The name of the Church is not negotiable

[JustAnAustralian]

blah blah blah, once again appears the false claim that we say any usage of the word Mormon is a victory for Satan.

Quote

(Not only does language not stop on a dime, it especially doesn’t change quickly when the very organization that was heavily and visibly promoting its members as Mormons in 2014 was by 2018 calling the usage of that term a victory for Satan. That’s pretty whiplash-inducing.)

That is not the same thing that was ACTUALLY said: 

Quote

To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan.

 

Also

Quote

Latter-day Saints who zealously police the boundaries of other people’s terminology may not be as murderous as the Gileadites, but the divisive and corrosive effect is much the same. Battle lines are drawn against fellow members of the church as well as (understandably bewildered) outsiders who have not yet erased the word “Mormon” from their vocabularies. When we do this, it’s hard to see how we’re manifesting what is supposed to be the point of all this change, which is getting people to associate us with the “Jesus Christ” that’s in the full name of the church.

I'm pretty sure that Jana is drawing just as many battle lines herself. Seems to me that she's saying that if you complain that people aren't using the full name of the church then you're unchristlike.

[Navidad]

14 hours ago, bOObOO said:

I would say it's the same Church, just known by different names before and after the main event.

Don't drive down about an hour south of my house and say that! That won't go over well at all! 🙃

[Peacefully]

8 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

I read that article too!

I’d be curious to know if the same members that love to correct others’ use of the term “Mormon” are also the same that adamantly refuse to use people’s preferred pronouns when the latter differs from outward appearance and Latter-day Saint dogma.

 

This was the same thing that came to my mind. Seems like a double standard. 

[Navidad]

On 10/4/2021 at 8:46 AM, pogi said:

I have made a sincere effort to stop using the terms "Mormon" or "LDS".  The one term that I still can't find a suitable replacement for and frequently end up relying on is "Mormonism". 

The Catholic church has Catholicism.  Evangelical churches have Evangelism.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has...???  What term is there that can so succinctly capture the larger culture and beliefs that belong to and describe the ways of life of Latter-day Saints?    

Any suggestions?  I'm not a fan of Latter-day Saintism (but unfortunately, I think that might be the next best thing).  Restorationism won't work because it is a shared term with other restoration churches and is too limited in its scope.  I am at a loss. 

Hi my friend - Would you accept one slight alteration? I think Evangelical churches have Evangelicalism. That would be more accurate than Evangelism. Lots of faith groups, including the COJCOLDS have Evangelism. Just my .02 cents.

[Teancum]

8 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

blah blah blah, once again appears the false claim that we say any usage of the word Mormon is a victory for Satan.

That is not the same thing that was ACTUALLY said: 

 

Yea well it is semantics I guess. The idea is emphasized that using Mormon Church is bad and evil. And hardliners like Scott Lloyd and others here make is a litmus test now for devotion.  And the article makes that point.

8 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

 

Also

I'm pretty sure that Jana is drawing just as many battle lines herself. Seems to me that she's saying that if you complain that people aren't using the full name of the church then you're unchristlike.

Perhaps.  It is a fascinating thing to watch and with all the problems in the world to make a big fuss about saying Mormon Church seems child like. It is clear this was a pet peeve of President Nelson and now that he has the power he is going to change things up.  

[california boy]

11 hours ago, Canadiandude said:

I read that article too!

I’d be curious to know if the same members that love to correct others’ use of the term “Mormon” are also the same that adamantly refuse to use people’s preferred pronouns when the latter differs from outward appearance and Latter-day Saint dogma.

 

This is a really pet peeve of mine as well.  The Church can't use the word gay.  Church leaders and many members feel compelled to use the term Same Sex Attraction, a term that many in the gay community find offensive.  It is not some kind of disease that needs to be cured. And some of the posters that are the most adamant about not using the term Mormon are the worse at respecting how others wish to be referred to.  It reeks of hypocrisy.

[bOObOO]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Don't drive down about an hour south of my house and say that! That won't go over well at all! 🙃

Truth in general doesn't go over well at all with some people. But I appreciate your concern for my welfare and how some people will treat me if they do not like what I say or the way I say things.

[bOObOO]

3 hours ago, Peacefully said:

This was the same thing that came to my mind. Seems like a double standard. 

