The Name of the Church

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are quite right on all points.

Here's a bit of speculation as to perhaps why the Church is moving away from "Mormon" (or, more specifically, why the Lord is prompting Pres. Nelson to move away from it).  It's a little complex, so bear with me.

Here goes...

1. The Church has a presence in Chinese-speaking countries and communities.  Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and throughout the West (U.S., Canada, Australia, etc.).  The Church has a few congregations in China, but they are mostly (exclusively?) for expatriates.  

2. The LDS Church does not have an appreciable presence in Mainland China (population: 1.37 billion).

3. People in the highly-westernized nation of Taiwan (where I served as a missionary years ago) had virtually no frame of reference for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Most folks just generically added us into 基督教 ("Jīdū jiào" - "Christ[ian] Church"), along with Catholics, Protestants, etc.

4. The Church has studiously sought to avoid its nickname in Chinese.  "Mormon" is translated phonetically into 摩門教("Mó mén jiào" - "Mormon Church").  The characters used here, 摩門 ("Mó mén"), literally mean "rub" (摩) and "door" or "gate" ("門").  The pronunciation of these characters, "Mó mén" leaves some real room for confusion for a Chinese speaking person who is only hearing the words as they are verbalized, and not seeing the characters ("摩門"), and who has no inkling that there is an American-based religious group with a nickname of 摩門教("Mó mén jiào" - "Mormon Church").  A Chinese-speaking person in such circumstances, upon hearing "Mó mén jiào," might be inclined to think that some other character than "摩" is being referenced.  Such a person might, in fact, think of the character "魔" ("Mó" - "Devil").  If you compare the two "Mó" characters side by side, they are pretty similar (they have several components in common): "摩" and "魔."  And when spoken, they have the exact same pronunciation ("Mó").  But their meanings are very different.  Here's how it plays out:

• 摩門教 = "Mó mén jiào" = "Mormon (a word transliterated from English) Church."  Chinese people are accustomed to not interpreting phonetically translated words and phrases literally.  "麦当劳" ("Màidāngláo") literally means "wheat ('麦') when/be/equal/work as ('当') labor/work ('劳'), but everyone in Taiwan knows that  "麦当劳" ("Màidāngláo") is the translated name of a restaurant: McDonald's.  So as regarding the translation into Chinese of the word "Mormon," 摩門教("Mó mén jiào") would literally mean "Rub[bed] door church" or some such.  Kinda weird, but innocuous.  And once it's understood to be a reference to a word translated from English, everything starts to make sense.
• 魔門教 = "Mó mén jiào" = Well, this is where things get dicey.  Again, when "Mó mén jiào" is spoken, and when the person listening is from Mainland China and is not aware of the American church having a nickname of "Mormon" which has been translated into Chinese, may jump to the conclusion that "Mó mén jiào" includes the character "魔" ("Mó" - "Devil").  So when spoken in Mandarin, the Church's nickname of "Mormon Church" ("Mó mén jiào") may come across as sounding something like "Devil's Door Church" (or "Church of the Devil's Gate," whatever).  

5. Pres. Nelson speaks Mandarin Chinese.  He is also well-regarded by some in the governmental and medical communities of China (see, e.g., here).  I think it may be reasonable to suspect that Pres. Nelson is aware that "Mormon" may represents a fairly significant "branding" problem if and when the Church is authorized to send missionaries into China, establish branches/wards, etc.  Imagine what the average Chinese person would say if they heard a knock on their door, and opened it to see two gangly Westerners speaking in mediocre Mandarin and saying something that sounds like "Hello, we are missionaries from the Church of the Devil's Gate, and we would like to share a message with you.  May we come in?"

6. Resolving the Church's prospective "branding" problem in Mandarin would, I think, entail moving away from using "Mormon" ("摩門" - "Mó mén") as the name of the Church.

7. Resolving this problem would probably need to start with changing (or attempting to change) the way the Church is identified in Western media outlets.  Hence the need to ditch the familiar "Mormon" brand.

