirely new company/organization.  You have to be willing to pretty much trash all of the current name recognition Mormon has.  This is why The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints just completely wiped out that name and went with The Community of Christ.  In 10 years it will be like the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints never existed.  

And then there is the added problem with those that have an ax to grind with the Mormon Church.  They may never let go of that name.  And there is nothing the church can do about that.  

The church also has this added problem.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is way too long.  Can anyone think of a major brand/organization that has this many words in its name?  There is a reason for that.  They don't generally work.  I am not saying it can't work.  I am saying it is extremely difficult.

These comments are ALL just comments reflecting my professional background and what I would bring up in a meeting.  That said, none of this might matter if President Nelson thinks it is God's will.  And in that case I wish the church all the luck in this endeavor.  

I personally have not called the church except by its official name since the announcement.  I can easily respect this request from the church.  It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 5 years.

I agree with everything you’re saying here. 

The point about the name length being a challenge is a massive issue that I don’t think the leaders and some members have come to terms with. It simply won’t stick at that length. Unless they put a lot of money behind a single short alternative name then people will simply come up with a short option of their own. The LDS acronym is the most likely outcome.

The marketing strategy agency I work for recently added the parent company to its name. It’s now 5 syllables instead of 3. It’s fast become a 3 letter acronym instead. If you look at a big ad-agency like J Walter Thompson it is almost always called JWT. Then there’s companies like: EDS, KPMG, DDB, BBH, IBM... I could go on. 

Imagine if the Catholics decided and insisted on being called The Holy Roman Catholic Church (9 syllables). The idea of all 11 syllables of the full church name being consistently used is unrealistic and a clear and single alternative is needed. 

Like you, I’ve also tried to use the requested names in conversation. There’s been a long thread on the topic with my church-member family in the last few days. Saying “the church” with them works. But that’s not an ownable phrase either and carries no equity or awareness in wider circles.