Is the "Mormon" label fading?

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Well the British tabloid  "The Sun" is still using it.

Which certainly says something!

For fun, I just did a Google news search:

• 'Mormon Church': 39,800 results.
• 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints': 158,000 results.

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Which certainly says something!

For fun, I just did a Google news search:

• 'Mormon Church': 39,800 results.
• 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints': 158,000 results.

How about comparing “Mormons” and”Latter-day Saints”?

I just realized that will pull up the name of the Church as well and not just speaking about members, so probably not a good comparison. 

Edited February 28, 2022 by Calm

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Which certainly says something!

For fun, I just did a Google news search:

• 'Mormon Church': 39,800 results.
• 'Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints': 158,000 results.

It would be interesting to split those searches into members searching or non members searching.  Or see if any of it is based on your own searches.

[Calm]

My numbers were 39,900 and 182,000 iirc

Just “Latter-day Saints” was 229,000 and “Mormons” was 67,700.  If one subtracts 182,000 from 229,000, one gets 47,000…however there could be overlap (there could be both the full name of the church and “Latter-day Saints” on the same page).

[sunstoned]

Here are my results"

"Mormon Church"  2,220,000 hits

"Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints"  13.102,000

 

 

 

 

Edited February 28, 2022 by sunstoned

[smac97]

On 2/26/2022 at 8:02 PM, Amulek said:

If we are using the style guide as proof of revelation, then I will happily admit that God disapproves of using the word Mormon when referring to members of the church in precisely the same way that He deplores people who discuss polygamous sects and (sinfully) fail to state that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not affiliated with polygamous groups.

Look, I'm not idiot. I understand the motivation behind the change in policy. And as I said before, I don't have a problem with the prophet setting policy - that's his prerogative. 

What bothers me, however, is how some people have taken these policy changes and treated them as if they were on par with actual revelation. And it really bothers me when they then go on to use these downstream policy changes as a litmus test for faithfulness. 

I'm sorry, but there is at least one "professedly active Church member" who thinks that is a bunch of garbage.

I made these remarks a while back (relative to the issue of same-sex marriage and how it is addressed by the Brethren) :

Quote

I think Elder Bednar's comments (previously summarized here) help provide some framework:

Quote

 

What are Doctrines, Principles & Applications?

A few days ago, I was discussing a particular study method with a friend and one step in the process was: “identifying and understanding doctrines and principles”. So as I commonly do, I asked myself “so what’s the difference between a doctrine and a principle”. The more I thought about it, I realized that I didn’t have a clear definition for either in my mind.

I decided to go back to a book that a friend gave me for Christmas called  “Act in Doctrine” by David A. Bednar. On pages xiv-xv in the Preface he defines what doctrines and principles are and then notes a third essential element: Applications. I’ve boiled down his descriptions into the following simplified versions:

• Doctrines: eternal truths revealed by God.
• Principles: doctrinally based guidelines for the exercise of agency.
• Applications: actions we take in response to doctrines and principles.

Elder Bednar points out that “Our tendency as members of the Church is to focus on applications. But as we learn to ask ourselves, ‘What doctrines and principles, if understood, would help with this challenge?’ we come to realize that the answers always are in the doctrines and principles of the gospel” (pg. xv)

Doctrines answer the question of “why” and Elder Bednar suggests that the doctrine of the Atonement explains why Jesus is our advocate with the Father. He writes that principles answer the question of “what”; some examples are repentance, baptism, service, charity, etc. Applications answer the question of “how”, and provide the specifics of how something needs to be done. While the Church does teach applications, like in the case of ordinances and administrative duties, etc., it is necessary that many applications are individually personalized to us by the Spirit.

Here's a graphic that goes along with the above article:

http://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/doctrines-principles-applications-760x488.jpg

 

 

I think the shift in naming conventions away from "Mormon" is pretty clearly in the "Applications" category.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 28, 2022 by smac97

[CA Steve]

On 2/25/2022 at 12:27 PM, bluebell said:

Yes he did.  He does not approve of it as a nickname for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or it's members.  But otherwise, such as the Book of Mormon or Historical names (Mormon Battalion, etc.), it's fine. 

To suggest that the word itself has been vilified is not correct, and it's not how Pres. Nelson explained himself.

