Good for you Pres. Nelson!

[MiserereNobis]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

FWIW, I believe that the epithet "Catholic" is an Anglicization of the transliteration ("katholikos") of the Greek "καθολικός", meaning "Universal".

 Exactly. 

[Stargazer]

51 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Sincere question I’ve been pondering today.

I get the logic of not calling the Lords church by another’s name. But the Lord allows, perhaps commands, that his saving authority - priesthood - be named after imperfect mortal servants, Aaron and Melchizedek.

In fact, D/C 107 (below) explains that the true name of the higher priesthood includes the saviors name, but was changed to avoid repetition of his name so the name stays in reverence. Can anyone harmonize these apparently conflicting naming instructions? 

 

2 Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.

3 Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.

4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.

 

At first blush, it seems that this is just a history lesson.  It was called the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God.  Presumably this was the name given to it by God.  Calling it the "Melchizedek Priesthood" was not by direction of God, but verse 4 says that this was a decision of the Church at that time.  Or was it?

Martin Luther taught that Melchizedek was an archetype of Christ.  What DC 107:2-4 seems to suggest is that Luther knew what he was talking about.

And then Paul agrees: "So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec." (Hebrews 5:5,6)

I don't know if this harmonizes it, since here Paul is saying that Jesus was a priest after the order of Melchizedek, who was a priest after the order of the Son of God.  Kind of circular.  Perhaps a harmonization isn't required.  Just accept it. <shrug>

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

I chuckled when I opened the LA Times this morning and saw this headline...

Mormons' church commitment each Sunday to be relaxed, leaders say

 

If the Book of Mormon had been called the book of plates, I wonder if we would be called the Plates' Church? I think not.

How did members refer to themselves before Protestants began calling us Mormons?

[JAHS]

6 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

If the Book of Mormon had been called the book of plates, I wonder if we would be called the Plates' Church? I think not.

How did members refer to themselves before Protestants began calling us Mormons?

Saints, just like in the New Testament.

[RevTestament]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Saints, just like in the New Testament.

Not a bad option. Quite poignant - and everybody has a chance to be a saint - not just those hand picked by the bishop of Rome....

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

While it is one thing to issue a press release regarding the need for change, it is quite another to acknowledge in front of the whole Church that we need to change the ways we do things. As I look upon the frame of this 95 year old man, and observe his countenance and gently prompting words, I realize I have been waiting to hear what he is telling the Church for 20 years. I know our Savior is happy with the new emphasis to use His name when speaking of His Church. Although when speaking of myself I may still refer to myself as LDS Christian, I have made a renewed effort when speaking of the Church at large to use the Church of Jesus Christ in my posts. 

I for one will not be sad to see the day when Mormonism becomes a thing of the past. However, I acknowledge the bravery and hard work of those who have gone before and have preserved and spread the restored gospel, for my sake and the sake of my ancestors. May the restored gospel live for ever in the hearts of people everywhere, and if others wish to call me a restorationist, I will happily accept that label, and proclaim the restored gospel of our Savior, Jesus Christ! And if they wish to call me Yeshuan, I will gladly accept that brand of His name as well!

How do you plan to follow  Pres. Nelson's admonition?

If you are not an LDS Christian, what do you think of the new emphasis not to be labeled "a Mormon"?

Who are the Moravians?

The Brethren?

 Are they Christian?

Mennonites?  Amish? Shakers? 

I had no idea what a Mormon was, but some weird religion.

 When I learned about the church I was horrified that they had such a weird name,  and thought it should be changed.  Why name yourself after a prophet?  Remind as well have been called the "Pauls" because he wrote so much scripture. Or how about the "Moses'" ?

I got my wish.

 Lot of that happening this conference

 

Edited October 7, 2018 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Who are the Moravians?

 Are they Christian?

Mennonites?  Amish? Shakers? 

I had no idea what a Mormon was, but some weird religion.

 When I learned about the church I was horrified that they had such a weird name,  and thought it should be changed.  Why name yourself after a prophet?  Remind as well have been called the "Pauls" because he wrote so much scripture. Or how about the "Moses'" ?

I got my wish.

 Lot of that happening this conference

When my dad came home one day and said he had invited over some Mormon missionaries, I was like, who? what? Are they Christian? After a few lessons, however, I grew quite excited about this new, unheard of Church which followed scripture so well! Acts 11 also tells us the early members referred to themselves as disciples. I've heard some claim that Acts 11 really said disciples were called Messiahians or some such, but my Greek version says Christianous/Christians. They believe the name Christian came into use much later. I wonder if there are any textual scholars who can comment on that.