So is it possible that today's change in "branding" is part of the Church is setting things in order so as to prepare for the Church's introduction into Mainland China?

Who knows?

-Smac

P.S. I have no idea what to do with "The Book of Mormon," which has the same sort of translation difficulties as described above.  Perhaps the Church will try to get away from characters pronounced "Mó" in favor of something that doesn't sound like "Devil."

Interesting theory.

The devil gate or devil's gate church.  Ya, I could see that being a problem. That is pretty funny actually. 

[bluebell]

From my perspective, if God is behind this direction coming from Pres. Nelson, then all the issues about 'no one will do it' and 'what about branding' etc. are really irrelevant.  We can never forget that we see through a glass darkly and that His ways are not our ways.

Having said that, I agree that it's going to be rough going getting most people to follow these directives, and for some of it (like not using the word mormonism to refer to our belief system) it's not very workable in real life discussions.

But, whatever.  I'll do my best to follow Pres. Nelson's counsel.

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are quite right on all points.

Here's a bit of speculation as to perhaps why the Church is moving away from "Mormon" (or, more specifically, why the Lord is prompting Pres. Nelson to move away from it).  It's a little complex, so bear with me.

Here goes...

1. The Church has a presence in Chinese-speaking countries and communities.  Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and throughout the West (U.S., Canada, Australia, etc.).  The Church has a few congregations in China, but they are mostly (exclusively?) for expatriates.  

2. The LDS Church does not have an appreciable presence in Mainland China (population: 1.37 billion).

3. People in the highly-westernized nation of Taiwan (where I served as a missionary years ago) had virtually no frame of reference for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Most folks just generically added us into 基督教 ("Jīdū jiào" - "Christ[ian] Church"), along with Catholics, Protestants, etc.

4. The Church has studiously sought to avoid its nickname in Chinese.  "Mormon" is translated phonetically into 摩門教("Mó mén jiào" - "Mormon Church").  The characters used here, 摩門 ("Mó mén"), literally mean "rub" (摩) and "door" or "gate" ("門").  The pronunciation of these characters, "Mó mén" leaves some real room for confusion for a Chinese speaking person who is only hearing the words as they are verbalized, and not seeing the characters ("摩門"), and who has no inkling that there is an American-based religious group with a nickname of 摩門教("Mó mén jiào" - "Mormon Church").  A Chinese-speaking person in such circumstances, upon hearing "Mó mén jiào," might be inclined to think that some other character than "摩" is being referenced.  Such a person might, in fact, think of the character "魔" ("Mó" - "Devil").  If you compare the two "Mó" characters side by side, they are pretty similar (they have several components in common): "摩" and "魔."  And when spoken, they have the exact same pronunciation ("Mó").  But their meanings are very different.  Here's how it plays out:

• 摩門教 = "Mó mén jiào" = "Mormon (a word transliterated from English) Church."  Chinese people are accustomed to not interpreting phonetically translated words and phrases literally.  "麦当劳" ("Màidāngláo") literally means "wheat ('麦') when/be/equal/work as ('当') labor/work ('劳'), but everyone in Taiwan knows that  "麦当劳" ("Màidāngláo") is the translated name of a restaurant: McDonald's.  So as regarding the translation into Chinese of the word "Mormon," 摩門教("Mó mén jiào") would literally mean "Rub[bed] door church" or some such.  Kinda weird, but innocuous.  And once it's understood to be a reference to a word translated from English, everything starts to make sense.
• 魔門教 = "Mó mén jiào" = Well, this is where things get dicey.  Again, when "Mó mén jiào" is spoken, and when the person listening is from Mainland China and is not aware of the American church having a nickname of "Mormon" which has been translated into Chinese, may jump to the conclusion that "Mó mén jiào" includes the character "魔" ("Mó" - "Devil").  So when spoken in Mandarin, the Church's nickname of "Mormon Church" ("Mó mén jiào") may come across as sounding something like "Devil's Door Church" (or "Church of the Devil's Gate," whatever).  