The word has been vilified by President Nelson himself if it is used to describe members of the Mormon Church. Non members (the rest of the world), who are even aware of his request, won't make any sort of distinction between its use to describe a culture or the church itself. They are just going to hear someone saying they don't want to be called Mormons anymore.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

The word has been vilified by President Nelson himself if it is used to describe members of the Mormon Church.

Can you provide the statement that you are thinking of where Pres. Nelson talks about the use of the term mormon when referring to the members?  

Quote

Non members (the rest of the world), who are even aware of his request, won't make any sort of distinction between its use to describe a culture or the church itself. They are just going to hear someone saying they don't want to be called Mormons anymore.

For some I'm sure that's true. But not for all.

I can't speak for the non-members that you know, but I know some really awesome non-members, some on this board, who are very open to understanding this topic better and respecting members wishes.

[CA Steve]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can you provide the statement that you are thinking of where Pres. Nelson talks about the use of the term mormon when referring to the members?

I thought it made it quite clear in this statement

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.”

 

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can't speak for the non-members that you know, but I know some really awesome non-members, some on this board, who are very open to understanding this topic better and respecting members wishes.

So a few people understand the distinction. And?

[bluebell]

Just now, CA Steve said:

I thought it made it quite clear in this statement

That's someone else interpreting his statement.  I'm wondering what was his actual statement.  It could be quite clear, but until I see the statement I can't really know.

Quote

So a few people understand the distinction. And?

You're the one who brought up the whole "but the nonmembers won't know the difference...." argument, as if it was relevant in some way.  If it wasn't actually important than why bring it up?  

 

[CA Steve]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

You're the one who brought up the whole "but the nonmembers won't know the difference...." argument, as if it was relevant in some way.  If it wasn't actually important than why bring it up?  

I responded to your statement. If you have more to back it up, okay but if not...

Edited February 28, 2022 by CA Steve

[bluebell]

Just now, CA Steve said:

I responded to your statement. If you have more to back it up, oaky but if not...

I'm going to bow out now.  Feel free to have the last word.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the shift in naming conventions awy from "Mormon" is pretty clearly in the "Applications" category.  

I think this a good categorization. The church had long tried to eschew the label “Mormon Church”. What Nelson appears to have realized is that as long as the church members are called “Mormons” and the church runs media campaigns and creates movies using the label, and uses websites like Mormon.org, Mormon Newsroom etc, there is no chance the rest of the world would stop using the term “Mormon Church”. By renaming even the choir, by removing “Mormon” everywhere he can, he is actually making headway where leaders before fell short. 
 

So it’s not that calling members “Mormon” is bad outright, just that while that term is in common use, the church itself will always be the “Mormon Church”. 

[CA Steve]

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So it’s not that calling members “Mormon” is bad outright, just that while that term is in common use, the church itself will always be the “Mormon Church”. 

Somewhere a devil got his trident. 😝

[smac97]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think this a good categorization. The church had long tried to eschew the label “Mormon Church”. What Nelson appears to have realized is that as long as the church members are called “Mormons” and the church runs media campaigns and creates movies using the label, and uses websites like Mormon.org, Mormon Newsroom etc, there is no chance the rest of the world would stop using the term “Mormon Church”. By renaming even the choir, by removing “Mormon” everywhere he can, he is actually making headway where leaders before fell short. 
 

So it’s not that calling members “Mormon” is bad outright, just that while that term is in common use, the church itself will always be the “Mormon Church”. 

I also think that Pres. Oaks has a broader view than we do.  The "Mormon Church" label is mystifying to folks in many parts of the world, as "Mormon" is a transliterated-from-English neologism that means virtually nothing to huge chunks of the world's population.

By way of comparison: Consider Falun Gong.  Some people have heard of this (it figured prominently in a 2002 Law & Order episode, for example), but the name itself is just a transliteration of the Mandarin pronunciation of the movement's name as written in Chinese characters: 法輪功 (法 - "fǎ" 輪 - "lún" 功 - "gōng").  This transliteration conveys no meaning to anyone not already substantially familiar with this group and/or with Chinese.  

The same can be said for "Mormon Church," which in Chinese is translated as  摩门教会 ("Mó mén jiàohuì").  The "教会" ("jiàohuì") part means "church," so that part is easy.  But "摩门" ("Mó mén" - the transliteration of "Mormon") has no religious meaning to anyone not already substantially familiar with the Church.