Edited October 7, 2018 by RevTestament

[jpv]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

My late wife was not a fan of "Mormonism" or "Mormon" as either a personal epithet or an adjective (as in "Mormon Church"), and in 35 years I don't think I ever heard her call herself a Mormon or refer to the Church as the "Mormon Church".  In her last few years, she usually identified the Church as the "Church of Christ" or "Church of Jesus Christ", and usually didn't add "of Latter-day Saints" unless it seemed necessary to avoid confusion.  She would have been most appreciative of the current push in how to properly identify the church.

I'd say I always have used the full name or Church of Jesus Christ for the Church itself. 

 

I haven't for the members (due to the Elder Holland and Pres. Monson and Pres Hinckley approach).  But with the new direction, although wordy i think it's do-able.

 

However I'm yet to hear an effective adjective form of "Mormon", nor a good replacement for "Mormonism".

Edited October 7, 2018 by jpv

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, jpv said:

I'd say I always have used the full name or Church of Jesus Christ for the Church itself. 

 

I haven't for the members (due to the Elder Holland and Pres. Monson and Pres Hinckley approach).  But with the new direction, although wordy i think it's do-able.

 

However I'm yet to hear an effective adjective form of "Mormon", nor a good replacement for "Mormonism".

I think I am just going to say "The Church of Jesus Christ" and let them figure out the "Latter Day Saint" as we talk about Christ.  Hit 'em with how Christian you are and then  watch their faces as they figure it out..  😃

[Stargazer]

50 minutes ago, jpv said:

I'd say I always have used the full name or Church of Jesus Christ for the Church itself. 

I haven't for the members (due to the Elder Holland and Pres. Monson and Pres Hinckley approach).  But with the new direction, although wordy i think it's do-able.

However I'm yet to hear an effective adjective form of "Mormon", nor a good replacement for "Mormonism".

Me neither.  

Perhaps "Mormonism" is the entire cultural milieu of the Latter-day Saints.  Which necessarily includes Latter-day Saints living in all over the world -- which then starts to include regional cultures as well.  In the end, though, I don't really know what the heck "Mormonism" is.

[halconero]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

 Exactly. 

Out of curiosity, would you consider “papist” (as Nehor put it) to be offensive? Not trying to be hostile, I’m just curious about what might be equivalent in other churches.

[sunstoned]

Quote

The president of the Mormon church reiterated Sunday that he wants members, the media and others to use the faith's full name, saying nicknames are "a major victory for Satan."

I think this is a little over the top.  Using this logic,  I guess the national media campaign called “I’m a Mormon” (launched in 2010) was a big win for Satan?

Edited October 8, 2018 by sunstoned

[MiserereNobis]

13 minutes ago, halconero said:

Out of curiosity, would you consider “papist” (as Nehor put it) to be offensive? Not trying to be hostile, I’m just curious about what might be equivalent in other churches.

Papist and popish have always derogatory and are not used by Catholics to describe themselves, so they aren’t really equivalents to “Mormon.”

The KKK used papists to describe Catholics. There is an older man in my parish from the south and he had a cross burned on his yard when he was a kid because his family was Catholic.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Sincere question I’ve been pondering today.

I get the logic of not calling the Lords church by another’s name. But the Lord allows, perhaps commands, that his saving authority - priesthood - be named after imperfect mortal servants, Aaron and Melchizedek.

In fact, D/C 107 (below) explains that the true name of the higher priesthood includes the saviors name, but was changed to avoid repetition of his name so the name stays in reverence. Can anyone harmonize these apparently conflicting naming instructions? 

 

2 Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest.

3 Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.

4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.

 

Not to mention the fact that Ancient Jews would not even say God’s name. The KJV keeps this by translating YHWH as The LORD in the OT. I believe a couple posters here do that as well by typing “G-d”. 

[halconero]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Papist and popish have always derogatory and are not used by Catholics to describe themselves, so they aren’t really equivalents to “Mormon.”

The KKK used papists to describe Catholics. There is an older man in my parish from the south and he had a cross burned on his yard when he was a kid because his family was Catholic.

That’s what I figured, but wasn’t sure.

Edited October 8, 2018 by halconero

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Papist and popish have always derogatory and are not used by Catholics to describe themselves, so they aren’t really equivalents to “Mormon.”

The KKK used papists to describe Catholics. There is an older man in my parish from the south and he had a cross burned on his yard when he was a kid because his family was Catholic.

You are a good sport to look on it here as good natured teasing and not passive aggressive digs (I am assuming this based on you giving Nehor's post a rep point).

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Just to check: are you offended when someone calls you a Mormon?

President Nelson gave a suggestion: If someone asks, “Are you a Mormon?” a good response is, “If by that you mean a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the answer is yes.”

