The Name of the Church

[Thinking]

31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

I believe I wrote "softened the stance." Do you disagree that Hinckley softened the stance?

By the way, the Church's own newsroom didn't quite conform to the style guide with some of its articles - this one from 2015.

Mormonism in Pictures

Here are some more.

Mormons and Education

Mormonism 101

Mormons Around the World - Note the BYU students "wearing the familiar yellow Mormon Helping Hands shirts." Also note the date of the article.

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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."

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

 

While The Mormon Tabernacle Choir has a historical legacy, the church has to decide if it is fully in on this issue or if this is just a momentary thought that it would be nice to have the church always be the full and proper name of the church.  If it is difficult for the church to use The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Choir, then how does it expect other organizations that don't have a vested interest in dropping the name Mormon Church in favor of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Personally, I think it is unfair to ask them to only use that title if the church itself is going to skirt around the issue and use the name Mormon when it is more convenient.

This change is going to be extremely difficult if not impossible.  Other organizations have done it.  Think Datsun changing its name to Nissan.  They spent millions and several years making the transition.  They now NEVER refer to their company as Datsun.  They can't or all the work that went into the name Nissan erodes. 

Rebranding is not for the faint of heart.  Nor can you make that transition on the cheap.  Honestly, I don't see how the church itself will be able to make the change, let alone the outside world.  I wonder if in 2 years, who will get the blame for this not working.  Members who were just not faithful enough and a world that is against everything the church does, or perhaps that wasn't the will of God after all as it slowly fades back to where it is today.  Time always has a way of. sorting these things out.

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I believe I wrote "softened the stance." Do you disagree that Hinckley softened the stance?

By the way, the Church's own newsroom didn't quite conform to the style guide with some of its articles - this one from 2015.

Mormonism in Pictures

Here are some more.

Mormons and Education

Mormonism 101

Mormons Around the World - Note the BYU students "wearing the familiar yellow Mormon Helping Hands shirts." Also note the date of the article.

 

This is exactly what I am talking about.  Now change all of those to the official name of the church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Pictures

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Education

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 101

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints around the World

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Helping Hands

How many in the general population would have any idea what this is all about.  Yet the message is directed to that very audience.  The church is literally years if not decades away from that working as a recognizable brand.  Is it possible?  Of course.  But the commitment has to bee totally in and relentless.  Members and the church itself need to correct every single person who calls them a Mormon.  This issue has to be regularly brough up in church meetings over the next decade.  Members need to start feeling guilty when they use the name Mormon.  Letters have to be written to every newspaper, magazine, radio station, blog etc, every time the proper name of the church is not used.  Changing a culture that is so embedded world wide is not easy and has to be relentless if you really expect the results you are seeking.  

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I believe I wrote "softened the stance." Do you disagree that Hinckley softened the stance?

I believe that President Hinckley quite correctly pointed out that there is no dishonor in the name Mormon. That's not the same thing as contradicting the doctrine that the Church should be called after the name of Jesus Christ.

Quote

 

By the way, the Church's own newsroom didn't quite conform to the style guide with some of its articles - this one from 2015.

Mormonism in Pictures

Here are some more.

Mormons and Education

Mormonism 101

Mormons Around the World - Note the BYU students "wearing the familiar yellow Mormon Helping Hands shirts." Also note the date of the article.

 

Perhaps there is a need for some tightening up, hence the new, divinely inspired directive by the president of the Church. Notice the official statement did say there are some changes underway and more information would be forthcoming.

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

While The Mormon Tabernacle Choir has a historical legacy, the church has to decide if it is fully in on this issue or if this is just a momentary thought that it would be nice to have the church always be the full and proper name of the church.  If it is difficult for the church to use The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Choir, then how does it expect other organizations that don't have a vested interest in dropping the name Mormon Church in favor of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Personally, I think it is unfair to ask them to only use that title if the church itself is going to skirt around the issue and use the name Mormon when it is more convenient.

 

There is an obvious difference between applying the name Mormon to a choir and applying it to the church that Christ HImself founded.

By the way, I don't recall, but have you not disaffiliated yourself from the Church of Jesus Christ? If so, what do you care what it calls itself?

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.

I'm not aware of any lawsuits over this; are you?

And I do believe there are a number of religious organizations that each take the name of Christ for their organization. I think it farfetched to believe that they will begin suing one another over this. I'm not going to stay up nights worrying about it.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not aware of any lawsuits over this; are you?

And I do believe there are a number of religious organizations that each take the name of Christ for their organization. I think it farfetched to believe that they will begin suing one another over this. I'm not going to stay up nights worrying about it.

You misunderstood what I said. If any organization starts using the official name of that organization, then the first thing any organization would do to protect that name is to send a cease and desist order to stop using their registered name.  If that doesn't happen, then a lawsuit would have to be started to legally prevent the appropriation of their name.  

i doubt that the name Christ would be allowed to be copyrighted.  But that is completely different than usurping an entire name of a legally recognized organization

Do  you really think The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would allow another organization to use its official and legally protected name?

