Is the "Mormon" label fading?

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

CFR that my “claim” is incorrect. Cite if you can even one credible indication that during President Monson’s presidency even one man among the high leadership of the Church dissented from the official directive that “Mormon church” not be used as the name of the Church. 

The very existence of the I am a Mormon campaign is sufficient evidence they allowed the usage of Mormon.  I don't care what the formatting instructions to the press said about Church name.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The very existence of the I am a Mormon campaign is sufficient evidence they allowed the usage of Mormon.  I don't care what the formatting instructions to the press said about Church name.

The “I Am a Mormon” campaign did not countenance the use of the name “Mormon church”. It has never been in dispute that prior to President Nelson’s “course correction,” the Church leaders did permit the name “Mormons” to be used to refer to Church members, but not to the Church itself. 
 

If this is the best response you can give, you are unable to answer the CFR, and you must withdraw your false assertion that I was incorrect. 

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Church leaders did permit the name “Mormons” to be used to refer to Church members, but not to the Church itself. 

I found Mormon Church being used occasionally in press releases outside the US (New Zealsnd was one of them iirc), but it does appear to be absent in the regular website and the main newsroom since mid 2000s at least unless they are quoting or paraphrasing someone else.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

I found Mormon Church being used occasionally in press releases outside the US (New Zealsnd was one of them iirc), but it does appear to be absent in the regular website and the main newsroom since mid 2000s at least unless they are quoting or paraphrasing someone else.

Here is a 2001 news article reporting that the Church issued a set of guidelines affirming the centrality of Christ in the Church and disapproving the name “Mormon Church.” This was prior to the presidency of President Monson, and there is no indication President Monson moved to rescind it when he became President. 
 

JLHPROF was wrong to say I wrote incorrectly, he is apparently unable to answer my CFR, and he needs to withdraw his assertion. 
 

https://www.thechurchnews.com/archives/2001-03-03/proper-church-name-usage-reaffirms-centrality-of-christ-115481

[Hamba Tuhan]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

JLHPROF was wrong to say I wrote incorrectly, he is apparently unable to answer my CFR, and he needs to withdraw his assertion.

Mate, the two of you are talking past each other. Go back and read JLHPROF's comments. I agree that the original one was phrased badly, but it is exactly what you keep saying as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Mate, the two of you are talking past each other. Go back and read JLHPROF's comments. I agree that the original one was phrased badly, but it is exactly what you keep saying as well.

This is what JLHPROF said:

“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 did not make an “incorrect claim.” I just now showed that the official Church position since at least as early as 2001 has been to disapprove the term “Mormon church.” I challenged JLHPROF to show where there has ever been any dissent among the Brethren from that official position. Apparently, he is unable to do so, so he should withdraw his assertion that I was incorrect. 
 

If you’ve not yet done so, I invite you to view the link I posted so you can review precisely what it is the Brethren have been unified on since 2001, up until President Nelson’s presidency, when he gave additional guidelines. 
 

Added later: I’ll save you the trouble by pasting it in here (bear in mind this is from 2001 and has been superseded by additional guidelines from President Nelson)::

 

The guidelines include the following instructions:

• The revealed full name of the Church should always be used by the Church and its members. 
• Media organizations are encouraged to use the full official name when referring to the Church as an institution in their reporting. Media will be asked to avoid such references as “Mormon Church,” “LDS Church” or “The Church of the Latter-day Saints.” 
• When a shortened reference is needed in news reporting or other instances, the terms “the Church,” or “the Church of Jesus Christ” are encouraged. 
• Church members should be referred to as “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” The preferred shortened reference is Latter-day Saints. Though less accurate, “Mormons” is acceptable. 
• “Mormon” is correctly used in official names such as “The Book of Mormon,” “Mormon Tabernacle Choir” or “Mormon Trail.” It is also appropriately used as an adjective in such expressions as “Mormon pioneers.” 
• The term “Mormonism” is acceptable in describing the combination of doctrine, culture, history and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder if Jesus feels unwelcome in His own home, if it's so quiet/no beards allowed for temple workers.  Maybe He wants it a little less rigid?

