Is the "Mormon" label fading?

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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?

No.  

By way of analogy, consider a the decisions made by a judge during the course of a lawsuit.  He is, obviously, obligated to follow "the law," meaning the Constitution, state and federal statutes, court procedural rules, evidentiary rules, and so on.  Notwithstanding all these laws, judges are still invested with, and still regularly utilize, "discretionary authority" on all sorts of things.  A judge may, for example, be asked to set aside judgment previously entered against a defendant on procedural grounds.  Such a decision is often quite fact-dependent, such that the appellate courts reviewing the court's decision to set aside (or not) will almost always defer to the trial court's discretionary authority.  That the judge has discretionary authority to make decisions about X, Y or Z does not mean that such decisions are - as you put it - "less binding on" the litigants.

Pres. Nelson has called on us to drop the nickname "Mormon" and refer to the Church and its members by the Church's actual name and its derivatives.  I think this decision falls into the "Applications" category of the following:

Per Elder Bednar's framework, a "principle" "arise{s} from doctrines and do not change" and "are not specific behaviors or actions."  Such "specific behaviors or actions," like particularized emphasis on using the proper name of the Church, is both A) downstream from "doctrines" and "principles," and B) accurately characterized as "{a}ctual behaviors, actions, steps or practices."

I don't think the Brethren characterize each and every "Application" as revelatory.  I would think that a lot of the things the Brethren ask us to do are derived from "Doctrines," "Principles" and the best efforts, learning, observation, experience, input and so on.  This accords with D&C 58:

Quote

26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

That said, there are clearly instances when the Lord specifically commands in some things, and I think that can and does include some (but not all) "Applications."  

The Brethren have the keys, the power and authority, to direct the operations and functions of the Church.  I think the Latter-day Saints are generally obligated to adhere to their counsel.  That counsel may be directly revelatory or else derivative based on the Brethren's "discretionary authority" (while still being an "application" based on a "principle" derived from "doctrines").

Absent some great and legitimate moral quandary where the Brethren ask us to do something that plainly contravenes the precepts of the Restored Gospel, I think it's our job to listen to their counsel, confirm for ourselves, and then follow it to the best of our ability.

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Hope the above helps.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

I pointed out that I always refer to myself first as a “Latter-day Saint”, as he has instructed. But, so many have no idea what that is, so then I tell them I am a Mormon. Also, this has been a favorite topic of his for a very long time. 

[Tacenda]

I wonder how far back Pres Nelson started to speak about using the label Mormon and it needing to change. Could it be possible that it was around the time podcasts or discussion boards that weren't favorable to the church had Mormon in the title and the problems with members learning of things and causing them to question? If it was before the internet age, then this hypothesis doesn't cut the mustard.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  

By way of analogy, consider a the decisions made by a judge during the course of a lawsuit.  He is, obviously, obligated to follow "the law," meaning the Constitution, state and federal statutes, court procedural rules, evidentiary rules, and so on.  Notwithstanding all these laws, judges are still invested with, and still regularly utilize, "discretionary authority" on all sorts of things.  A judge may, for example, be asked to set aside judgment previously entered against a defendant on procedural grounds.  Such a decision is often quite fact-dependent, such that the appellate courts reviewing the court's decision to set aside (or not) will almost always defer to the trial court's discretionary authority.  That the judge has discretionary authority to make decisions about X, Y or Z does not mean that such decisions are - as you put it - "less binding on" the litigants.

Pres. Nelson has called on us to drop the nickname "Mormon" and refer to the Church and its members by the Church's actual name and its derivatives.  I think this decision falls into the "Applications" category of the following:

Per Elder Bednar's framework, a "principle" "arise{s} from doctrines and do not change" and "are not specific behaviors or actions."  Such "specific behaviors or actions," like particularized emphasis on using the proper name of the Church, is both A) downstream from "doctrines" and "principles," and B) accurately characterized as "{a}ctual behaviors, actions, steps or practices."

I don't think the Brethren characterize each and every "Application" as revelatory.  I would think that a lot of the things the Brethren ask us to do are derived from "Doctrines," "Principles" and the best efforts, learning, observation, experience, input and so on.  This accords with D&C 58:

That said, there are clearly instances when the Lord specifically commands in some things, and I think that can and does include some (but not all) "Applications."  

The Brethren have the keys, the power and authority, to direct the operations and functions of the Church.  I think the Latter-day Saints are generally obligated to adhere to their counsel.  That counsel may be directly revelatory or else derivative based on the Brethren's "discretionary authority" (while still being an "application" based on a "principle" derived from "doctrines").

Absent some great and legitimate moral quandary where the Brethren ask us to do something that plainly contravenes the precepts of the Restored Gospel, I think it's our job to listen to their counsel, confirm for ourselves, and then follow it to the best of our ability.