5. Pres. Nelson speaks Mandarin Chinese.  He is also well-regarded by some in the governmental and medical communities of China (see, e.g., here).  I think it may be reasonable to suspect that Pres. Nelson is aware that "Mormon" may represents a fairly significant "branding" problem if and when the Church is authorized to send missionaries into China, establish branches/wards, etc.  Imagine what the average Chinese person would say if they heard a knock on their door, and opened it to see two gangly Westerners speaking in mediocre Mandarin and saying something that sounds like "Hello, we are missionaries from the Church of the Devil's Gate, and we would like to share a message with you.  May we come in?"

6. Resolving the Church's prospective "branding" problem in Mandarin would, I think, entail moving away from using "Mormon" ("摩門" - "Mó mén") as the name of the Church.

7. Resolving this problem would probably need to start with changing (or attempting to change) the way the Church is identified in Western media outlets.  Hence the need to ditch the familiar "Mormon" brand.

So is it possible that today's change in "branding" is part of the Church is setting things in order so as to prepare for the Church's introduction into Mainland China?

Who knows?

-Smac

P.S. I have no idea what to do with "The Book of Mormon," which has the same sort of translation difficulties as described above.  Perhaps the Church will try to get away from characters pronounced "Mó" in favor of something that doesn't sound like "Devil."

There may be merit to your speculation here, but bear in mind most of these guidelines have been in place for years, and the Brethren have made no secret of the fundamental reasoning behind the guidelines, that being the instruction given by the Lord Himself to the Nephites as recorded in 3 Nephi, that if it is His church it should be called by His name, not some other name. 

Furthermore, having had some limited personal interaction with President Nelson, I know him to be a very intelligent and astute man. I’m confident he understands the issues relating to “branding” that have been brought up here and doesn’t need to be brought up to speed on them. Thus, the fact he nevertheless is acting on what he says  the Lord has impressed upon his mind is all the more impressive to me. 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[strappinglad]

"P.S. I have no idea what to do with "The Book of Mormon," which has the same sort of translation difficulties as described above.  Perhaps the Church will try to get away from characters pronounced "Mó" in favor of something that doesn't sound like "Devil." " ( quote function glitch  )

Maybe it could be given the " Utah twang " aka Marmun. Would that help?

Back in the ecumenical days , the RCC would refer to us as " The Church of Revelation" based on our significant central doctrine. ( no CFR...private conversation)

 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Interesting theory.

The devil gate or devil's gate church.  Ya, I could see that being a problem. That is pretty funny actually. 

This pales in comparison to "Devil's Gate," but we baptized a family of four (parents and two sons) from Kazakhstan in Germany in my first area. They had a German surname, and were descended from people Catherine the Great had transplanted. So, of German ancestry, but for all intents and purposes, Russian. He was a dentist who took German classes offered by the government for immigrants. His sons spoke "okay" German, and the wife spoke none. They were really spiritual converts, and the wife's main consideration was that she loved us and wanted her sons to grow up to be like us. She died of brain cancer before the end of our mission. The dad agreed to be baptized after having a prophetic dream.

When we taught the 3rd discussion, it was my turn to teach the principle on restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood. Although his German was pretty good and getting better all the time, the thought crossed my mind that I should purposely mispronounce Johannes der Täufer (John the Baptist, pronounced roughly "toy-fer") as Johannes der Taufer (tau-fer) and follow it with pantomime and explanation ("der Mann, der Jesus getauft hat" as I mimed baptism). I thought that Täufer would be too close to Teufel (devil) for him. I taught it as is, and I was right --- he recoiled in shock as I told him (to him) that "Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the Aaronic Priesthood from John the Devil."    It was easily cleared up by explaining and miming. 