In contrast, the name of the Church in Chinese, though substantially longer, explicitly identifies us as Christian: 

耶稣基督后期圣徒教会
Yēsū jīdū hòuqí shèng tú jiàohuì

• "Yēsū jīdū" = "Jesus Christ"
• "hòuqí shèng tú" = "Latter-day Saints"
• "jiàohuì" = "Church"

As a missionary in Taiwan years ago, I had many conversations with people who were surprised to find out that the Church was Christian.  I think this was due to the "Mó mén jiàohuì" nickname giving no reference to Jesus.  The formal name, however, does.

Moreover, the nickname of the Church, "Mó mén jiàohuì," has the unfortunate tendency to, when spoken, sound to the unfamiliar ear like "Church of the Devil's Gate."

摩门 - Mó mén - transliteration of "Mormon," but literally (as in, the meaning of the Chinese characters used), "rub door/gate"

魔门- Mó mén - identical-when-spoken sounds to the above "Mó mén," but the meaning of which is "magic door," or - more literally - the "devil's door."

At some point we will go into China, I hope.  And when we do we will have spent years emphasizing and reinforcing the proper name for the Church.  Interestingly, I just realized that a similar transliteration problem for the Book of Mormon has also been addressed by the Church.  When I was a missionary the Book of Mormon was: 

摩門經 (simplified: 摩门经) - "Mó' mén jīng" - "Book of Mormon" (more literally, "Mormon Scripture")

I just noticed now, however, that the title to the Book of Mormon now appears this way:

摩爾門經 (simplified: 摩尔门经) - "Mó'ěr mén jīng" - "Book of Mormon"

That second character ("爾" or, in simplified form, "尔" - "ěr") seems to offer a much more substantial clue to the untrained ear that they are hearing a transliterated word.  I think people will be far less likely to mis-hear the spoken name of the book  and infer any association of it with "魔" (the character meaning "magic" or "devil").

Here is the Book of Mormon cover I remember:

Here's the newer cover:

Four characters in the name instead of three.  A significant difference to those with experience in dealing with this issue.  And as it happens, Pres. Nelson has taught himself some Chinese.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 1, 2022 by smac97

[rongo]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Non members (the rest of the world), who are even aware of his request, won't make any sort of distinction between its use to describe a culture or the church itself. They are just going to hear someone saying they don't want to be called Mormons anymore.

I think this is the message many people take away from this, whether intended or not. A feeling that we "don't want to be called Mormons anymore." The natural reaction to this is that we are ashamed of things, or that we want people to forget about things and emphasize other things. 

I like @Amulek's distinction between the name of the Church and the term for members and adjectival descriptors (Mormon film, Mormon culture, etc.) is important. I have never referred to our church as the "Mormon Church," but I also don't get pulled into pedantic weeds if people refer to us as Mormons. 

[rongo]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

And as it happens, Pres. Nelson has taught himself some Chinese

I wonder if his attempts to speak Mandarin in China are at least partially behind his adamancy about it. "Mormon" presents particular linguistic challenges in Mandarin, as you pointed out. 

I once thought about mispronouncing Täufer (baptist) as "Taufer" (baptizer, but mispronounced) so that a Black Sea Russian family (descendants of Germans taken by Catherine the Great) who only spoke Russian and were learning German wouldn't think "Teufel" (devil). I was right --- they initially thought we said Jesus was baptized by "John the devil."   I'm sure "Book of the Gates of Hell" had to be explained a lot in Taiwan. 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

I wonder if his attempts to speak Mandarin in China are at least partially behind his adamancy about it. "Mormon" presents particular linguistic challenges in Mandarin, as you pointed out. 

I once thought about mispronouncing Täufer (baptist) as "Taufer" (baptizer, but mispronounced) so that a Black Sea Russian family (descendants of Germans taken by Catherine the Great) who only spoke Russian and were learning German wouldn't think "Teufel" (devil). I was right --- they initially thought we said Jesus was baptized by "John the devil."   I'm sure "Book of the Gates of Hell" had to be explained a lot in Taiwan. 

Well, we always had the book with us, so we could just show them the cover and they immediately understood that "Mo" did not mean "devil."

