The Name of the Church

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I like this perspective.  It makes sense.

But, this position acknowledges that change happens in time, context, setting, etc...  And, if we have seen changes in God's people, or organization, or name in the past, then I think we must be open to the idea that it will (or at least could) change in the future.

What I don't believe is that somehow, finally, President Nelson got it 'right' and that this is, and forever will be the right moniker for the church with God's authority.

I think you're right.  Things may change in the future and we may receive further direction.  What is important is that we do what is right for right now.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not pushing back, really, but I feel a sense of loss from this. My identity is so tied up in being a Mormon. These less-specific identifiers leave me a little cold. 

Maybe that accounts for part of the need for this new move. Perhaps in the past there has been too much of cultural tribalism in "being a Mormon" and not enough of divinely directed universality in being a follower of Christ and His gospel as He restored it in latter days.

 

[Steve-o]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Which ones specifically? Documentation, please. (And I mean self-identification, not just what perhaps ill-informed news media might call them). 

As for what news media do, I disapprove of any inaccuracy by news media, particularly when it leads to confusion among the public, as it might when they use a term such as “fundamentalist Mormon” that could convey the impression they are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when they are not. 

Here is some basic info.

Quote

The word "Mormons" most often refers to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) because of their belief in the Book of Mormon, though members often refer to themselves as Latter-day Saints or sometimes just Saints.^[14] The term "Mormons" has been embraced by most adherents of Mormonism, most notably Mormon fundamentalists,^[15] while other Latter Day Saint denominations, such as the Community of Christ, have rejected it.^{[citation needed]} Both LDS Church members (or "Latter-day Saints") and members of fundamentalist groups commonly use the word "Mormon" in reference to themselves.^[16] The LDS Church, however, disagrees with this self-characterization, and encourages the use of the word "Mormon" only in reference to LDS Church members.^[17] Church leaders also encourage members to use the church's full name to emphasize its focus on Jesus Christ.^[18]

The word "Mormon" is often associated with polygamy (or plural marriage),^[19] which was a distinguishing practice of many early Mormons; however, it was renounced by the LDS Church in 1890^[20] and discontinued over the next 15 years.^[21] Today, polygamy is practiced within Mormonism only by people that have broken with the LDS Church.^[22]

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

For a list of fundamentalist groups you can look here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_denominations_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Mormon_fundamentalist

 

http://www.religionfacts.com/mormonism/branches

Edited August 17, 2018 by Steve-o

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe that accounts for part of the need for this new move. Perhaps in the past there has been too much of cultural tribalism in "being a Mormon" and not enough of divinely directed universality in being a follower of Christ and His gospel as He restored it in latter days.

I guess for me, the term goes well beyond "cultural tribalism." 

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not pushing back, really, but I feel a sense of loss from this. My identity is so tied up in being a Mormon. These less-specific identifiers leave me a little cold. 

"Was it Kierkegaard or **** Van Patten who said 'If you label me, you negate me'?"

- Wayne Campbell

[Avatar4321]

34 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My question is where was the Lord for 8 years, between the years 1830 to 1838, when the church didn't include His name? http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-Day_Saints,_the

I suspect it has a bit to do with the symbolism

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Suppose there is not such a record of it in the New Testament. Would that mean Christ never taught it? Do you think the New Testament contains every single thing Christ ever taught? The New Testament itself says the contrary:
 

John 21:25

 

That's not what I asked for, but thanks anyway.  I was asking regarding your specific wording and definitive statement.  As far as I know, Christ never even expressed the desire for an organized religion or referred to or commanded anything about "His Church".  

Edited August 17, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

44 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

So please be more clear.  What specific year and event noted the end of the church's formative period?  Was at 1978 when OD2 was revealed in General Conference, or 1981 when it was added to doctrine and covenants?  Or earlier?

I said (and remember, I'm only expressing my opinion) that the end of it was when the Standard Works were in place, not when the last chapter or declaration or addendum was added to one or more of them.

Honestly, I thought this should be self-evident.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's not what I asked for, but thanks anyway.  I was asking regarding your specific wording and definitive statement.  As far as I know, Christ never even expressed the desire for an organized religion of "His Church".  

I quite earnestly disagree. He told Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my Church."

Some people may misinterpret or misunderstand the scriptures, but by virtue of latter-day revelation we know that Christ did indeed intend to build a Church.

And going off what I said in my prior post, if Christ said and did so much that "the world itself could not contain the books that should be written," how can you be certain "Christ never even expressed the desire for an organized religion of His Church"?