I know the Church isn't huge in China or Taiwan, but don't you think that a sizable number of people have heard of it and have already thought about the funny mispronunciation/phrasing of "Devil's Gate?" 

smac's theory is very interesting and plausible, but I really don't think that this is actually what is driving it. I think that the aborted emphasis from years ago (President Packer was a big proponent) saddens President Nelson, and I think he's using his bully pulpit to try and address this again. I don't think it will gain any real traction inside the Church, either. Like you, pogi, I embrace the terms "Mormon" and "Mormonism," and think that acting weird about them is itself weird and amplifies perceived weirdness. Just yesterday, a girl asked me in homeroom if I was religious, and what church I belonged to. I told her I was a Mormon, and she immediately said, "Oh, like so and so." It's natural, accurate, and ideal in conversation. Not taking the time then and there to emphasize Christ is neither confusing nor cowardly nor missing an opportunity. We testify in all that we do in our walk and conversation without woodenly inserting, as President Packer insisted on, "Another Testament of Jesus Christ." 

I'm with you, pogi. Our beliefs are most accurately encapsuled by "Mormonism." And we're not confusing anyone about our belief in Christ in saying that. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

This pales in comparison to "Devil's Gate," but we baptized a family of four (parents and two sons) from Kazakhstan in Germany in my first area. They had a German surname, and were descended from people Catherine the Great had transplanted. So, of German ancestry, but for all intents and purposes, Russian. He was a dentist who took German classes offered by the government for immigrants. His sons spoke "okay" German, and the wife spoke none. They were really spiritual converts, and the wife's main consideration was that she loved us and wanted her sons to grow up to be like us. She died of brain cancer before the end of our mission. The dad agreed to be baptized after having a prophetic dream.

When we taught the 3rd discussion, it was my turn to teach the principle on restoration of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood. Although his German was pretty good and getting better all the time, the thought crossed my mind that I should purposely mispronounce Johannes der Täufer (John the Baptist, pronounced roughly "toy-fer") as Johannes der Taufer (tau-fer) and follow it with pantomime and explanation ("der Mann, der Jesus getauft hat" as I mimed baptism). I thought that Täufer would be too close to Teufel (devil) for him. I taught it as is, and I was right --- he recoiled in shock as I told him (to him) that "Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery received the Aaronic Priesthood from John the Devil."    It was easily cleared up by explaining and miming. 

I know the Church isn't huge in China or Taiwan, but don't you think that a sizable number of people have heard of it and have already thought about the funny mispronunciation/phrasing of "Devil's Gate?" 

smac's theory is very interesting and plausible, but I really don't think that this is actually what is driving it. I think that the aborted emphasis from years ago (President Packer was a big proponent) saddens President Nelson, and I think he's using his bully pulpit to try and address this again. I don't think it will gain any real traction inside the Church, either. Like you, pogi, I embrace the terms "Mormon" and "Mormonism," and think that acting weird about them is itself weird and amplifies perceived weirdness. Just yesterday, a girl asked me in homeroom if I was religious, and what church I belonged to. I told her I was a Mormon, and she immediately said, "Oh, like so and so." It's natural, accurate, and ideal in conversation. Not taking the time then and there to emphasize Christ is neither confusing nor cowardly nor missing an opportunity. We testify in all that we do in our walk and conversation without woodenly inserting, as President Packer insisted on, "Another Testament of Jesus Christ." 

I'm with you, pogi. Our beliefs are most accurately encapsuled by "Mormonism." And we're not confusing anyone about our belief in Christ in saying that. 

So you intend to disregard President Nelson’s prophetic direction then?

[rongo]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

So you intend to disregard President Nelson’s prophetic direction then?

With regard to referring to us as Mormons, the Church, the LDS Church, etc., or my beliefs as Mormonism? 

Yes. As things stand right now (more details are forthcoming, per Newsroom). 

I will try to use the official name of the Church where practical and when able, but when it is more natural and non-wooden and contrived to refer to Mormons or Mormonism, I will have no qualms about continuing to do that. 

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

smac's theory is very interesting and plausible, but I really don't think that this is actually what is driving it. I think that the aborted emphasis from years ago (President Packer was a big proponent) saddens President Nelson, and I think he's using his bully pulpit to try and address this again. I don't think it will gain any real traction inside the Church, either. Like you, pogi, I embrace the terms "Mormon" and "Mormonism," and think that acting weird about them is itself weird and amplifies perceived weirdness. Just yesterday, a girl asked me in homeroom if I was religious, and what church I belonged to. I told her I was a Mormon, and she immediately said, "Oh, like so and so." It's natural, accurate, and ideal in conversation. Not taking the time then and there to emphasize Christ is neither confusing nor cowardly nor missing an opportunity. We testify in all that we do in our walk and conversation without woodenly inserting, as President Packer insisted on, "Another Testament of Jesus Christ." 