Hope the above helps.

Thanks,

-Smac

Indeed it does. Thanks. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder how far back Pres Nelson started to speak about using the label Mormon and it needing to change. Could it be possible that it was around the time podcasts or discussion boards that weren't favorable to the church had Mormon in the title and the problems with members learning of things and causing them to question? If it was before the internet age, then this hypothesis doesn't cut the mustard.

 

The direction not to call it “the Mormon Church” has been in place for many years, and President Nelson is not the only one to have spoken on it. President M. Russell Ballard, for one, has done so multiple times. 
 

The direction that members not call themselves Mormons or use the initialism LDS is new with President Nelson’s presidency. 
 

[JustAnAustralian]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder how far back Pres Nelson started to speak about using the label Mormon and it needing to change.

In 1990 "“Thus Shall My Church Be Called” - April General conference

Quote

Note carefully the language of the Lord. He did not say, “Thus shall my church be named.” He said, “Thus shall my church be called.” Years ago, its members were cautioned by the Brethren who wrote: “We feel that some may be misled by the too frequent use of the term ‘Mormon Church.’” (Member-Missionary Class—Instructor’s Guide, Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1982, p. 2.) Before any other name is considered to be a legitimate substitute, the thoughtful person might reverently consider the feelings of the Heavenly Parent who bestowed that name.

Again in the Oct 1993 General conference "Combatting Spiritual Drift—Our Global Pandemic"

Quote

In that spirit, and as done so well by previous speakers, I would like to speak of the organization I represent. I would like to speak of the institution and of the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sometimes known as the “Mormon” church. That is not its correct name, as many of you may know; it is only a nickname—derived from our belief in the Book of Mormon, to which I will refer later.

But as Scott has said, it goes back well before RMN

Oct 1945 general conference, closing address, George Albert Smith

Quote

I would like to suggest to you, my brothers and sisters, that we honor the name of the Church. It is not the church of James and John, it is not the church of Moroni, nor is it the church of Mormon. It is the Church of Jesus Christ. And while all these men were wonderful and notable characters, we have been directed to worship God in a church that bears the name of his Beloved Son. I wish that our young people as they grow up would keep that fact in mind. We have become so accustomed to being called the Mormon Church by all our friends and neighbors throughout the world, that many people do not know the proper name of the Church, and I think the Lord would expect us to let them know that.

1948 April GAS "Keep the Commandments"

Quote

Don't let the Lord down by calling this the Mormon Church. He didn't call it the Mormon Church. It is all right for us to believe in the Book of Mormon. He expects us to do that but he told us what to call this Church. 

1950 Oct GAS "It Becometh Us to Fulfil All Righteousness"

Quote

I remember I have had many people say to me, "Why, you people do not even believe in Jesus Christ."

I have said, "What is the matter with you? If we do not believe in Jesus Christ, why do we call the Church, the Church of Jesus Christ?"

"Oh, I didn't know you called it that, I thought it was called the Mormon Church," they have replied.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 2/25/2022 at 11:11 AM, JLHPROF said:

I mean, beards were cool until President McKay.  Mormon was cool for President Monson but not for President Nelson.  President Nelson emphasized the name of the Church back in 1990.  Now 30 years on he set policy.

What do you mean it was “cool for President Monson”? Throughout his presidency and before, the Church position and the teaching of the Brethren has been to ask us not to use the term “Mormon Church.”  And they were apparently united on that. 
 

What has changed under President Nelson is a discontinuance of the term “Mormon” or “Mormons” as a name for members of the Church or as a descriptor in, for example, “Mormon Tabernacle Choir.” 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

Does the church use, "of Latter Day Saints", as much. Seems they leave that out sometimes on websites.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Tacenda

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Does the church use, "of Latter Day Saints", as much. Seems they leave that out sometimes on websites.

It’s still very much a part of the name (with Latter-day being hyphenated and the d being lower case) but the instruction has long been that Church of Jesus Christ is OK as a shortened form on second reference or when context makes clear what is being referred to. 
 
The initialism “LDS” is not OK. 

 

[SwedishLDS]

It will take a long time for the mormon label to fade, but I have seen a change in youtube videos and articles, as well as a slight change when I talk to people. I think it has some merit when talking to others to not get stuck on the mormon part and emphasise christ, but I think another big effect has been helping members remember to focus on Christ. I have certainly seen this help my mother, as well as some members in my ward. We are not Mormons, we are followers of Christ, we are not mormonites.

These days, I just say I am a member of the church of jesus christ and what I believe and let the person I am speaking to figure out the rest. I find that to be more effective and helpful than getting into the label war immediately, and then they can connect the dots.

