Jump to content

The name of the Church is not negotiable


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, 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. 

@Amulek made the point a while ago that there is no suitable, workable term for "Mormonism" (system of beliefs and culture) and "Mormons" (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). We noticed that even Elder Anderson in his talk immediately switched to "Latter-day Saints" to refer to members. 

It's a conscious effort to stamp out any use of or reference to "Mormon," but the replacement terms exclude reference to Jesus Christ just as much as the hated "Mormon" does. And, ironically, we have D&C 107 saying that the Melchizedek priesthood isn't called "The Priesthood after the order of the Son of God" to avoid too frequent mention of Him . . . 

I use the full name of the Church whenever possible, but I also use whatever term is most natural and non-awkward in real time communication with real people. I get the feeling that the "anti-Mormon-usage" people don't talk to non-members about the Church very often, if at all. This includes general authorities, whose anecdotes (Elder Nash excepted :) ) usually involve high-profile, exotic guests of state --- not normal, everyday people. 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, rongo said:

And, ironically, we have D&C 107 saying that the Melchizedek priesthood isn't called "The Priesthood after the order of the Son of God" to avoid too frequent mention of Him . . . 

But we don't know what was going on in that society at the time that prompted the change.  The necessary context is lacking for a complete understanding of the issue in that day.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, 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. 

You’ve laid out the problem quite well. 
 

We may have to be content with using Latter-day Saint (spelled out, not abbreviated) as a modifier for whatever it is we’re talking about: I.e. Latter-day Saint culture, Latter-day Saint milieu, Latter-day Saint beliefs, Latter-day Saint doctrine, etc. 

I for one can live with that. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
15 hours ago, JAHS said:

This can be a hard thing to do for members who have established other Church related websites whose domain name includes the words Mormon or LDS (like Mormondialogue 😉)

 

Clearly the name of this discussion board is a victory for Satan.  😋

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, rongo said:

@Amulek made the point a while ago that there is no suitable, workable term for "Mormonism" (system of beliefs and culture) and "Mormons" (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). We noticed that even Elder Anderson in his talk immediately switched to "Latter-day Saints" to refer to members. 

Latter-day Saint was deemed appropriate in reference to members.  That is indeed what the Lord called us as noted in the official name of the church - The church of Jesus Christ (not us) of Latter-day Saints (us).   I personally have no problem replacing Mormon, with Latter-day Saint.  Mormonism, on the other hand...  I don't see this one slipping away into history anytime soon unless an adequate replacement is culturally adopted or officially sanctioned. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I don't remember it that way.  What I remember is a lot of support for the term.  Including GBH giving a talk about Mormon being "more good".  The TSM's multi million and multi year I am a Mormon campaign.  

President Hinckley must have been a false prophet. Monson as well. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You’ve laid out the problem quite well. 
 

We may have to be content with using Latter-day Saint (spelled out, not abbreviated) as a modifier for whatever it is we’re talking about: I.e. Latter-day Saint culture, Latter-day Saint milieu, Latter-day Saint beliefs, Latter-day Saint doctrine, etc. 

I for one can live with that. 

But that doesn't use or reference Jesus Christ just as much as "Mormon" . . . How is Latter-day Saint really better?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, rongo said:

I get the feeling that the "anti-Mormon-usage" people don't talk to non-members about the Church very often, if at all. This includes general authorities, whose anecdotes (Elder Nash excepted :) ) usually involve high-profile, exotic guests of state --- not normal, everyday people. 

Hmm. Another manifestation of the attitude that the Brethren live in an insular, cloistered bubble and don’t grasp the real-world problems of the members. 
 

I don’t buy that. I think their work as Church leaders (and rich experience having come up through the ranks as local Church leaders and having been involved in former professional occupations) has taken them out among the people sufficiently that they grasp our circumstances quite well. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

With all the trouble in the world spending 20 minutes on such a topic seems infantile.

This is what some mean when they refer to being focused on the "thick of thin things". ;) 

 

And I'll just note, that saying the name of the church is non-negotiable,  I would just add "anymore" to that phrase. The name of the church has changed many times and apparently God survived.

On the upside, maybe this is putting the issue to bed and it won't need to be spoken of again...ever. That is my hope. At least until some future prophet chooses to harken back to the good

'ole days of Mormonism.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is what some mean when they refer to being focused on the "thick of thin things". ;) 

 

And I'll just note, that saying the name of the church is non-negotiable,  I would just add "anymore" to that phrase. The name of the church has changed many times and apparently God survived.

On the upside, maybe this is putting the issue to bed and it won't need to be spoken of again...ever. That is my hope. At least until some future prophet chooses to harken back to the good

'ole days of Mormonism.

Apparently Jesus Christ didn’t think it was a “thin thing” that His Church be called in His name. (See 3 Nephi)
 

You say the name of the Church has been changed “many times.” I can think of maybe two times. Is twice “many”?

And how long since the last change was made? It was well within the relatively short lifetime of the Prophet Joseph Smith. It has remained constant since then. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hmm. Another manifestation of the attitude that the Brethren live in an insular, cloistered bubble and don’t grasp the real-world problems of the members. 

I don’t buy that. I think their work as Church leaders (and rich experience having come up through the ranks as local Church leaders and having been involved in former professional occupations) has taken them out among the people sufficiently that they grasp our circumstances quite well. 

1) Where do the Brethren live?

2) How long have they lived there?

2a) Who are their neighbors?

3) What does their weekly schedule look like?

4) What do their weekends look like?

5) How long have their weeks/weekends looked like this?

6) How many fly first class vs. coach? 

I'm not saying they're completely out of the loop, but for most of the Q12 and FP, they haven't even had to sit through a Sunday School or quorum lesson for decades, with a few exceptions. Their day-to-day opportunities for gospel conversations with normal people and not dignitaries or at a stake conference are not the same as they are for, say, a school teacher or a construction worker or a company employee somewhere. And haven't been for many years. 

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yeah that was pretty remarkable. 
 

Although I have some recollection that the request went out that the holders of such domain names free them up. It does not surprise me that faithful Church members would comply. 

Or see profit potential 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, rongo said:

1) Where do the Brethren live?

2) How long have they lived there?

2a) Who are their neighbors?

3) What does their weekly schedule look like?

4) What do their weekends look like?

5) How long have their weeks/weekends looked like this?

6) How many fly first class vs. coach? 

I'm not saying they're completely out of the loop, but for most of the Q12 and FP, they haven't even had to sit through a Sunday School or quorum lesson for decades, with a few exceptions. Their day-to-day opportunities for gospel conversations with normal people and not dignitaries or at a stake conference are not the same as they are for, say, a school teacher or a construction worker or a company employee somewhere. And haven't been for many years. 

I guarantee that the brethren spend FAR more time discussing our church with non-members than most of us do.  They leave behind their regular work and lives and devote their lives to full-time church service with one major role being to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world.  Many have served in foreign countries while apostles.  I remember Elder Oaks serving in the Philippines, and Elder Holland in Chile for a year.  I highly doubt they were rubbing shoulders with dignitaries the whole time they were there.   I don't see why it would make a difference if they are "dignitaries" or not though.  The gospel is the gospel.  It is just as convenient to use "Mormon" in discussing our beliefs with dignitaries as it is with the average Joe.  It is equally convenient to use the same terminology with members as it is with non-members.   It is equally inconvenient to use the whole name of the Church - something I guarantee that they have to do far more than any of us.   This idea that they can't relate with how inconvenient it is to use the whole name of the church or refer to it's members as Latter-day Saints instead of "Mormons" has no bearing.  

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apparently Jesus Christ didn’t think it was a “thin thing” that His Church be called in His name. (See 3 Nephi)
 

You say the name of the Church has been changed “many times.” I can think of maybe two times. Is twice “many”?

And how long since the last change was made? It was well within the relatively short lifetime of the Prophet Joseph Smith. It has remained constant since then. 

Leaving out all of the "to Mormon or Not to Mormon" business- here is the info about the non-negotiable church name.

But you have a point. "Many" is a bit of a subjective term.

 

Quote

 

Name of the Church.

  • The Church of Christ (1829–1834) Even before the Church was organized, Oliver Cowdery followed Book of Mormon precedent in proposing “the Church of ...
  • The Church of the Latter Day Saints (1834–1838)
  • The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (1838–1851)
  • The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1851–present)

Name of the Church (churchofjesuschrist.org)

 

 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Leaving out all of the "to Mormon or Not to Mormon" business- here is the info about the non-negotiable church name.

But you have a point. "Many" is a bit of a subjective term.

 

 

So … 

if we discount the last item on your list, in which there was no real change to speak of, just a stylistic adjustment involving the insertion of a hyphen and the conversion of one letter from upper- to lower case, there have been only two real instances of a change in the name of the Church, both of which occurred within the lifetime of Joseph Smith, the Prophet. Thank you for  confirming my recollection. 
 

I thank you also for eliciting from me a hearty chuckle as I viewed your simultaneous overstatement and understatement, wherein you applied the term “many” to the number two, at the same time conceding that such an application of that term is “subjective.”