 

So you don't believe that God really inspired Pres. Nelson to make this announcement?  (not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to make sure I understand what you are saying correctly and that's what it sounds like you are saying.)

[rongo]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

(not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to make sure I understand what you are saying correctly and that's what it sounds like you are saying.)

I understand, and no offense taken.  

So you don't believe that God really inspired Pres. Nelson to make this announcement?

I don't with this. I think it's a policy and preference. 

You know, it is often pointed out that we pay lip service to fallible prophets, but when pressed, can't or won't name any examples. After the fact, we often are careful to distinguish between doctrines and policies, and then sometimes say "he was just acting as a man in this case." 

That's what this feels like to me. President Nelson has also widened the definition of revelation to be anything he feels inspired to do, and I don't believe prophets and seers are human fax machines whose every thought and statement is de facto the will of God because he says it is. I think those that are the will of God actually are. 

As I search my feelings on this, I don't feel at all that I would be being rebellious or unheeding if I continue to refer to us and our beliefs as "Mormons" and "Mormonism." And, I can't see this becoming an added TR question ("Do you only ever use the full name of the Church [of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints], or Church of Jesus Christ in references following an initial use of the full name of the Church [of Jesus Christ]?")  

I also await the further instructions and explanations that Newsroom alluded to. If there is more to this, and explanation is given, I will need to prayerfully reconsider. Maybe I am a big part of the "work before us to bring ourselves in harmony with his will." It sounds like I still have several months, though.

As I'm typing this, I feel like I need to pray specifically about this. So, I refuse to be bound by anything I have mused on here. I reserve the right to change my mind.  

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

I understand, and no offense taken.  

 

I don't with this. I think it's a policy and preference. 

You know, it is often pointed out that we pay lip service to fallible prophets, but when pressed, can't or won't name any examples. After the fact, we often are careful to distinguish between doctrines and policies, and then sometimes say "he was just acting as a man in this case." 

That's what this feels like to me. President Nelson has also widened the definition of revelation to be anything he feels inspired to do, and I don't believe prophets and seers are human fax machines whose every thought and statement is de facto the will of God because he says it is. I think those that are the will of God actually are. 

As I search my feelings on this, I don't feel at all that I would be being rebellious or unheeding if I continue to refer to us and our beliefs as "Mormons" and "Mormonism." And, I can't see this becoming an added TR question ("Do you only ever use the full name of the Church [of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints], or Church of Jesus Christ in references following an initial use of the full name of the Church [of Jesus Christ]?")  

I also await the further instructions and explanations that Newsroom alluded to. If there is more to this, and explanation is given, I will need to prayerfully reconsider. Maybe I am a big part of the "work before us to bring ourselves in harmony with his will." It sounds like I still have several months, though.

As I'm typing this, I feel like I need to pray specifically about this. So, I refuse to be bound by anything I have mused on here. I reserve the right to change my mind.  

As you pray, bear in mind President Nelson’s phrasing “the Lord has impressed upon my mind.”

[Rich Hansen]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you intend to disregard President Nelson’s prophetic direction then?

Oh- oh, now Scott is going to zealously correct those using the famous and often used moniker, "TBM" (True Believing Mormon), with "TBMOTCOJCOLDS" (True Believing Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints).

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As you pray, bear in mind President Nelson’s phrasing “the Lord has impressed upon my mind.”

Oh, they're in mind already! As are "bring[ing] ourselves in harmony with his will." 

I have a testimony of prayer, personal revelation, confirmation, and also that not every declaration by prophets (even ones designated as revelation) are revelation. I'll be all right, and so will the Church [of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints].  

