The Name of the Church

[Duncan]

I don't want to be cynical but I just came from a church security briefing (complete with Utah folk, all blonde, tall and spoke funny), in preparation for President Nelson's visit to this fair city tomorrow and it went on forever and i'm super tired. President Nelson gave a talk about this issue in 1990 in conference and it seemed to go nowhere, I wonder if he now is pushing it out as his pet project or something? 

[Rajah Manchou]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The fact that they are apparently a schismatic break-off group from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would indicate that we have at least as much claim on the name as they do.

 

Not according to their FAQ:

Q. If you believe in The Book of Mormon, doesn't that make you a Mormon?

A. If someone believes in the Old Testament, that does not automatically make that person a Jew. Similarly, if someone believes in the Bible, that does not mean that person is a Catholic, Baptist, or Pentacostal. The Church of Jesus Christ has no affiliation or connection with Mormonism. Many aspects of Mormon Doctrine are not supported by The Book of Mormon nor are they part of our beliefs.

[Rich Hansen]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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?

Honestly, sometimes I think Scott is the reincarnation of Javert.

From Wikipedia on Javert:

Reflective thought is "an uncommon thing for him, and singularly painful"; this is due to the fact that thought inevitably contains "a certain amount of internal rebellion", which Javert dislikes.

No Personal attacks or squabbles (dispute opinions not persons).

[Rajah Manchou]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?"

 

"Hello, we are missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and we would like to share a message from the Book of the Devil's Gate with you. May we come in?"

[Thinking]

Quote

Thus, please avoid using the abbreviation "LDS" or the nickname "Mormon" as substitutes for the name of the Church, as in "Mormon Church," "LDS Church," or "Church of the Latter-day Saints."

Emphasis mine.

 

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, Rich Hansen said:

Honestly, sometimes I think Scott is the reincarnation of Javert.

From Wikipedia on Javert:

Reflective thought is "an uncommon thing for him, and singularly painful"; this is due to the fact that thought inevitably contains "a certain amount of internal rebellion", which Javert dislikes.

Not cool. 

[Rich Hansen]

5 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Not cool. 

Perhaps not.

But neither is this:

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

Posters don't need to be badgered and questioned constantly about their allegiance to the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

59 minutes ago, Rich Hansen said:

Perhaps not.

But neither is this:

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

Posters don't need to be badgered and questioned constantly about their allegiance to the Church.

It wasn't badgering. It was a fair question.

And, to his credit, Rongo responded candidly and congenially.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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?

Yes, I have on occasion done so.

But one of the gifts of the Spirit for which I'm grateful is the gift of a believing heart. By virtue of that gift, it is seldom necessary for me to offer such a prayer over this or that matter, as nearly always I already know in my heart that the prophetic uttering, whatever it is, is genuine. Were I to do so, I would expect some mild chastening along the lines of "Why do you trouble Me with this when you already have been given the answer?"

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Not according to their FAQ:

Q. If you believe in The Book of Mormon, doesn't that make you a Mormon?

A. If someone believes in the Old Testament, that does not automatically make that person a Jew. Similarly, if someone believes in the Bible, that does not mean that person is a Catholic, Baptist, or Pentacostal. The Church of Jesus Christ has no affiliation or connection with Mormonism. Many aspects of Mormon Doctrine are not supported by The Book of Mormon nor are they part of our beliefs.

I don't see how anything here precludes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from laying claim to the shortened form, "Church of Jesus Christ."

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Emphasis mine.

 

Your argument here, if it be an argument, is anachronistic. It was only for a brief period the the Church was known by that name before the Lord by revelation gave the early Church members the full and proper name by which the Church would be known from then on.

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

7 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I think this will affect publications within the the restored Church of Jesus Christ but will have little impact outside it. 

I am wondering about "Mormon Tabernacle Choir".

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am wondering about "Mormon Tabernacle Choir".

 

Under the previous iteration of these guidelines, that usage was allowed.

My guess is that it will continue to be so, under the following proviso in the style guide in "Newsroom."

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."

The Mormon Tabernacle Choir is very much part of the continuing historical legacy of the Church.