That said, I do recall an incident where I was trying to use a phrase denoting someone who had been born in China and then immigrated to Taiwan: 外生人 - Wài shēng rén - literally, "outside born person"

However, I mixed up that word with one that shared the first and third characters, but used a different second character: 外星人 - Wài xīng rén - literally, "outside star person" (that is, "space alien").

I was having a conversation with a man who had a clear Beijing accent, which was something of a rarity in Taiwan.  I meant to ask him if he was a "Wài shēng rén" (literally, "outside born person," or someone born outside of, and then moved to, Taiwan).  Instead, I asked him if he was a "Wài xīng rén" (a space alien).  He was . . . confused at my question, so I repeated it.  Twice.  He then broke into English and asked what in the world I was trying to ask him.

We got it sorted out and had a good laugh.  I was pretty embarrassed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What Nelson appears to have realized is that as long as the church members are called “Mormons” and the church runs media campaigns and creates movies using the label, and uses websites like Mormon.org, Mormon Newsroom etc, there is no chance the rest of the world would stop using the term “Mormon Church”. By renaming even the choir, by removing “Mormon” everywhere he can, he is actually making headway where leaders before fell short.

An insightful post. Thanks!

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I also think that Pres. Oaks has a broader view than we do.  The "Mormon Church" label is mystifying to folks in many parts of the world, as "Mormon" is a transliterated-from-English neologism that means virtually nothing to huge chunks of the world's population ...

The same can be said for "Mormon Church," which in Chinese is translated as  摩门教会 ("Mó mén jiàohuì").  The "教会" ("jiàohuì") part means "church," so that part is easy.  But "摩门" ("Mó mén" - the transliteration of "Mormon") has no religious meaning to anyone not already substantially familiar with the Church.

Sometimes it's easier to see clearly outside of one's own language/culture. The point you make here in a Chinese context is actually true in English as well: The word Mormon 'has no religious meaning to anyone not already substantially familiar with the Church'. It literally tells people zero about us.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

As long as I live, and the term “Mormon” remains, I will first tell others I am a “Latter-day Saints”.  Then when the confusion comes, as it will always does, I will call myself a “Mormon”. Just as members have done for almost two centuries, and did not feel unashamed. I did so for 40 years before it became unfashionable. Just as the “Mormon Tabernacle Choir”, did for almost two centuries as well. I doubt this was a classic revelation from the heavens, calling The Church to repentance, only to call ourselves, “Latter-day Saints”, which brings attention to the proper name of the Church. But the term “Mormon”, is so synonyms to our Faith, few fail to understand the Church we are speaking about. President Nelson has spoken many times of this issue, it has alway been an very important issue upon which he speaks. Therefore, it is not, not uncommon for him to address this once he became President of the Church. .Just go back decades, since he became an Apostle, to find many sermons he has given on this topic, or point of doctrine. This has always been an issue and favorite topic of his, and he has given many sermons on this topic. I think that once he became President of the Church, he was finally able to make changes to this policy. Also, the word “Mormon”, is such a part of our Faith (our lexicon) we have the “Book of Mormon”. Also within this book of scripture, we have a “Book of Mormon”, not to meantion, we teach our children that “Mormon”, translated the book, and was a great (epic)  hero. I wonder if the (word and name ) “Mormon”, will ever fade. 
 

I have spoken of this topic before, and sadly upsetting some of our younger members here on this website. I have even encountered those who have rejoiced at more focus on the entire name of the Church, while not calling it the “Mormon Church” so often.. Posting (or implying) that this change would bring us (again) more toward Christianity) which is silly. We have always and continue to be Christian! Others who suggest that the label (or name) “Mormon”,, is somehow unchristian. A word this website still uses thankfully, while other websites could not get rid of it fast enough, as if it was a really horrible word. In fact, it seemed like a race to the bottom for many pro-LDS websites, to rid themselves of the word, “Mormon”, something I still struggle to understand. Some of these websites dropped the name “Mormon”, by nightfall of the final session of General Conference, again as if Conferences talks suggested it was a bad word, almost profane! Not to mention, we were not commanded to never use the term again.. Not to mention the many, especially the last three Prophets, whom , President Nelson, served under (if memory serves). In many sermons promoting the term, “Mormon”, where President Hinckley, (I think so).he created a campaign to elevate the “word and name”, “Mormon”. It was not uncommon for President Benson to break out into song, singing  “I am a Mormon Boy”, if I remember correctly it the song. However doing so would erase much f our history, and the many sermons by, President’s Taft, Hinckley, about Monson, not speaking “Profitcfally”, are moved by the Holy Sprint, during these sermons, or during these campaigns to promote and available the name of “Mormon”? What would happen if an Evangelical Pastor, suddenly told his congregation to stop speaking if, or elevating the names of “John, Peter, or the Apostle Paul. Or praising their holy  change names. My fear is that due to this policy, is why we barely hear the name of the Prophet Joseph Smith anymore, and seldom hear of his sermons, or praise of his  Latter-day actions anymore. A few weeks ago, our youth, which included 4 of my granddaughters to the, “Joseph Standing Monument”, of a missionary who was murdered here In Georgia, not far from my home in the 1800’s. 