Edited August 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm not pushing back, really, but I feel a sense of loss from this. My identity is so tied up in being a Mormon. These less-specific identifiers leave me a little cold. 

My wife and I were talking about this last night. She is the ministering secretary in a RS presidency that is essentially just the president (a recent widow) and her (the counselors and the secretary work and won't do much when available). The president has been ecstatic with my wife's contributions on day visits, setting conference appointments, entering the report, etc. She told my wife yesterday (unrelated to the announcement) that one thing she's really tired of is the ever-changing names in Relief Society for things (e.g., homemaking --- enrichment --- whatever it goes by now, etc.). She is especially annoyed that they are supposed to call all activities "meetings." 

All of these semantic changes have a certain "We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia" feel about them. And the replacement phrases insisted on are always way more clunky, wooden, and contrived ("Mormonism" vs. "doctrines of the restored gospel").*

Attempts to "control the narrative" through Orwellian semantics is definitely a thing in the modern Church. 

*A FAIR list member years ago had a hobby horse emphasis based on a book whose thesis was that we should eradicate "restoration" and replace it with "reestablished" because "restored" is totally confusing to people and gives an inaccurate view. I think this is rubbish, and have never met anyone who is confused in the slightest about "restoration" or "restored." I've noticed two people over the years, though, who gave talks on the topic where I could tell they read and really liked the book (both spoke on the need to eradicate "restored" and replace with "reestablished"). I thought of this in light of the recommended replacement expression "restored gospel of Jesus Christ." "Reestablished" is even worse in this context. There's no accounting for taste, and people's semantic preferences vary. That's just how it is. 

The unwieldy replacements strike me as trying to guide perceptions through contrived means, much the way that Communists use language with their "people's republics," "popular fronts," etc. It signals what one wishes others to think. In the case of the Communists, it is comically the opposite (neither the people's, nor a republic).

[SouthernMo]

13 minutes ago, changed said:

 

"Mormon" and "LDS" will eternally be linked to the LDS church.  There is no need for anyone no longer affiliated with Mormons to change their name.  

I know, I was making a tongue-in-cheek point. 

Those who don't support/endorse the authority of President Nelson aren't going to change their language, which makes me think (hope?) that this is somehow directed at members of the church less so than those outside the faith.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I guess for me, the term goes well beyond "cultural tribalism." 

For you. Maybe not so much for others.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, SouthernMo said:

I know, I was making a tongue-in-cheek point. 

Those who don't support/endorse the authority of President Nelson aren't going to change their language, which makes me think (hope?) that this is somehow directed at members of the church less so than those outside the faith.

If it were not directed to those outside the faith, it would not be codified in a style guide on Newsroom, which is directed primarily to outside media.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Steve-o said:

Here is some basic info.

For a list of fundamentalist groups you can look here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_denominations_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Mormon_fundamentalist

 

http://www.religionfacts.com/mormonism/branches

Thanks for this. But I was calling for something more along the lines of documentation that such groups self-identify as Mormons, not  that outside media (such as Wikipedia), perhaps poorly informed and in error, call them that.

[mnn727]

19 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

 Do LDS church leaders frown when we just call ourselves Christians?

No, but the Southern Baptists do.

[MiserereNobis]

I've mentioned before that I spent some time in the Czech Republic and speak Czech. I looked up the official name of your church (I'm afraid to say LDS church now, ha) in Czech and there's a translation problem going on there that would make using "Mormon" perhaps a better fit. In Czech, the name is (without accent marks, forgive me): Cirkev Jezise Krista Svatych Poslednich Dnu. That literally means: The Church of Jesus Christ of the Holy Last Days. The problem is that there is no difference between latter and last in Czech. Also, in Czech, there is no noun for "saint." Only an adjective is used and it is the same as holy. So if someone introduced themselves as belonging to the LDS church using the full name, all non-Mormon Czechs would hear Church of Jesus Christ of the Holy Last Days, which definitely has a weird ring to it.

Note: I checked google translate and people have definitely suggested edits to the translator to make it pop up the official name of your church (including "Latter-day"), but that's not how a Czech would hear it. I can't think of anyway to translate the name to make it sound/mean what it does in English. It just doesn't work in the Czech language.

[SouthernMo]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I said (and remember, I'm only expressing my opinion) that the end of it was when the Standard Works were in place, not when the last chapter or declaration or addendum was added to one or more of them.

Honestly, I thought this should be self-evident.

I understand that its your opinion, but I'm asking you to be specific in your beliefs about your opinion.  I don't think it's self-evident because the Standard Works have been evolving since the church was established in 1830.  I admit, fewer changes and addendum have happened in the last century. 