The standard for most people is to do what they think is right rather than what other people think is right or want them to do.  I will say flat out that I am not a "Mormon" and that it is wrong for other people to call me a "Mormon".  And I will also tell other people that I would prefer that they not call me a "Mormon", since that term is not an appropriate term for me.  I am a latter day saint, though, and it doesn't bother me when other people refer to me as one, because I am one.  And I am also a Christian as a disciple of Jesus Christ, so it doesn't bother me when people refer to me by the word Christian. I refer to everyone as what I can see that they are, and I am pretty good at seeing what people are not, so any true Mr. or Mrs. or Miss can expect me to refer to them by what I see that they are. 

Edited October 14, 2021 by bOObOO

[pogi]

6 hours ago, bOObOO said:

The standard for most people is to do what they think is right rather than what other people think is right or want them to do.  I will say flat out that I am not a "Mormon" and that it is wrong for other people to call me a "Mormon".  And I will also tell other people that I would prefer that they not call me a "Mormon", since that term is not an appropriate term for me.  I am a latter day saint, though, and it doesn't bother me when other people refer to me as one, because I am one.  And I am also a Christian as a disciple of Jesus Christ, so it doesn't bother me when people refer to me by the word Christian. I refer to everyone as what I can see that they are, and I am pretty good at seeing what people are not, so any true Mr. or Mrs. or Miss can expect me to refer to them by what I see that they are. 

Why should other people respect your preferences if you wont respect theirs?  To be identified as a Mormon, or not, is a personal preference just like gender is a personal preference.   And just like gender, preferences can change over time.  For most of the church's history they preferred to identify as Mormon.   There where also times when they didn't prefer that - and they went back and forth.  If the church was a person, some might say they are having an identity crisis with how they prefer to be identified. 

You can't "see" or know a persons gender, unless you ask them, or they tell/correct you.  Gender is not determined by phenotype or genotype.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363#sex

[bOObOO]

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

Why should other people respect your preferences if you wont respect theirs?  To be identified as a Mormon, or not, is a personal preference just like gender is a personal preference.   And just like gender, preferences can change over time.  For most of the church's history they preferred to identify as Mormon.   There where also times when they didn't prefer that - and they went back and forth.  If the church was a person, some might say they are having an identity crisis with how they prefer to be identified. 

You can't "see" or know a persons gender, unless you ask them, or they tell/correct you.  Gender is not determined by phenotype or genotype.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/232363#sex

Did you see the part where I said " I will say flat out that I am not a "Mormon" and that it is wrong for other people to call me a "Mormon". "?  I would simply prefer that people do what is right, and I think they should do what is right because it is right.

And no you are not right to say that the only way to know someone's gender is to ask them what gender they are.  That is sometimes the case, but not always, and I usually can "see" what sex/gender a person is without even looking at their private parts.

gen·der

either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.

 

Anyways, I was talking about being able to see the differences between a Mr. and a Mrs. or Miss. and refer to each appropriately based on whether that person is a he or a she.  The word gender is an example of a corrupt language.

Edited October 14, 2021 by bOObOO

[Peacefully]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

This is a really pet peeve of mine as well.  The Church can't use the word gay.  Church leaders and many members feel compelled to use the term Same Sex Attraction, a term that many in the gay community find offensive.  It is not some kind of disease that needs to be cured. And some of the posters that are the most adamant about not using the term Mormon are the worse at respecting how others wish to be referred to.  It reeks of hypocrisy.

I was also thinking of the pronouns “they” and “them” which some people prefer. I admit, it doesn’t roll trippingly off my tongue to refer to one individual with a plural pronoun but I am happy use whatever they want (see what I did there:) I wonder how many members who insist they not be called “Mormon” then chafe at using preferred pronouns for others. 
 

Btw, I do my best to use the full name of the church whenever I can. When I became a member 30 years ago there was a big push not to use the word Mormon so I never really got used to using it. I have no problem following the prophet on this. I just don’t think it should be a litmus test for righteousness. 

Edited October 15, 2021 by Peacefully

[JAHS]

19 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I was also thinking of the pronouns “they” and “them” which some people prefer. I admit, it doesn’t roll trippingly off my tongue to refer to one individual with a plural pronoun but I am happy use whatever they want (see what I did there:) I wonder how many members who insist they not be called “Mormon” then chafe at using preferred pronouns for others. 
 

Btw, I do my best to use the full name of the church whenever I can. When I became a member 30 years ago there was a big push not to use the word Mormon so I never really got used to using it. I have no problem following the prophet on this. I just don’t think it should be a litmus test for righteousness. 

I agree.  For one thing you almost always have refer to the word Mormon at some point in a conversation when talking to non-members about the church. 

[JustAnAustralian]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

 Church leaders and many members feel compelled to use the term Same Sex Attraction, a term that many in the gay community find offensive.