So to end this long post, although I identify as a “Latter-day Saint”, and as a Christian”, I will always continue to identify as a proud, a very proud (according to scripture, as humbling suggest as I can), “as thankfully as I can), as a Mormon”. For I am not, nor ever will I be, ashamed of who 
 

May God bless, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, his latter day Kingdom upon the earth, and those who love and support her. Also for all of us old timers, who still call ourselves “Mormons”, and will to the grave. 
 

Sadly my battery is dying, and no time to edit right now. Maybe tomorrow I can edit. So please forgive any errors, I know there are also so ,any errors, but is fear this post there will be so many. Again, forgive! 
 

Forgive me my dear brothers and sisters! 

[Peacefully]

On 2/28/2022 at 1:37 PM, smac97 said:

Well, we always had the book with us, so we could just show them the cover and they immediately understood that "Mo" did not mean "devil."

That said, I do recall an incident where I was trying to use a phrase denoting someone who had been born in China and then immigrated to Taiwan: 外生人 - Wài shēng rén - literally, "outside born person"

However, I mixed up that word with one that shared the first and third characters, but used a different second character: 外星人 - Wài xīng rén - literally, "outside star person" (that is, "space alien").

I was having a conversation with a man who had a clear Beijing accent, which was something of a rarity in Taiwan.  I meant to ask him if he was a "Wài shēng rén" (literally, "outside born person," or someone born outside of, and then moved to, Taiwan).  Instead, I asked him if he was a "Wài xīng rén" (a space alien).  He was . . . confused at my question, so I repeated it.  Twice.  He then broke into English and asked what in the world I was trying to ask him.

We got it sorted out and had a good laugh.  I was pretty embarrassed.

Thanks,

-Smac

That is a great story:)

[mrmarklin]

Are Catholics less Christian for being Catholic?  Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, etc??  

Mormon are not less Christian for being known as Mormons.  Just saying......................🤫

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

Mormon are not less Christian for being known as Mormons.  Just saying.

True, but they may be less well known as Christian…which can affect persecution.  When we were in Russia, many Russians though we were into black magic and pagan practices.  There was some confusion also apparently over what “Elder” meant (sorcerer/ pagan priest)…but that is according to several young missionaries we meant, so not sure if true.  They may have misunderstood.

Edited March 5, 2022 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

On 2/27/2022 at 10:05 PM, smac97 said:

I made these remarks a while back (relative to the issue of same-sex marriage and how it is addressed by the Brethren) :

I think the shift in naming conventions away from "Mormon" is pretty clearly in the "Applications" category.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Not sure I fully understand. 
 

Does assigning President Nelson’s course correction to the “‘Applications’ category” make it less divinely inspired — and consequently less binding on the Latter-day Saints —  than if it had been assigned to one of the other categories you highlighted with the Bednar quote?

I don’t mean to put words in your mouth. Just trying to read between the lines and understand implications. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/3/2022 at 4:43 PM, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

As long as I live, and the term “Mormon” remains, I will first tell others I am a “Latter-day Saints”.  Then when the confusion comes, as it will always does, I will call myself a “Mormon”. Just as members have done for almost two centuries, and did not feel unashamed. I did so for 40 years before it became unfashionable.

I think we need to beware of marginalizing an inspired “course correction” from a prophet of God as a matter of fashion. 
 

President Nelson’s guidance and direction in this matter has been challenging to all of us, some more than others. I myself have had to alter my speech and writing accordingly. Under the circumstances, I’m more than willing to do so.