[strappinglad]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

As I'm typing this, I feel like I need to pray specifically about this. So, I refuse to be bound by anything I have mused on here. I reserve the right to change my mind.  

As JK Galbraith , economist , has said, " I'd rather be right than consistent " .

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, rongo said:

I understand, and no offense taken.  

 

I don't with this. I think it's a policy and preference. 

You know, it is often pointed out that we pay lip service to fallible prophets, but when pressed, can't or won't name any examples. After the fact, we often are careful to distinguish between doctrines and policies, and then sometimes say "he was just acting as a man in this case." 

That's what this feels like to me. President Nelson has also widened the definition of revelation to be anything he feels inspired to do, and I don't believe prophets and seers are human fax machines whose every thought and statement is de facto the will of God because he says it is. I think those that are the will of God actually are. 

As I search my feelings on this, I don't feel at all that I would be being rebellious or unheeding if I continue to refer to us and our beliefs as "Mormons" and "Mormonism." And, I can't see this becoming an added TR question ("Do you only ever use the full name of the Church [of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints], or Church of Jesus Christ in references following an initial use of the full name of the Church [of Jesus Christ]?")  

I also await the further instructions and explanations that Newsroom alluded to. If there is more to this, and explanation is given, I will need to prayerfully reconsider. Maybe I am a big part of the "work before us to bring ourselves in harmony with his will." It sounds like I still have several months, though.

As I'm typing this, I feel like I need to pray specifically about this. So, I refuse to be bound by anything I have mused on here. I reserve the right to change my mind.  

Ok, thanks for clarifying.

[california boy]

So when is this web site going to get a new name?  

Is FairMormon now going to be called FairTheChurchofJesusChristofLatter-daySaints?

Should we change thread titles The State of Mormon Apologetics  to the State of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Apologetics?

Edited August 17, 2018 by california boy

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

So when is this web site going to get a new name?  

The Restored Church of Jesus Christ Dialogue and Discussion Board?

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, rongo said:

I understand, and no offense taken.  

 

I don't with this. I think it's a policy and preference. 

You know, it is often pointed out that we pay lip service to fallible prophets, but when pressed, can't or won't name any examples. After the fact, we often are careful to distinguish between doctrines and policies, and then sometimes say "he was just acting as a man in this case." ...

 

As I search my feelings on this, I don't feel at all that I would be being rebellious or unheeding if I continue to refer to us and our beliefs as "Mormons" and "Mormonism." And, I can't see this becoming an added TR question ("Do you only ever use the full name of the Church [of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints], or Church of Jesus Christ in references following an initial use of the full name of the Church [of Jesus Christ]?")  

I also await the further instructions and explanations that Newsroom alluded to. If there is more to this, and explanation is given, I will need to prayerfully reconsider. Maybe I am a big part of the "work before us to bring ourselves in harmony with his will." It sounds like I still have several months, though.

As I'm typing this, I feel like I need to pray specifically about this. So, I refuse to be bound by anything I have mused on here. I reserve the right to change my mind.  

Just wondering, if this seems like a trivial matter to you, why the studied resistance to it?

Quote

That's what this feels like to me. President Nelson has also widened the definition of revelation to be anything he feels inspired to do, and I don't believe prophets and seers are human fax machines whose every thought and statement is de facto the will of God because he says it is. I think those that are the will of God actually are. 

I really don't see much of a widening of definition here. His concept seems consistent with what I have always been taught revelation to be (it having a number of forms, including thoughts and impressions).

So, do you not consider "the still small voice" to qualify as real revelation, then?

 

[Jeanne]

Let's call in that one board that used to have that one name...dialogue and discussion board.😋

[Thinking]

Link not working.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Thinking

[Thinking]

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

That will be difficult because, to me, "Mormonism" encompasses so much more than "The Church of Jesus Christ".  To me, The Church of Jesus Christ refers to the organization and it's official and correlated teachings, whereas "Mormonism" (in my mind) encompasses the culture, folk doctrines, and non-official personal beliefs and latitudes espoused by individual members which belong to the organization.  It is not simply what is taught officially, but what is practiced individually.  While not officially recognized by the church, these latitudes in belief are allowed to the members by the church and therefore fall under the umbrella and practice of "Mormonism", but do not necessarily fall under the umbrella of "The Church of Jesus Christ".   So how are we to reference the much wider net of Mormonism without using the word?