Psychology journals, sexuality journals, and mental health support agencies all use the term too. e.g. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14681811.2021.1949975 

Maybe the gay community should create a style guide that academia could follow.

Edited October 15, 2021 by JustAnAustralian

[Tacenda]

On 10/14/2021 at 9:15 AM, Teancum said:

 

Yea well it is semantics I guess. The idea is emphasized that using Mormon Church is bad and evil. And hardliners like Scott Lloyd and others here make is a litmus test now for devotion.  And the article makes that point.

Perhaps.  It is a fascinating thing to watch and with all the problems in the world to make a big fuss about saying Mormon Church seems child like. It is clear this was a pet peeve of President Nelson and now that he has the power he is going to change things up.  

It does seem like world problems isn't on the list.

[ksfisher]

On 10/14/2021 at 9:15 AM, Teancum said:

It is a fascinating thing to watch and with all the problems in the world to make a big fuss about saying Mormon Church seems child like.

Yet it seems like such an easy thing to fix. 

[california boy]

14 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I was also thinking of the pronouns “they” and “them” which some people prefer. I admit, it doesn’t roll trippingly off my tongue to refer to one individual with a plural pronoun but I am happy use whatever they want (see what I did there:) I wonder how many members who insist they not be called “Mormon” then chafe at using preferred pronouns for others. 
 

Btw, I do my best to use the full name of the church whenever I can. When I became a member 30 years ago there was a big push not to use the word Mormon so I never really got used to using it. I have no problem following the prophet on this. I just don’t think it should be a litmus test for righteousness. 

I also avoid using the name Mormon.  I don't let the behavior of the Church determine my behavior.  

[CA Steve]

I am a Mormon, I self identify as such.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Those claims do not contradict current or past prophetic edicts.

Edited October 15, 2021 by CA Steve

[california boy]

10 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Psychology journals, sexuality journals, and mental health support agencies all use the term too. e.g. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14681811.2021.1949975 

Maybe the gay community should create a style guide that academia could follow.

Gladd, which is the closest the LGBT community gets to some kind of organization does provide a style guide that everyone could follow if they wanted to.  This is the preferred way to refer to a  person attracted to the same sex.

 

Quote

 

Gay

The adjective used to describe people whose enduring physical, romantic, and/ or emotional attractions are to people of the same sex (e.g., gay man, gay people). Sometimes lesbian (n. or adj.) is the preferred term for women. Avoid identifying gay people as "homosexuals" an outdated term considered derogatory and offensive to many lesbian and gay people.

 

 

I didn't see anything in the article that shows support for using the term SSA or Same Sex Attraction as the preferred usage for someone who is gay.  Could you please quote what you are referring to?

From Freedom For All Americans

 

Quote

 

Avoid: “sexual preference,” “gay lifestyle” or “homosexual lifestyle,” “same-sex attractions,” “sexual identity”

Preferred: “sexual orientation” or “orientation”

The term “sexual preference” is used by anti-gay activists to suggest that being gay is a choice, and therefore can be changed or “cured.” Similarly, the term “gay lifestyle” is used to stigmatize gay people and suggest that their lives should be viewed only through a sexual lens. Just as one would not talk about a “straight lifestyle,” one shouldn’t talk about a “gay lifestyle.”

 

 

From Wikipedia

Quote

 

Some style guides recommend that the terms homosexual and homosexuality be avoided altogether, lest their use cause confusion or arouse controversy. In particular, the description of individuals as homosexual may be offensive, partially because of the negative clinical association of the word stemming from its use in describing same-sex attraction as a pathological state before homosexuality was removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders in 1973.^[1] The Associated Press and New York Times style guides restrict usage of the terms.^[2]

Same-sex oriented people seldom apply such terms to themselves, and public officials and agencies often avoid them. For instance, the Safe Schools Coalition of Washington's Glossary for School Employees advises that gay is the "preferred synonym for homosexual",^[3] and goes on to suggest avoiding the term homosexual as it is "clinical, distancing, and archaic".

However, the term homosexual and homosexuality is sometimes deemed appropriate in referring to behavior (although same-sex is the preferred adjective). Using homosexuality or homosexual to refer to behavior may be inaccurate but does not carry the same potentially offensive connotations that using homosexual to describe a person does. When referring to people, homosexual is considered derogatory and the terms gay and lesbian are preferred. Some have argued that homosexual places emphasis on sexuality over humanity, and is to be avoided when describing a person. Gay man or lesbian are the preferred nouns for referring to people, which stress cultural and social matters over sex.^[3]

 

 

Quote

 

The New Oxford American Dictionary,^[4] says that "gay" is the preferred term.