Edited October 8, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[jpv]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think I am just going to say "The Church of Jesus Christ" and let them figure out the "Latter Day Saint" as we talk about Christ.  Hit 'em with how Christian you are and then  watch their faces as they figure it out..  😃

Sorry if this double posts, rewriting after posting awhile ago.

I agree, that's exactly how I would for the Church or its members.  I think there's no confusion there, well, except D&C 107:4, but nevertheless.

However, the new style guide gives no replacements for the descriptive and adjective forms as in  "traditional Mormon foods" or "various interpretations of spirit creation in Mormonism/Mormon thought" unlike the old style guide* quoted below:

Quote

"Mormon" is correctly used in proper names such as the Book of Mormon, Mormon Tabernacle Choir or Mormon Trail, or when used as an adjective in such expressions as "Mormon pioneers."

"The Pioneers that Arrived at Temple Square" perhaps?  MoTab->TCats-ization doesn't really translate very well to most usages.

Anyways, I think these forms are the most difficult to find replacements for as I try my best to follow the new counsel.

It's also interesting that the new style guide also has removed this section:

Quote

When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, the terms "Mormons," "Mormon fundamentalist," "Mormon dissidents," etc. are incorrect. The Associated Press Stylebook notes: "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other … churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith's death."

*https://web.archive.org/web/20180802044656/https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide

Edited October 8, 2018 by jpv
reformat links,etc

[MiserereNobis]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

You are a good sport to look on it here as good natured teasing and not passive aggressive digs (I am assuming this based on you giving Nehor's post a rep point).

I know (and like) The Nehor’s style 😊

[rongo]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

President Nelson gave a suggestion: If someone asks, “Are you a Mormon?” a good response is, “If by that you mean a member if the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the answer is yes.”

We watched Saturday morning session last night while eating homemade chow mein. We were completely incommunicado Friday and Saturday because of the Family Weekend activities at my son's university. My sister did text me telling me about the 2 hour-block announcement and President Oaks' talk. I was excited to see that President Nelson was going to give a full talk-length treatment of his call to use the proper name of the Church. 

Some thoughts of mine:

1) President Nelson is a delight to listen to! His talk was very thorough and well thought-out. He laid out his thinking and his case very logically.

2) I had the same thought in real-time watching it that Buckeye pointed out earlier: there is the interesting precedent of the Church choosing to use a nickname (Melchizedek Priesthood) instead of the official name (Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God). Interestingly, this was because of too frequent mention of a title of Jesus Christ. Not a deal-breaker of any kind, just interesting to think about.

3) jpv's observations above are spot-on. There is no workable adjective form other than "Mormon." (e.g., Mormon pioneers, Mormon students, Mormon cultural difference, etc.). 

4) President Nelson's examples (like the one quoted above) are not really workable in real-time for "normal" people who have a lot of gospel conversations with non-Mormons. They are very workable for general authorities whose interactions with non-Mormons are exclusively meeting with dignitaries or the press. 

This is what I thought about while watching the talk in real-time for the first time:

I now live in Gilbert, AZ (heavily LDS), but I still teach in the town of 45,000 that my kids were raised in and that we lived for 16 years. That town has its own stake of ca. 3000 members, and the high school of 2400 students has about 200 LDS students. So, Mormons are a sizable minority in the community, but have a disproportionate influence (the mayor was my ward clerk, and he is well-beloved and will be in office as long as he cares to. He has higher political aspirations). We moved there in 2002, when it only had 3,000 people, and during the ongoing population boom, I taught at the (then, small) high school, served in leadership callings in wards and the stake, and coached baseball at the high school. So, having frequent gospel conversations has always been like shooting fish in a barrel; students constantly ask me questions, and they seem to ask their peers questions about the Church to a higher degree than in other places I have lived (which is a very good thing, and youth I observe do a phenomenal job of answering questions they get from their friends). Where we live and work seems to be a higher-than-normal place for youth and others to be asked questions about Mormonism, the Church, etc. 

In my German classes, I pound into my students a line that's actually from B.H. Roberts (I don't tell them that): "Literal translation is literal nonsense." This is from his excellent article on the translation method of the Book of Mormon, but his point (illustrated with photocopies from a Greek New Testament and side-by-side literal English translation) is that true translation has to make sense in the target language. Translating mechanically and literally is to translate falsely. So, true translation has to add or take away words or sometimes say it in a different way in order to make sense in the target language. 