 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Sky said:

Why don’t we also get rid of the “I’m a Mormon” campaign and Mormon.org?  At least it would be consistent.  

When it’s inconsistently applied, it just confuses people.  

 

I can see using "I am a Latter-day Saint" and even allowing Mormon.org as it is a URL rather than a name (you can say "at Mormon.org" rather than talking about Mormon.org as the entity...everyone knows LDS.org is just the address for the church's website).

But if "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" is allowed because of the history behind the name to continue, I don't see this as being a significant change even among most members given what I saw when there was a big push in the past.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I can see using "I am a Latter-day Saint" and even allowing Mormon.org as it is a URL rather than a name (you can say "at Mormon.org" rather than talking about Mormon.org as the entity...everyone knows LDS.org is just the address for the church's website).

But if "Mormon Tabernacle Choir" is allowed because of the history behind the name to continue, I don't see this as being a significant change even among most members given what I saw when there was a big push in the past.

The only time I cringed in the past was when I saw the phrase "the Mormon Church," (or, less commonly, "the Church of the Latter-day Saints") this because of the doctrine, as I understand it, that the Church is to be known by the name of Christ.

I never had any qualms about referring to Church members as Mormons or using the word as a descriptor, as in "Mormon doctrine" or "the Mormon faith" or even "Mormonism." It will take some getting used to for me to remove these from my vocabulary, but I'm determined to follow President Nelson's direction.

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

I think there is a big problem thinking "The Church of Jesus Christ" is completely equivalent to "Mormonism" when talking about a type of religion.

Think of a list like this:  "Buddhism, Catholicism, Judaism, Hinduism, and The Church of Jesus Christ"

It doesn't really work.

What is the adjective associated with "The Church of Jesus Christ"?

Edited August 18, 2018 by Calm

[Rajah Manchou]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't see how anything here precludes The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from laying claim to the shortened form, "Church of Jesus Christ."

 

You are identifying them as a "schismatic break-off group from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". They do not identify themselves in this way. Haven't they always used "The Church of Jesus Christ" as their legal and official name? I believe they are legally registered as such with an active trademark on the name.

Not to say the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints couldn't use the shortened form, but they'll have to share.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think there is a big problem thinking "The Church of Jesus Christ" is completely equivalent to "Mormonism" when taking about a type of religion.

Think of a list like this:  "Buddhism, Catholicism, Judaism, Hinduism, and The Church of Jesus Christ"

It doesn't really work.

I would endeavor to recast it in some way, such as "the Buddhist, Jewish and HIndu faiths, the Roman Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Edited August 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Rajah Manchou said:

You are identifying them as a "schismatic break-off group from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". They do not identify themselves in this way. Haven't they always used "The Church of Jesus Christ" as their legal and official name? I believe they are legally registered as such with an active trademark on the name.

Not to say the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints couldn't use the shortened form, but they'll have to share.

I'm not opposed to sharing. I expect the meaning would be clear in context.

[Thinking]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your argument here, if it be an argument, is anachronistic. It was only for a brief period the the Church was known by that name before the Lord by revelation gave the early Church members the full and proper name by which the Church would be known from then on.

No argument. I know the history. The first official name was Church of Christ. The second official name was Church of the Latter Day Saints. Of course in 1838 the current name became official. As I read the style guide I chuckled to myself when I saw that the second official name of the LDS Church is specifically listed as a name to be avoided.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Thinking said:

No argument. I know the history. The first official name was Church of Christ. The second official name was Church of the Latter Day Saints. Of course in 1838 the current name became official. As I read the style guide I chuckled to myself when I saw that the second official name of the LDS Church is specifically listed as a name to be avoided.

Meh. 

That was during the formative period of the Church, and the people were working with limited light and understanding. 

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

I don't want to be cynical but I just came from a church security briefing (complete with Utah folk, all blonde, tall and spoke funny), in preparation for President Nelson's visit to this fair city tomorrow and it went on forever and i'm super tired. President Nelson gave a talk about this issue in 1990 in conference and it seemed to go nowhere, I wonder if he now is pushing it out as his pet project or something? 