People with a same-sex sexual orientation generally prefer the terms gay, lesbian, or bisexual. The most common terms are gay (both men and women) and lesbian (women only). Other terms include same gender loving and same-sex-oriented.^[1]

Among some sectors of gay sub-culture, same-sex sexual behavior is sometimes viewed as solely for physical pleasure instead of romantic. Men on the down-low (or DL) may engage in covert sexual activity with other men while pursuing sexual and romantic relationships with women.

 

While not everyone may agree on not using SSA or Same Sex attraction, (the LGBT community is not a single entity like the Church is) it is clear that some do find the term offensive.  Shouldn't the Church error on the side of not offending?  Can you really argue that the term gay is not the most common way to refer to someone who is attracted to someone of the same sex?  Would you be offended if people used the term Brighamite to refer to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  Or would you prefer the more accepted term The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I won't have any problem with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints using the term SSA or same sex attraction as soon as the Church starts using the term OSA or Opposite Sex Attraction to refer to those that suffer from that condition as the preferred way of referring to straight people.  

 

Edited October 15, 2021 by california boy

[bOObOO]

9 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I am a Mormon, I self identify as such.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Those claims do not contradict current or past prophetic edicts.

I suspect that when you say you are a Mormon, what you mean is that you are a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Not that your name is Mormon or that you are from a planet named Mormon or that your species is Mormon.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 10/14/2021 at 12:13 AM, JustAnAustralian said:

 

I'm pretty sure that Jana is drawing just as many battle lines herself. Seems to me that she's saying that if you complain that people aren't using the full name of the church then you're unchristlike.

That’s some blatant irony right there, since He who gave the directive that the Church be called after His — and not someone else’s — name is Christ Himself. Was Christ being unChristlike? If not, then insisting that Christ’s name always be used as the identifier for His Church is, by definition, being Christlike, since it is following what Christ Himself did. 
 

And I’ve pointed this out before, but it bears repeating: Mormon himself would likely object to his own name supplanting that of the Savior as an identifier for the Church, as it was Mormon who recorded and preserved the directive from Christ. 

Edited October 15, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[JustAnAustralian]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I didn't see anything in the article that shows support for using the term SSA or Same Sex Attraction as the preferred usage for someone who is gay.  Could you please quote what you are referring to?

It doesn't. I was simply providing it as an example of use is current (submitted to the journal in December, published online last month) use in academia in a journal with a sexuality focus. A search on google also finds recent uses in the other areas I mentioned.

 

4 hours ago, california boy said:

From Wikipedia

I think you may be misinterpreting what the Wikipedia article says. It's not saying that the use of same-sex attraction should be avoided, it's saying homosexual and homosexuality should.

 

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Can you really argue that the term gay is not the most common way to refer to someone who is attracted to someone of the same sex?

In society for males sure. But I doubt it would be long before women who are attracted to women would want lesbian used too. Last time I checked the acronym people use starts with lgbt not just gbt.

 

your freedom for all Americans quote does however say to avoid it, so thank you for pointing out that one.

 

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Shouldn't the Church error on the side of not offending?

If swapping to use gay as a sanctioned catch all term for the sexual attraction between people of the same sex will lessen overall offence, then sure, but I only see that causing problems, given current society generally sees gay as referring only to males.

[Teancum]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That’s some blatant irony right there, since He who gave the directive that the Church be called after His — and not someone else’s — name is Christ Himself. Was Christ being unChristlike? If not, then insisting that Christ’s name always be used as the identifier for His Church is, by definition, being Christlike, since it is following what Christ Himself did. 
 

And I’ve pointed this out before, but it bears repeating: Mormon himself would likely object to his own name supplanting that of the Savior as an identifier for the Church, as it was Mormon who recorded and preserved the directive from Christ. 

Thank you for the fine example of what Reiss was writing about.  You fir the profile well.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Yet it seems like such an easy thing to fix. 

Indeed. 
 

It does seem like some of those who are disinclined to follow the prophet’s teaching on this point — or who resent it — make a bigger fuss over it than those who do embrace it. If it’s such a “thin” thing (as HJW called it) why rebel or complain over it? 

[Scott Lloyd]

54 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Thank you for the fine example of what Reiss was writing about.  You fir the profile well.

If you see me as failing to heed one of Riess’s diatribes, that makes me feel pretty good. Shows I’m on the right track in that thing at least. 

Edited October 15, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Canadiandude]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you see me as failing to heed one of Riess’s diatribes, that makes me feel pretty good. Shows I’m on the right track in that thing at least. 

😏 It certainly demonstrates someth’un.