I think He approves when His people make their best efforts to obey inspired counsel as it comes through prophets. 

Edited March 23, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Humming or whistling in the corridor or foyer or dressing rooms or other places outside the areas where ordinances were being administered, or, say, the chapel, where quiet reverence is the norm while waiting to go to the ordinance room for an endowment session, would not be creating a disturbance. Not really. I think it’s more a matter of being a distraction to some bystanders who would find such a thing annoying. So the issue is not unlike that pertaining to facial hair on males ordinance workers.  

Whistling in any part of the temple would annoy and disturb me. A beard would not. 

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Whistling in any part of the temple would annoy and disturb me. A beard would not. 

OK. 

I doubt you would take kindly to being told you should be more tolerant and just get over your aversion to hearing whistling and humming in the temple. 
 

For my part, knowing that it’s apt to annoy and disturb some temple goers would be quite enough for me to avoid it. 

Edited March 23, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think He approves when His people make their best efforts to obey inspired counsel as it comes through prophets. 

I don't know if you caught my drift about Jesus and His beard. And I thought Jesus would like hearing humming or anything light and fun. But as you wish.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't know if you caught my drift about Jesus and His beard. And I thought Jesus would like hearing humming or anything light and fun. But as you wish.

Yes, I understood you well enough. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

i did not make an “incorrect claim.” I just now showed that the official Church position since at least as early as 2001 has been to disapprove the term “Mormon church.” I challenged JLHPROF to show where there has ever been any dissent among the Brethren from that official position.

Mate, seriously, he agrees with you regarding that position. He's actually written as much.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Mate, seriously, he agrees with you regarding that position. He's actually written as much.

Then why did he state otherwise? If it’s merely a matter of his having “phrased it badly,” why doesn’t he clarify instead of doubling down? 

[Hamba Tuhan]

45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it’s merely a matter of his having “phrased it badly,” why doesn’t he clarify instead of doubling down? 

That's what happens when two people people both double down and speak past each other.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Tacenda]

I think this is the first time seeing this:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/archives/1990-10-13/mormon-name-can-bring-luster-honor-to-church-148205#:~:text="I knew%2C of course%2C,large measure by our perceptions.

These days are gone, unless we dial back a wee bit. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think this is the first time seeing this:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/archives/1990-10-13/mormon-name-can-bring-luster-honor-to-church-148205#:~:text="I knew%2C of course%2C,large measure by our perceptions.

These days are gone, unless we dial back a wee bit. 

The talk this quotes from was a direct response (rebuke?) of then Elder Nelson’s talk the previous conference. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

34 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

These days are gone, unless we dial back a wee bit. 

The Saints are not much in the habit of going backwards or retreating from success.

And I feel reasonably confident that Pres Hinckley is pleased that we are finally seeing some success when it comes to those who, to use his own words from your link, 'disregard totally the true name of the Church and ... use the nickname, "the Mormon Church"'.

In the actual talk, he went on to say, 'I suppose that regardless of our efforts, we may never convert the world to general use of the full and correct name of the Church'. Instead, those efforts are beginning to bear fruit.

'More than fifty years ago, when I was a missionary in England, I said to one of my associates, “How can we get people, including our own members, to speak of the Church by its proper name?”' It is clear that this was his long-held preference despite any pragmatic tolerance required at the time.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

Quote

While I sometimes regret that people do not call this Church by its proper name, I am happy that the nickname they use is one of great honor made so by a remarkable man and a book which gives an unmatched testimony concerning the Redeemer of the world."

I interpret him as saying that members should use our God given name, but that we shouldn’t be offended if others do not and instead take it as a reminder of the example of faithfulness and strength of the prophet, Mormon, as well as the witness of Christ that is the Book of Mormon.  He uses the example of the false understanding of Mormon meaning more good as still providing a positive approach that can turn that meaning to a reality as a comparison.