I believe that the church is and should be forever forming, growing, improving, and changing.  You indicated that 'the formative period of the church' was in the past, and I challenge that.

So can you help me?  Can you give me an event and year of when you think the formative period of a church came to an end and when the Standard Works came into place?

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I quite earnestly disagree.

That's fine.  As far as I knew, there was nothing recorded in the New Testament where Christ stated what you claimed ( that "Christ Himself commanded that His Church be called by His name").and I was correct.  I understand your need to bring in more modern scripture regarding this  (and I'm aware of what they contain.)

Edited August 17, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I've mentioned before that I spent some time in the Czech Republic and speak Czech. I looked up the official name of your church (I'm afraid to say LDS church now, ha) in Czech and there's a translation problem going on there that would make using "Mormon" perhaps a better fit. In Czech, the name is (without accent marks, forgive me): Cirkev Jezise Krista Svatych Poslednich Dnu. That literally means: The Church of Jesus Christ of the Holy Last Days. The problem is that there is no difference between latter and last in Czech. Also, in Czech, there is no noun for "saint." Only an adjective is used and it is the same as holy. So if someone introduced themselves as belonging to the LDS church using the full name, all non-Mormon Czechs would hear Church of Jesus Christ of the Holy Last Days, which definitely has a weird ring to it.

Note: I checked google translate and people have definitely suggested edits to the translator to make it pop up the official name of your church (including "Latter-day"), but that's not how a Czech would hear it. I can't think of anyway to translate the name to make it sound/mean what it does in English. It just doesn't work in the Czech language.

I am curious then about what a Czech translation of the Bible would do with the term saints.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Why is the church fighting so hard to show our faith in Christ? Other religions don't have that problem, it's a given, and they are still named Catholics, Methodists, Protestants...

Because most Christian church's self-designation as being Christian are accepted, even if the person doing the accepting doesn't know anything specific about that religion other than that they are Catholic or protestant.  That's not true for the church.   We call ourselves Christian and other church's reply 'no, you're not, I don't care what you say.'

Were you really not aware of this?

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I understand that its your opinion, but I'm asking you to be specific in your beliefs about your opinion.  I don't think it's self-evident because the Standard Works have been evolving since the church was established in 1830.  I admit, fewer changes and addendum have happened in the last century. 

I believe that the church is and should be forever forming, growing, improving, and changing.  You indicated that 'the formative period of the church' was in the past, and I challenge that.

So can you help me?  Can you give me an event and year of when you think the formative period of a church came to an end and when the Standard Works came into place?

The Standard Works (meaning the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) were in existence as volumes of scripture many years before the last addition to the Doctrine and Covenants occurred. I don't know without looking it up the publication dates for the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, but I would give that as the approximate time.

And to be candid, what you are doing here strikes me as quibbling, and I don't have time for that today.

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's fine.  As far as I knew, there was nothing recorded in the New Testament where Christ stated what you claimed ( that "Christ Himself commanded that His Church be called by His name").and I was correct.  I understand your bringing in more modern scripture (and I'm aware of what they contain.)

If you’re aware of what they contain, and if you embrace their content, and if you grasp the New Testament teaching that there is abundance of things Christ taught that could not be contained in the New Testament, I do wonder why you are making an issue of this. 

[SouthernMo]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Standard Works (meaning the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) were in existence as volumes of scripture many years before the last addition to the Doctrine and Covenants occurred. I don't know without looking it up the publication dates for the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, but I would give that as the approximate time.

And to be candid, what you are doing here strikes me as quibbling, and I don't have time for that today.

 

I have a hard time taking your opinions seriously when they aren't well thought out.  I come here to learn from good ideas.  I was hoping to get some from you.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you’re aware of what they contain, and if you embrace their content, and if you grasp the New Testament teaching that there is abundance of things Christ taught that could not be contained in the New Testament, I do wonder why you are making an issue of this. 

There is nothing in the New Testament regarding what your claim was (that "Christ Himself commanded that His Church be called by His name")  and that was why I asked the question.  I was interested to see what you had or if I'd missed anything (and I haven't).

We agree on that (from what I can tell...unless you have the quote from "Christ himself" commanding this that was recorded in the New Testament).

 

Edited August 17, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/17/2018 at 11:57 AM, SouthernMo said:

I have a hard time taking your opinions seriously when they aren't well thought out.  I come here to learn from good ideas.  I was hoping to get some from you.

I don’t believe the opinion I expressed was not well thought out. I think you are trying to engage in gotcha type questioning. As I said, I don’t have time for that today 

Edited November 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd