Is the "Mormon" label fading?

[rongo]

Just now, the narrator said:

Currently working on a book that used the full name of the Church (including the annoying capitalized direct article--which is emphasized by the Church for it's exclusionary religious claims) three times in a paragraph with four sentences.

For "Mormonism," I use different phrasings depending on the context: "the Church and its people" "Latter-day Saint history and culture" etc. Of course, this becomes all the more difficult when discussing the larger Mormon tradition that isn't just "Latter-day Saint."

Seems that Mormonism's founding prophet and his many successors understood the wisdom of embracing "Mormonism" as an all-encompassing word.

What gets me is that the "approved" shortened versions simply don't have "Mormon" in them. They don't include the full name, or especially the name of Jesus, either. It's really the stamping out of the hated "Mormon" that is paramount, not really neglect of the name of Christ. 

I do use the official name of the Church when it makes sense to, but for references best encompassed by "Mormonism" (system of belief) or "Mormons" (as a people), the "approved" alternatives don't work well, are confusing, or come across as pretentious or offensive. I don't shy away from the Restoration at all, but insisting on "Restored Church" or "restored gospel" when talking to non-Mormons (sorry --- those who don't belong to the Church) doesn't really effectively "come across" well, or open heart and minds, in my view. 

[Robert F. Smith]

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It’s very difficult to force language to change. Racist language, for example, has become far less common because a large part of our society came to believe their use was inappropriate. But such a change in language usage requires social pressure that is, thus far, lacking in the effort to redirect the church’s name usage. .......................

Racist language is far more common today than when I was a kid back in the 1940s and 50s.  Even racists had a sense of restraint and decorum.  People tended to be far more polite then.  Of course I grew up in California.  It may have been far different in the deep South.

Anyhow, today the public use of rude and crude language is commonplace.  One cannot even ride peacefully on public transport without hearing very ugly talk, not to mention open and violent confrontation.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Robert F. Smith said:

Racist language is far more common today than when I was a kid back in the 1940s and 50s.  Even racists had a sense of restraint and decorum.  People tended to be far more polite then.  Of course I grew up in California.  It may have been far different in the deep South.

Anyhow, today the public use of rude and crude language is commonplace.  One cannot even ride peacefully on public transport without hearing very ugly talk, not to mention open and violent confrontation.

When I first got married, my wife referred to Brazil nuts as “[n-word] toes.” I was horrified (like you, I’m from California), but later I heard both her parents use racial slurs pretty routinely. Nowadays you don’t hear that stuff much. Racists, generally, have become more subtle. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

The problem is that there will always be antagonists who will continue to use the terms just to show their contempt and defiance against the church. Instead of Mormon being an identifier of the religion it will become a dirty word that will be used by those who are not just antagonists but also by those who claim we are not Christian.

Well if it obliges people to follow the directive of Christ and the prophet in this matter so as to avoid being lumped in with that lot, it’s all to the good, say I. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

When I first got married, my wife referred to Brazil nuts as “[n-word] toes.” I was horrified (like you, I’m from California), but later I heard both her parents use racial slurs pretty routinely. Nowadays you don’t hear that stuff much. Racists, generally, have become more subtle. 

Hmm. Maybe haters of the Church and its members will become more subtle. 

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hmm. Maybe haters of the Church and its members will become more subtle. 

Are you suggesting that the only people who use the word “Mormon” hate the church and its members? Yikes. 

[Amulek]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Are you suggesting that the only people who use the word “Mormon” hate the church and its members? Yikes.

Pretty sure I don't hate the church, and I still use the word regularly.

I guess that makes me like the Mormon Richard Pryor or something. I can live with that.

 

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Pretty sure I don't hate the church, and I still use the word regularly.

I guess that makes me like the Mormon Richard Pryor or something. I can live with that.

 

Well, better than the ex-Mormon Lester Maddox, like me. 😉

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Are you suggesting that the only people who use the word “Mormon” hate the church and its members? Yikes. 

Um, no. 

[Freedom]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The convenient one-word reference to Baptists, Jews, Muslims, Presbyterians, Catholics, etc., does not disrespect them at all, and they are not demanding that all references to them be to their official church names

In any case, that still does not deal with the unwieldy nature of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintism?  LDSism?"  Teancum does have a point:  What is your suggested substitute for "Mormonism"?  Moreover, calling a Jack Mormon a "Latter-day Saint" seems counterfactual.

my point is that we do not adopt a name simply to appease modern naming conventions. This is not a pet project by a single man, this is the name of the church. In a word, we are christians. Our particular sect is the name of our church. Baptists, Methodists and Catholics are not offended when they are called christians, and nor should we be. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

Currently working on a book that used the full name of the Church (including the annoying capitalized direct article--which is emphasized by the Church for it's exclusionary religious claims) three times in a paragraph with four sentences.

For "Mormonism," I use different phrasings depending on the context: "the Church and its people" "Latter-day Saint history and culture" etc. Of course, this becomes all the more difficult when discussing the larger Mormon tradition that isn't just "Latter-day Saint."

Seems that Mormonism's founding prophet and his many successors understood the wisdom of embracing "Mormonism" as an all-encompassing word.

We both know about the Mormon History Association (MHA).  I just noticed that there is an American Catholic Historical Association.  Both association names are pithy and to the point.  I can't imagine the MHA being changed to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints History Association, which sounds like an official association of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, like the so-called "Church History Library" (CHL), which clearly does not use the full name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints simply because it would be too unwieldy, even though it is an official part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Nor do we foolishly refer to  the "Tabernacle Choir of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  Instead we say "The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square."  Someone among the Brethren clearly understands that such references can go too far.

I don't mind the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being mentioned by its full, official name when scholars or news reporters first mention it in a book or article -- when it is actually the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the subject matter.  However, articles analyzing Mormon culture would best be segregated from irrelevant notions of sainthood and religion when discussing Mormon sociology or ethnicity, both of which may entail discussion of the Mormon Corridor and the historical settling of the West in a secular context.

Prolixity is not divinty.

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We both know about the Mormon History Association (MHA).  I just noticed that there is an American Catholic Historical Association.  Both association names are pithy and to the point.  I can't imagine the MHA being changed to the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints History Association, which sounds like an official association of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, like the so-called "Church History Library" (CHL), which clearly does not use the full name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints simply because it would be too unwieldy, even though it is an official part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Nor do we foolishly refer to  the "Tabernacle Choir of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  Instead we say "The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square."  Someone among the Brethren clearly understands that such references can go too far.

I don't mind the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being mentioned by its full, official name when scholars or news reporters first mention it in a book or article -- when it is actually the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the subject matter.  However, articles analyzing Mormon culture would best be segregated from irrelevant notions of sainthood and religion when discussing Mormon sociology or ethnicity, both of which may entail discussion of the Mormon Corridor and the historical settling of the West in a secular context.

Prolixity is not divinty.

I'm in agreement, and when used unofficially as well, doesn't it advertise for the Book of Mormon in a way?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

When I first got married, my wife referred to Brazil nuts as “[n-word] toes.” .......................

Strange.  I do recall hearing that term and wondering what it meant.  You just increased my vocabulary -- unfortunately.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Freedom said:

my point is that we do not adopt a name simply to appease modern naming conventions. This is not a pet project by a single man, this is the name of the church. In a word, we are christians. Our particular sect is the name of our church. Baptists, Methodists and Catholics are not offended when they are called christians, and nor should we be. 

True enough, but no one doubts that Baptists, Methodists, and Catholics consider themselves christians.  All of this may be a result of frequent doubts from others that we are in fact Christians.  And I am not certain that we want to be so mainstream.  It may have been an advantage to be distinctive and a bit odd.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

Our religion is a belief system that may be right or may be wrong and there will always be people who will believe it is not right and will fight against it.

I think it will be less conscious fighting or even criticism and more just inertia and laziness that maintains the popularity of the label.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Calm

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, JAHS said:

The problem is that there will always be antagonists who will continue to use the terms just to show their contempt and defiance against the church. Instead of Mormon being an identifier of the religion it will become a dirty word that will be used by those who are not just antagonists but also by those who claim we are not Christian.

You guys are way overthinking this.  Most people outside of Utah don't care.  Most know the church as "Mormon".  They use the term they know and that is not being an antagonists.

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well if it obliges people to follow the directive of Christ and the prophet in this matter so as to avoid being lumped in with that lot, it’s all to the good, say I. 

You just threw every prophet, leader, and church program prior to Nelson's little pet peeve under the bus.

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

You just threw every prophet, leader, and church program prior to Nelson's little pet peeve under the bus.

This is the incident and words of Christ as recorded in 3 Nephi:

 

“3 And they said unto him: Lord, we will that thou wouldst tell us the name whereby we shall call this church; for there are disputations among the people concerning this matter.
4 And the Lord said unto them: Verily, verily, I say unto you, why is it that the people should murmur and dispute because of this thing?
5 Have they not read the scriptures, which say ye must take upon you the name of Christ, which is my name? For by this name shall ye be called at the last day;
6 And whoso taketh upon him my name, and endureth to the end, the same shall be saved at the last day.
7 Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake.
8 And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.
9 Verily I say unto you, that ye are built upon my gospel; therefore ye shall call whatsoever things ye do call, in my name; therefore if ye call upon the Father, for the church, if it be in my name the Father will hear you;
10 And if it so be that the church is built upon my gospel then will the Father show forth his own works in it.“

These words were recorded by Nephite prophets and preserved by the prophet Mormon himself. What do you suppose he, Mormon, would think of President Nelson’s “little pet peeve”? Do you honestly think he, Mormon, would approve of you or anyone else calling it “the Mormon church” instead of what Christ commanded that it should be called, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”?

[mrmarklin]

The short answer is NO. 

[Rain]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The convenient one-word reference to Baptists, Jews, Muslims, Presbyterians, Catholics, etc., does not disrespect them at all, and they are not demanding that all references to them be to their official church names

In any case, that still does not deal with the unwieldy nature of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintism?  LDSism?"  Teancum does have a point:  What is your suggested substitute for "Mormonism"?  Moreover, calling a Jack Mormon a "Latter-day Saint" seems counterfactual.

I was just thinking today how often I just don't use a church name at all now because of how unwieldy it is. I was writing about a number of things happening in Arizona for a non religious world organization and was going to say something about the service missionaries. I debated on how to word it in a way that wasn't unwieldy and calling attention to us over other churches mentioned and I couldn't think of a way so I just said, "volunteers."

Then I realized that I have been doing that a lot. In not saying "Mormon" I'm not getting anything out about the church in many cases. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Rain said:

I was just thinking today how often I just don't use a church name at all now because of how unwieldy it is. I was writing about a number of things happening in Arizona for a non religious world organization and was going to say something about the service missionaries. I debated on how to word it in a way that wasn't unwieldy and calling attention to us over other churches mentioned and I couldn't think of a way so I just said, "volunteers."

Then I realized that I have been doing that a lot. In not saying "Mormon" I'm not getting anything out about the church in many cases. 

Well, that’s your own choice, isn’t it? 
 

If, as per the links in the OP, portions of the secular, neutral press is respecting the preference of the Church and its leaders in how they identify the Church, I should think a professing member of the Church who believes in hearkening to scriptural and prophetic direction ought to be able to find a way to do it. 

Edited February 25, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

I was just thinking today how often I just don't use a church name at all now because of how unwieldy it is. I was writing about a number of things happening in Arizona for a non religious world organization and was going to say something about the service missionaries. I debated on how to word it in a way that wasn't unwieldy and calling attention to us over other churches mentioned and I couldn't think of a way so I just said, "volunteers."

I'm intrigued. Do you find 'Latter-day Saint volunteers' more unwieldy than, say, 'Presbyterian volunteers'?

[JLHPROF]

57 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm intrigued. Do you find 'Latter-day Saint volunteers' more unwieldy than, say, 'Presbyterian volunteers'?

I'm curious why Latter-day Saint is preferable to Mormon.  Neither address President Nelson's concern when he started this.  Both equally leave Christ out of it.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, that’s your own choice, isn’t it? 
 

If, as per the links in the OP, portions of the secular, neutral press is respecting the preference of the Church and its leaders in how they identify the Church, I should think a professing member of the Church who believes in hearkening to scriptural and prophetic direction ought to be able to find a way to do it. 

It is my choice and natural inclination. If needed I can do it.  I'm just finding that when not needed I don't use the name like I did in the past. 

If someone were to ask what church I go to I would tell them.  If I'm telling a story or an experience I usually leave it out unless it is integral to what I am saying.

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm intrigued. Do you find 'Latter-day Saint volunteers' more unwieldy than, say, 'Presbyterian volunteers'?

Good question. I haven't found the occasion that I would use them both.  In the example I was thinking about yesterday I was thinking about 2 church buildings from other churches and our service missionaries.  One of the churches I could have said was methodist.  The other church I didn't know if they were baptist or nondenominational or what.  I just knew the name of the church - which I also was unsure about sharing for security reasons.