Edited August 17, 2018 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

You misunderstood what I said. If any organization starts using the official name of that organization, then the first thing any organization would do to protect that name is to send a cease and desist order to stop using their registered name.  If that doesn't happen, then a lawsuit would have to be started to legally prevent the appropriation of their name.  ?

The Church of Jesus Christ (incorporated into the full and complete name) has been the official name of the Church almost from the beginning. If anything, it is the offshoot group that has misappropriated the name.
 

Quote

 

i doubt that the name Christ would be allowed to be copyrighted.  But that is completely different than usurping an entire name of a legally recognized organization

Do  you really think The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would allow another organization to use its official and legally protected name

 

For many years there was such an organization: The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now changed to Community of Christ). Nothing was done to hinder the use of that name by that church.

As i said, what you are ruminating about is far-fetched -- so much so that it does not merit serious consideration.

[california boy]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There is an obvious difference between applying the name Mormon to a choir and applying it to the church that Christ HImself founded.

By the way, I don't recall, but have you not disaffiliated yourself from the Church of Jesus Christ? If so, what do you care what it calls itself?

 

Again you missed my point.  For this rebranding, and make no mistake, as proposed by President Nelson, this is rebranding even though the official name of the church has always been The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the church has to fully commit to abandon the name Mormon except in referring to the person Mormon and the Book of Mormon.  If the church is unwilling to do that, then there is never going to be a shift in the usage of the name.  

My profession was in marketing.  I have done rebranding for several companies.  I have never done rebranding of something that is this big of scale.  But the principles are the same, just more difficult.  An organization can't just wave a magic wand and expect an entire world wide culture to comply. with their demands.  

My only interest is really just giving professional opinions on this matter.  I actually find it fascinating that the church would even attempt this endeavor knowing what is involved.  Past efforts have been made, as has been pointed out.  But when the commitment and sacrifice becomes a reality of what is required, nothing actually changes.  

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Church of Jesus Christ (incorporated into the full and complete name) has been the official name of the Church almost from the beginning. If anything, it is the offshoot group that has misappropriated the name.
 

For many years there was such an organization: The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (now changed to Community of Christ). Nothing was done to hinder the use of that name by that church.

As i said, what you are ruminating about is far-fetched -- so much so that it does not merit serious consideration.

If the name The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints had been legally challenged when it first started to be used, then I doubt very much that they would have been allowed to legally use that name.  To my knowledge, it was never legally challenged.  To do so even 10 years later is too late.

Ok, I will let a lawyer comment on how copyright laws work.  I doubt very  much that you would accept much of what I am saying. 

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by california boy

[Rajah Manchou]

53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it farfetched to believe that they will begin suing one another over this. I'm not going to stay up nights worrying about it.

1

Mormon church sues leader of B.C. polygamous sect for trademark infringement

[Avatar4321]

14 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

it may be convenient for some, but for some it's a way to deny us our faith in Christ.

I see no reason not to follow the guidelines. This isn't the first time the name has been emphasized. I'm actually surprised it's gotten so much attention

[Avatar4321]

14 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. 

Perhaps the Lord is only trying to impact His Saints with this change

[Stargazer]

9 hours ago, rongo said:

There you go again with your Lloydisms.

ROFL!  I love Scott Lloyd, and this makes him ever more precious!

By the way, this also reminds me of Ronald Reagan debating with Jimmy Carter.  "There you go again..."

But seriously, watching two of my favorite MDDBers go at each other is some fun.  Just keep it nice!  Real, but nice!

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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?"

 

Oh, gosh has this ever happened to me, too.  Stolid listening silence when I asked for a confirmation about something I already knew.  Man, I could feel the listening. 

And sometimes confirmations come without being asked for.  I remember having just heard that our bishop was to be released that day (I was ward clerk), I was walking towards the chapel when I saw a light on in a classroom -- odd, since it was too early for members to be in the building (we were the first ward to meet on Sundays).  I thought to reach in to flip off the light as I passed, to save electricity, but then the unbidden thought came into my head: 'The new bishop is in that room."  Startled, I leaned in, and there was the man who an hour later would be sustained as our new bishop.

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

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

No, it's not available. I just checked.  You shouldn't have said this so loudly.  Someone was listening...