I agree. I would personally believe that this usage would continue to be appropriate. Here, we maintain a distinction between a cultural phenomena and "the Restored Church of Jesus Christ."

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, Sky said:

New development coming from President Russell M. Nelson and the Mormon Newsroom regarding the name of the Church, including the following:  

• When referring to the Church, The full name of the Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is encouraged and preferred.  

• Please refer to members of the Church as Latter-day Saints.  Please avoid the term “Mormons.”

• Please avoid the term “Mormonism.”  It is inaccurate.  When a shortened version is needed, please use “The Church of Jesus Christ” or the “restored Church of Jesus Christ”.  Please avoid the terms “The Mormon Church” and “The LDS Church.”

It will be interesting to see how this goes.  If I recall correctly, it has been tried before, but didn’t last very long.  The terms “Mormons” and “Mormonism” are deeply ingrained and hard to get rid of.  It is part of our identity.  

See: 

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mormonnewsroom.org%2Farticle%2Fname-of-the-church&h=AT3psjcZ7YewKU-Kd0tUF4HZH0V7YLlToxHxgwtImQp2OUYYUQKplEQezQg-fINiBacO4l8gKUfvtnwFl-dM-_aHm-ThDc2bMZpxHhkDjWJTVQcVgINL30Nv-8YOH_XbD3JdRK4UmNY&s=1

I for one welcome the emphasis away from Mormons and Mormonism. I rarely use them myself. I firmly believe it is the right course.

4 hours ago, 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

I take then you are not one in "the Mormons aren't Christian camp?" There are many who are, and I believe the term serves to further this tendency. I tell people I am LDS Christian. If others want to call themselves Mormon, I guess it is their prerogative, but LDS Christian is not too much of a mouthful. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just wondering, if this seems like a trivial matter to you, why the studied resistance to it?

Why in the world would you think this seems like a trivial matter to me? I would think that what I have said about it makes it clear that it is anything but trivial to me. 

I really don't see much of a widening of definition here. His concept seems consistent with what I have always been taught revelation to be (it having a number of forms, including thoughts and impressions).

The only form ever cited, referred to, or emphasized now is "thoughts and impressions." I agree that there are a number of forms, including thoughts and impressions. But not exclusively thoughts and impressions. Or council consensus. 

So, do you not consider "the still small voice" to qualify as real revelation, then?

There you go again with your Lloydisms. Where in the world are you getting this reach? Yes, the still, small voice qualifies as revelation. But prophets also have to discern and distinguish from their own thoughts and the still small voice, just like we do. It isn't automatic for them, either, or a given because of office. President Nelson has mentioned this topic a number of times over the years. It has always been important to him, and he's in a position to act in a way he wasn't in the past. He has also proven himself to be bold and to take initiative.  He also has a tendency to emphatically use revelation as an argument stopper (cf. his January 2016 remarks on the November 2015 policy, April 2018 conference on ministering changes, etc.). The Newsroom thing was worded in this way, so as to try to head off objections using revelation as the stopper. 

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So, do you not consider "the still small voice" to qualify as real revelation, then?

Additional thought: our duty and privilege to obtain confirmatory revelation is a real thing. Based on your posts over years, Scott, I wonder if you have ever prayed for confirmation of something the prophets have said? I know you're not every willing to engage in hypotheticals, but have you ever done it?

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The Restored Church of Jesus Christ Dialogue and Discussion Board?

membersofthechurchofjesuschristoflatter-daysaintsdialogue.org is available. should we all chip in?
https://www.namecheap.com/domains/registration/results.aspx?domain=membersofthechurchofjesuschristoflatter-daysaintsdialogue.org

Edited August 17, 2018 by Rajah Manchou