Nelson gave his talk on the name of the Church in April 1990 GC.

In October 1990 GC, Hinckley softened the stance.

Quote

Six months ago in our conference Elder Russell M. Nelson delivered an excellent address on the correct name of the Church. He quoted the words of the Lord Himself:

“Thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (D&C 115:4.)

He then went on to discourse on the various elements of that name. I commend to you a rereading of his talk.

The Mormon church, of course, is a nickname. And nicknames have a way of becoming fixed. I think of the verse concerning a boy and his name:

Father calls me William,

Sister calls me Will,

Mother calls me Willie,

But the fellers call me Bill.

I suppose that regardless of our efforts, we may never convert the world to general use of the full and correct name of the Church. Because of the shortness of the word Mormon and the ease with which it is spoken and written, they will continue to call us the Mormons, the Mormon church, and so forth.

They could do worse. More than fifty years ago, when I was a missionary in England, I said to one of my associates, “How can we get people, including our own members, to speak of the Church by its proper name?”

He replied, “You can’t. The word Mormon is too deeply ingrained and too easy to say.” He went on, “I’ve quit trying. While I’m thankful for the privilege of being a follower of Jesus Christ and a member of the Church which bears His name, I am not ashamed of the nickname Mormon.”

“Look,” he went on to say, “if there is any name that is totally honorable in its derivation, it is the name Mormon. And so, when someone asks me about it and what it means, I quietly say—‘Mormon means more good.’” (The Prophet Joseph Smith first said this in 1843; see Times and Seasons, 4:194; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 299–300.)

His statement intrigued me—Mormon means “more good.” I knew, of course, that “more good” was not a derivative of the word Mormon. I had studied both Latin and Greek, and I knew that English is derived in some measure from those two languages and that the words more good are not a cognate of the word Mormon. But his was a positive attitude based on an interesting perception. And, as we all know, our lives are guided in large measure by our perceptions. Ever since, when I have seen the word Mormon used in the media to describe us—in a newspaper or a magazine or book or whatever—there flashes into my mind his statement, which has become my motto: Mormon means “more good.”

We may not be able to change the nickname, but we can make it shine with added luster.

After all, it is the name of a man who was a great prophet who struggled to save his nation, and also the name of a book which is a mighty testament of eternal truth, a veritable witness of the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The pendulum will swing back.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Thinking

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, Thinking said:

No argument. I know the history. The first official name was Church of Christ. The second official name was Church of the Latter Day Saints. Of course in 1838 the current name became official. As I read the style guide I chuckled to myself when I saw that the second official name of the LDS Church is specifically listed as a name to be avoided.

I wonder what they will call the 'mormonnewsroom' from now on? Also, I read an article where someone stated they were wondering if in the future there is going to be another change to the church's name. In the quote it mentions that additional information will be made available in the coming months. Could this be a possiblity. I highly doubt it, but hey, they made Jesus Christ in larger letters, so maybe. 

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/

"The Lord has impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He has revealed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have work before us to bring ourselves in harmony with His will. In recent weeks, various Church leaders and departments have initiated the necessary steps to do so. Additional information about this important matter will be made available in the coming months."

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Nelson gave his talk on the name of the Church in April 1990 GC.

In October 1990 GC, Hinckley softened the stance.

The pendulum will swing back.

As I recall, it was during the administration of President Hinckley**  that the Church issued the official guideline against calling the name of the Church "the Mormon church."  That directive was reiterated repeatedly, most recently by Elder (now President) M. Russell Ballard during multiple general conference addresses.

I don't think there will be any walking it back.

**President Hinckley never endorsed calling the name of the Church "the Mormon church," not even in the general conference talk cited here.

 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not opposed to sharing. I expect the meaning would be clear in context.

If the official name of another church is The Church of Jesus Christ, there is no legal sharing of that name.  That church has every right to protect it's official name just like The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does.  I think you would totally flip out of another church decided to "share" the name of the church and start calling its church The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when it had no affiliation with the church formerly known publicly as the Mormon Church.  I can't see how that is even a option.