Edited March 21, 2022 by SwedishLDS

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s still very much a part of the name (with Latter-day being hyphenated and the d being lower case) but the instruction has long been that Church of Jesus Christ is OK as a shortened form on second reference or when context makes clear what is being referred to. 
 
The initialism “LDS” is not OK. 

 

That is my go to from day one to say "LDS", going to have to figure out another way. Sorry I forgot it's lower case d and hyphenated. But why isn't LDS better than Mormon? Which like I said, I've used since I've been a member at eight years old. It might be a geographical thing. 

ETA: Scott, I was just on my LDS tools. How come it's okay that it's LDS.org still, and also, when looking at the insignia, it's not lower case d in the name, it's upper case. So they must alternate them.

 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Tacenda

[JLHPROF]

12 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What do you mean it was “cool for President Monson”? Throughout his presidency and before, the Church position and the teaching of the Brethren has been to ask us not to use the term “Mormon Church.”  And they were apparently united on that. 

What has changed under President Nelson is a discontinuance of the term “Mormon” or “Mormons” as a name for members of the Church or as a descriptor in, for example, “Mormon Tabernacle Choir.” 

Really Scott?
When I say "Mormon" was cool for President Monson you know exactly what I am referring to.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_a_Mormon

President Nelson I very much doubt was united on that particular campaign.  At least personally.  I'm sure that they agreed as a governing body on the campaign at the time but it promptly ended when President Nelson became the head.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

But why isn't LDS better than Mormon?

Quoting myself: 'The word Mormon "has no religious meaning to anyone not already substantially familiar with the Church". It literally tells people zero about us'. The exact same thing could be said of the initialism LDS. It communicates nothing to people who aren't already part of a very small in-group.

Quote

Scott, I was just on my LDS tools. How come it's okay that it's LDS.org still?

The app is actually called 'Member Tools'. And if you type in lds.org, it still works by redirecting you to churchofjesuschrist.org. Look in the address bar.

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It promptly ended when President Nelson became the head.

And thank goodness for that! The whole thing freaked me out.

I dutifully created a profile for the website and then tried to figure out how to remove 'And I'm a Mormon' from the end. It wouldn't let me. I've never called myself that. Ever. And so my contribution felt completely inauthentic.

I feel confident that we learnt some important things from piloting that marketing campaign.

 

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And thank goodness for that! The whole thing freaked me out.

I dutifully created a profile for the website and then tried to figure out how to remove 'And I'm a Mormon' from the end. It wouldn't let me. I've never called myself that. Ever. And so my contribution felt completely inauthentic.

I feel confident that we learnt some important things from piloting that marketing campaign.

 

I hated the double standard of that campaign.  It celebrated all of the "odd" members (tattoos, long beards, piercings) in public but behind chapel doors the message was that we all needed to look generally the same, without any of those things, to be true followers of Christ.

It annoyed me.

[Hamba Tuhan]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I hated the double standard of that campaign.  It celebrated all of the "odd" members (tattoos, long beards, piercings) in public but behind chapel doors the message was that we all needed to look generally the same, without any of those things, to be true followers of Christ.

That too. Though I was hopeful throughout that Church leaders were striving to help some of us become less judgemental. I was serving with the stake presidency when we were asked to nominate people for local television spots, and the letter we received from the area presidency included a 'gentle reminder' that the Church has all kinds of members, and we shouldn't go for a certain look. I especially liked that it mentioned that facial hair is A-OK!  There was a counsellor in the stake presidency at the time who would tell me to my face that my beard made me unworthy for my calling!

Mercifully, we're mostly pretty good in these parts. Plenty of tattoos and beards in my ward, and a few noticeable piercings. One of our ward members comes to church all in black, including platform boots and a cape-like overcoat, and he dyes his hair black as well. Everyone just loves him.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That too. Though I was hopeful throughout that Church leaders were striving to help some of us become less judgemental. I was serving with the stake presidency when we were asked to nominate people for local television spots, and the letter we received from the area presidency included a 'gentle reminder' that the Church has all kinds of members, and we shouldn't go for a certain look. I especially liked that it mentioned that facial hair is A-OK!  There was a counsellor in the stake presidency at the time who would tell me to my face that my beard made me unworthy for my calling!

Mercifully, we're mostly pretty good in these parts. Plenty of tattoos and beards in my ward, and a few noticeable piercings. One of our ward members comes to church all in black, including platform boots and a cape-like overcoat, and he dyes his hair black as well. Everyone just loves him.

It's difficult to get the message that beards are ok when so many stake presidents (especially in Utah) ask male members to shave when they receive a leadership calling.  Are beards still actively "prohibited" when serving in the temple unless there is a medical condition?