This is the first time in my life when I have seen two characterized as “many” and such characterization denoted as “subjective” rather than what it plainly is: incorrect.  
 

Congratulations for being instrumental in what for me is a new experience. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So … 

if we discount the last item on your list, in which there was no real change to speak of, just a stylistic adjustment involving the insertion of a hyphen and the conversion of one letter from upper- to lower case, there have been only two real instances of a change in the name of the Church, both of which occurred within the lifetime of Joseph Smith, the Prophet. Thank you for  confirming my memory. 
 

I thank you also for eliciting from me a hearty chuckle as I viewed your simultaneous overstatement and understatement, wherein you applied the term “many” to the number two, at the same time conceding that such an application of that term is “subjective.”

This is the first time in my life when I have seen two characterized as “many” and such characterization denoted as “subjective” rather than what it plainly is: incorrect.  
 

Congratulations for being instrumental in what for me is a new experience. 

I'm glad you got a chuckle out of that. Sincerely. 

So I'm taking it from your comment that you don't consider the official name of the church changing the 3rd time (from the original name- that means the church was officially named 4 separate times), to be a significant event since it was a matter of a hyphen and a lower-case letter. But in the past you pointed out errors to spelling or punctuation or syntax by people on this board as if such things matter. BUT I will concede that a hyphen and a lower case letter really seems like another instance of the thick of thin things becoming important in the church. So perhaps we agree ;) 

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm glad you got a chuckle out of that. Sincerely. 

So I'm taking it from your comment that you don't consider the official name of the church changing the 3rd time (from the original name- that means the church was officially named 4 separate times), to be a significant event since it was a matter of a hyphen and a lower-case letter. But in the past you pointed out errors to spelling or punctuation or syntax by people on this board as if such things matter. BUT I will concede that a hyphen and a lower case letter really seems like another instance of the thick of thin things becoming important in the church. So perhaps we agree ;) 

No. According to your link there were only two changes.
 

Initial name: Church of Christ 

Change #1: Church of the Latter Day Saints. 
 

Change#2: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

That’s only two changes, not three. Two does not qualify as “many,” as I’m sure you realize, though it pains you to admit it. 
 

In the remaining instance, adding a hyphen and changing a letter from upper case to lower case does not count, as it is merely a stylistic adjustment to the existing name. 

Link to comment

I don’t know if other members’ experiences mirror my own, but the emphasis on the name now is an intelligent response imo as I have run into a number who thought the Church was nonChristian (labeled heathen by some in Russia), even in Canada (an Orthodox priest walked into the church bookstore—privately owned—and saw all the pictures of Christ on the wall and had to ask me if we believed in him, pointing to all the pictures, I could see the wheels turning as he was making the adjustment; others at school and elsewhere asked if we were Christians and not as in just “a different Jesus”).  

Missionaries in Russia told us Russians often thought they were sorcerers and spat on them and made the sign to avert the evil eye as they walked past.  The Russians had a strange mix of atheist and superstitious folk lore beliefs at times.  A very educated professor assumed my daughter and I were casting a spell when we were practicing “As I have loved thee” in ASL for the Primary program while waiting for a bus; I was offered a red string to tie around my head for a headache by an upper class businesswoman.  

 I believe Lebed might have included our faith as one of the three that should be expelled as foreign because he understood it to be nonChristian as he paired it with other nonChristian groups. He later sort of apologized, so if that was the reason it was likely corrected.  One Russian suggested Lebed confused us with the Masons.  The guy was a full out racist, so being trashed by him is almost a badge of honor…but whatever he thought we were, being known as “Mormons” created unnecessary  confusion imo for him and many other Russians. 

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-07-19-mn-25727-story.html

https://www.deseret.com/1996/7/1/19251996/lebed-s-statement-worrisome


I think using “Latter-day Saint” conveys the information we are Christian as many associate “Saint” with Christianity as well as “saint” being used to describe a member of the Christian community in the New Testament. 
 

I do believe in the past doors were closed because they didn’t understand we were Christian in many places if Russia was typical in that regard.  The “I’m a Mormon” campaign was, imo, one way to lead others to become more familiar with us as a people, a very good approach that capitalized on connecting our personal identities with what was already known. Moving on to create a better understanding of who/what we are now many are more aware of us seems to me a very logical next step. 
 

I summarize it as a two part approach, first “look at us, we are your neighbours” (I’m a Mormon) and then “now you know who we are, this is what we are” (setting aside the Mormon label so more become aware we are Christian).

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I summarize it as a two part approach, first “look at us” (I’m a Mormon) and then “now you know us, this is who we are” (setting aside the Mormon label).

I agree and think this is a smart way to look at it. 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...