My German 1 students learn over 1200 key words and phrases throughout the year, and use them as they learn how the grammar works and apply it in reading, audio/video, oral practice, etc. Tests have a translation section at the end where I have them translate a German paragraph (that uses vocabulary they've worked with so far) into English (this is easiest --- render this in English), and then an English paragraph/conversation into German (this is harder, and they generally hate this). I *love* seeing what they come up with sometimes. Sometimes, students use what they have and find an ingenious way to say it that isn't technically correct (especially adjective endings, but like I tell them, this is what separates the men from the boys), but works. The best part is that they found a way to use the German they have to make themselves understood, and I emphasize (it's no secret that I learned it as a missionary living there) that this is what they would do if they actually lived there and didn't just have German an hour every day. 

Where am I going with this? It occurred to me while watching, as I tried to apply in my mind how I and other LDS students would implement this in the scores of daily conversations we have about the Church, that using the verboten expressions "Mormon," "Mormonism," etc. is often actually the clearest, most accurate term in terms of accurately conveying what is being talked about ---- and insisting on the official name or accepted style-guide forms would be less-effective and less "true" in terms of accurately and effectively conveying what is being talked about. I thought of my homeroom, a 15 minute section every day where we give about five minutes worth of announcements and then wait for lunch. An LDS boy and I are asked on a daily basis about all sorts of things about Mormon beliefs, practices, policies, etc., and it is just better in terms of authentic communication in real-time to use the verboten  terms instead of the full name or accepted style-guide forms. Especially when used as an adjective. The accepted forms would be confusing and seem convoluted. 

5) I already use the full name of the Church as much as possible, and the counsel is definitely in the forefront in my thinking. I will use it as much as possible, but I personally am not going to worry about it if it seems that using Mormon as an adjective or other uses seem far better in my daily conversations about the Church. You do what seems best, most natural, and what conveys the thoughts being expressed. Again, I think the examples given don't seem to come from people who have frequent conversations with "normal" (i.e. non-dignitary or press) people in everyday life. 

[Stargazer]

11 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Papist and popish have always derogatory and are not used by Catholics to describe themselves, so they aren’t really equivalents to “Mormon.”

The KKK used papists to describe Catholics. There is an older man in my parish from the south and he had a cross burned on his yard when he was a kid because his family was Catholic.

Yeah, that made me cringe when @The Nehor used it.  I'm sure he thought he was using it ironically, but still...

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Where am I going with this? It occurred to me while watching, as I tried to apply in my mind how I and other LDS students would implement this in the scores of daily conversations we have about the Church, that using the verboten expressions "Mormon," "Mormonism," etc. is often actually the clearest, most accurate term in terms of accurately conveying what is being talked about ---- and insisting on the official name or accepted style-guide forms would be less-effective and less "true" in terms of accurately and effectively conveying what is being talked about.

I don't think this is a given.

Mormon doesn't actually accurately or clearly express what church I belong to.  Using the term is the most accurate and easiest way to connect the church that I belong to to what people already have experience with, but if what most people have experience with is causing a wrong understanding of the concept, then it's not actually more accurate at all to use it.  It's just easier.  

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think this is a given.

Mormon doesn't actually accurately or clearly express what church I belong to.  Using the term is the most accurate and easiest way to connect the church that I belong to to what people already have experience with, but if what most people have experience with is causing a wrong understanding of the concept, then it's not actually more accurate at all to use it.  It's just easier.  

It does, often, for them, when a person is asking about Mormon beliefs. It's a term that both she and you know exactly what it's referring to (whereas, trying to implement the style-guide guidelines in real-time in "normal" conversation may very well not be a 1:1 match, or might need background-laying or explaining). It's not only the simplest (and some conversations don't have unlimited time), it's actually the most accurate for the questioner from where they're coming from. 

Again, I'm looking at it from an angle of best "translation" where gospel topics are frequent and frequently out-of-the-blue.

Edited October 8, 2018 by rongo

[Exiled]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

President Nelson gave a suggestion: If someone asks, “Are you a Mormon?” a good response is, “If by that you mean a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the answer is yes.”

I predict that this will last as long as Pres. Nelson is alive.  Then it will quietly be de-emphasized.  The name is too long for the population at large to adopt and the new emphasis on the name is merely a call to the faithful like political leaders calls to rally around the flag.

[Gray]

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-9-july-1843-as-reported-by-willard-richards/2

 

Quote

"Mormons can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for a mormon;

"If it has been demonstrated that I am have been willing to die for a mormon I am bold to declare <befo[r]e heaven> that I <am> just as ready to die for a presbytiran. a baptist or any other denomination.— It is a love of libe[r]ty which inspires my soul. civil and religious liberty— were diffused into my soul by my grandfathers. while they dandld me on their knees.— and shall I want friends? no!" - Joseph Smith, a Mormon