We do need to be less judgemental.  And less of a focus on what a follower or disciple of Christ should look like from the pulpit (which I know is not always endorsed by church leadership) would help.

[Hamba Tuhan]

53 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's difficult to get the message that beards are ok when so many stake presidents (especially in Utah) ask male members to shave when they receive a leadership calling. 

Thankfully, that doesn't happen here! Even our previous stake president, when I was abused by his counsellor, told me to ignore it. (I think he should have body-slammed the counsellor into the wall, but that's a different story ...) Currently, our stake council has at least three beards. Until recently, our bishopric had one. The entire elders quorum presidency in my ward have beards. The first counsellor has a top-knot as well, and the second counsellor, who is covered in tattoos, has an afro.

Quote

Are beards still actively "prohibited" when serving in the temple unless there is a medical condition?

Yes, and it's dumb. As I've mentioned before, I was serving in a temple in America two decades ago when this rule was introduced, and the cover letter from the Temple Department made it clear that they had been pushed to make the rule in response to persistent complaints. It needs to go away. 

Edited March 22, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

And thank goodness for that! The whole thing freaked me out.

I dutifully created a profile for the website and then tried to figure out how to remove 'And I'm a Mormon' from the end. It wouldn't let me. I've never called myself that. Ever. And so my contribution felt completely inauthentic.

I feel confident that we learnt some important things from piloting that marketing campaign.

 

You are welcome to your feelings about the campaign.  I have no issue with it.  Joseph didn't mind Mormon.  President Monson didn't mind Mormon.

Despite Scott's incorrect claim that the Brethren were united throughout Pres. Monson's presidency that the Church position and the teaching of the Brethren has been to ask us not to use the term “Mormon Church.” 

I am a Mormon, or a latter day saint, or a Latter-day Saint, or LDS, or whatever Church designation you like.  But first and foremost I'm a Christian and a restorationist.

[Rain]

9 hours ago, Tacenda said:

That is my go to from day one to say "LDS", going to have to figure out another way. Sorry I forgot it's lower case d and hyphenated. But why isn't LDS better than Mormon? Which like I said, I've used since I've been a member at eight years old. It might be a geographical thing. 

ETA: Scott, I was just on my LDS tools. How come it's okay that it's LDS.org still, and also, when looking at the insignia, it's not lower case d in the name, it's upper case. So they must alternate them.

 

Type in "lds.org" and then look at the URL bar.  You will see that it quickly is changed to "https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/".  The lds.org remains there for people who don't know that it was changed, but it is redirected to the "churchofjesuschrist.org" address.

It is a capital "D" in the logo because all of the letters in the whole name are capitalized.  

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Rain said:

The lds.org remains there for people who don't know that it was changed, but it is redirected to the "churchofjesuschrist.org" address.

Or who are too lazy to type the actual name…though it doesn’t work all the time for some reason, it can get to the page but then glitch out or something else.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Or who are too lazy to type the actual name…though it doesn’t work all the time for some reason, it can get to the page but then glitch out or something else.

Yes, well that wouldn't be anyone on this thread. 🤣 

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, Rain said:

Yes, well that wouldn't be anyone on this thread. 🤣 

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Or who are too lazy to type the actual name…though it doesn’t work all the time for some reason, it can get to the page but then glitch out or something else.

A bit of enabling by the church right?

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

A bit of enabling by the church right?

Permanent redirections are standard operating procedure when domain names are altered.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 3/21/2022 at 9:53 AM, Tacenda said:

That is my go to from day one to say "LDS", going to have to figure out another way. Sorry I forgot it's lower case d and hyphenated. But why isn't LDS better than Mormon? Which like I said, I've used since I've been a member at eight years old. It might be a geographical thing. 

ETA: Scott, I was just on my LDS tools. How come it's okay that it's LDS.org still, and also, when looking at the insignia, it's not lower case d in the name, it's upper case. So they must alternate them.

 

This has been responded to by others here. I’ll just add my understanding that “LDS” is objectionable for the same reason that “Mormon” is: because people tend to use it to supplant the name of Christ in referring to the Church — and because it is inconsistent with the name that has been given by revelation. 
 

I’ll further add my reiteration that the name “LDS Tools” has been changed to “Member Tools” in compliance with President Nelson’s directive. And the URL for the Church’s website has been changed to ChurchofJesusChrist.org. 
 

For convenience, if you type in the URL as “LDS.org”, it automatically redirects to ChurchofJesusChrist.org. I don’t know how much longer this will remain the case, though, so I’ve tried to get used to using the new URL when I call up the Church’s website. 
 

And Rain is right: the d is uppercase in the logo because all the letters in the logo are uppercase. 

Edited March 22, 2022 by Scott Lloyd