Quote

Domain Name: MEMBERSOFTHECHURCHOFJESUSCHRISTOFLATTER-DAYSAINTSDIALOGUE.ORG
Registry Domain ID: D402200000007237986-LROR
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.domain.com
Registrar URL: www.domain.com
Updated Date: 2018-08-17T12:33:11
Creation Date: 2018-08-17T12:33:10
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2019-08-17T12:33:10
Registrar: Domain.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 886
Reseller: Dotster.com
Domain Status: serverTransferProhibited https://icann.org/eppserverTransferProhibited
Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: Domain Privacy Service FBO Registrant.
Registrant Organization: Domain Privacy Service FBO Registrant.
Registrant Street: 10 Corporate Drive
Registrant City: Burlington
Registrant State/Province: MA
Registrant Postal Code: 01803
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: 1.6027165339
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: membersofthechurchofjesuschristoflatter-daysaintsdialogue.or@domainprivacygroup.com
Registry Admin ID:
Admin Name: Domain Privacy Service FBO Registrant.
Admin Organization: Domain Privacy Service FBO Registrant.
Admin Street: 10 Corporate Drive
Admin City: Burlington
Admin State/Province: MA
Admin Postal Code: 01803
Admin Country: US
Admin Phone: 1.6027165339
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax:
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: membersofthechurchofjesuschristoflatter-daysaintsdialogue.or@domainprivacygroup.com
Registry Tech ID:
Tech Name: Domain Privacy Service FBO Registrant.
Tech Organization: Domain Privacy Service FBO Registrant.
Tech Street: 10 Corporate Drive
Tech City: Burlington
Tech State/Province: MA
Tech Postal Code: 01803
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: 1.6027165339
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax:
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: membersofthechurchofjesuschristoflatter-daysaintsdialogue.or@domainprivacygroup.com
Name Server: ns1.dotster-default.domainparkingserver.net
Name Server: ns2.dotster-default.domainparkingserver.net

Registrar Abuse Contact Email: compliance@domain-inc.net
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: 1.6027165396
URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.net/
Last update of WHOIS database: 2018-08-17T12:33:11

 

[Rajah Manchou]

13 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

No, it's not available. I just checked.  You shouldn't have said this so loudly.  Someone was listening...

 

Hah. Creation Date: 2018-08-17 2:33:10
membersofthechurchofjesuschristoflatter-daysaintsdialogue.com is still available

Going once..
going twice... 

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Hah. Creation Date: 2018-08-17 2:33:10
membersofthechurchofjesuschristoflatter-daysaintsdialogue.com is still available

Going once..
going twice... 

Don't push your luck... 

Note that I accessed this in my time zone, which is not in the US.

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by Stargazer

[ALarson]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

 

Scott, I'm curious what you will replace these with?  What will you say instead of "Mormon doctrine" for example? (Are you going to say "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Doctrine"?)

(And also "Mormonism" or "the Mormon faith" or Mormon studies?  What will be your new terms or phrases for these?)

Edited August 17, 2018 by ALarson

[HappyJackWagon]

How to respond to questions from members of other faiths...

Q- Are you Mormon?

A- No

Q- Are you LDS?

A- Not anymore...I guess. It's a little confusing.

Q- Well, what church do you belong to?

A- I belong to The Church

Q- Hmm. "The Church"? So I suppose you think there is only one church?

A- Blank stare.

Q- How can I learn more about your church?

A- It's easy. Just go to TheChurchofJesusChristofLatter-daySaints.org, Or if you want to know the church's position on LGBT issues you can go to TheChurchofJesusChristofLatter-daySaintsandGay.org

Q-So...you are Mormon? I just love the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

A- It's actually called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Tabernacle Choir. Please make sure you refer to it properly. Do you have any other questions for me?

Q- No. I'm done here.

 

[Okrahomer]

There's an interesting and thought-provoking article in this morning's Deseret News about this.  From the article:

"The announcement and style guide raised questions about the future of the names of famous church institutions like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, LDS Business College and the Mormon Channel. It also appeared to represent a seismic cultural and linguistic shift with more heft than previous efforts to encourage members to avoid "Mormon," a complicated term in church history.”

“Ironically, the announcement came via one of the church's official websites, mormonnewsroom.org. That site and others, including possibly the church's main website, lds.org, could receive updated names and shows the enormity of the challenge ahead for the church.”

[jkwilliams]

3 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Perhaps the Lord is only trying to impact His Saints with this change

Whatever the source, I'm guessing that's the case. As a friend reminded me, years ago President Benson spoke forcefully against pride in all its forms. For a while, some church members struggled with finding other ways of saying things like "I'm proud of you" to their children. I figure members now will find ways to refer to themselves and the church in line with these new guidelines. 

[HappyJackWagon]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Just to be clear, you don't mind The Church using the name of another church. You call that sharing.

If another church coopted the church's name, would you mind? Specifically, Imagine the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: Restoration Branch decided to shorten their name to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, you'd be all for sharing?

And it never bothered you in the past when other groups referred to themselves as Mormon? That was just sharing?

[cinepro]

I think we have overlooked a bit of the obvious.  It seems that the greatest benefit of this new de-emphasis on the word "Mormon" is that it will facilitate the Church's move to a new narrative that also de-emphasizes the focus on a literal belief in The Book of Mormon. 

After all, if we were were traditionally called "Abrahams" in relation to our belief in The Book of Abraham, this would have had to be done long ago.

So I know I'll be doing do everything I can to support the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in this new focus.

[SouthernMo]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Meh. 

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

I see what you're saying.  The question I have is: when did the formative period end?  I would submit that we are and should be constantly forming and improving.  I'm not vehemently opposed to a renaming or a re-branding, or reversion back to a more Christ-centered name.  But, I struggle with the position that any one name is 'right.'  Who knows, the next president of this church may embrace another name...