Pres. Hinckley was quite practical and good at making use of the tools he had, imo.  Pres. Nelson is more idealistic.  We need both approaches imo, the first to build a strong foundation and the second to build as high as we desire to go.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That's what happens when two people people both double down and speak past each other.

I’m really trying to understand, but I’m not having much success. Maybe you can help me. 
 

He said: ““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 hasbeen to ask us not to use the term ‘Mormon Church.’”

I showed that in 2001, the First Presidency and the Twelve unitedly had asked the membership not to use the phrase “Mormon church.” I challenged him to cite an instance where even one of those men had dissented from that formal position, which, if it had indeed occurred, would have made my “claim” incorrect, just as he said. But he failed to cite any such instance. 
 

So what am I missing here? What “incorrect claim” did I make? If he agrees with me, as you say he does, why did he say I made an “incorrect claim”?

I’m not deliberately talking past him or you or anybody else. Again I’m really trying to understand. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So what am I missing here?

He wrote: 'Mormon was cool for President Monson but not for President Nelson'.

Which you immediately misread as defending the use of 'Mormon Church': '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'.

He clarified that he was defending the use of the term 'Mormon' in general and referenced the 'I'm a Mormon Campaign' as an illustration.

But before that he misread your 'they were apparently united on that' to mean the general use of the word 'Mormon'.

That's how we end up with the poorly written, poorly punctuated statement, which I will ghost edit as follows: 'Despite Scott's incorrect claim that the Brethren were united [on the term 'Mormon'] throughout Pres. Monson's presidency, the Church position and the teaching of the Brethren has [only] been to ask us not to use the term "Mormon Church", [not "Mormon"]'.

A cursory review of this board (and even this thread) will demonstrate that I disagree with JLHPROF most of the time, and I would happily do so again here if required, but this whole 'squabble' has just been silly.

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

OK. 

I doubt you would take kindly to being told you should be more tolerant and just get over your aversion to hearing whistling and humming in the temple. 
 

For my part, knowing that it’s apt to annoy and disturb some temple goers would be quite enough for me to avoid it. 

All I’m saying is beards are very quiet, which fits right into the temple atmosphere. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

All I’m saying is beards are very quiet, which fits right into the temple atmosphere. 

What I have found that does not fit right into the temple atmosphere is people obsessing that other people ought not be there. In fact, one of the training videos for workers focuses on this topic, emphasising that anyone who shows up with a temple recommend is to be admitted and treated with kindness and respect regardless of dress and/or grooming. It is not the role of a temple worker to recommend any changes in appearance specifically to avoid making a person feel unwanted. In this training video, it shows young people in the baptistery with coloured hair, piercings, painted nails, and woven bracelets if my memory is accurate.

By the way, the training videos frequently show male patrons with facial hair as well. I doubt this is a coincidence, but who knows?

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

By the way, the training videos frequently show male patrons with facial hair as well. I doubt this is a coincidence, but who knows?

And why shouldn’t temple workers themselves be treated with the same level of kindness?  I just don’t understand the mentality that drives some to complain.

[Peacefully]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

What I have found that does not fit right into the temple atmosphere is people obsessing that other people ought not be there. In fact, one of the training videos for workers focuses on this topic, emphasising that anyone who shows up with a temple recommend is to be admitted and treated with kindness and respect regardless of dress and/or grooming. It is not the role of a temple worker to recommend any changes in appearance specifically to avoid making a person feel unwanted. In this training video, it shows young people in the baptistery with coloured hair, piercings, painted nails, and woven bracelets if my memory is accurate.

By the way, the training videos frequently show male patrons with facial hair as well. I doubt this is a coincidence, but who knows?

A dad and his little girl attended church on Sunday. He was dressed in shorts and a t-shirt. My sister, who isn’t a member but attends sometimes, was appalled that he would come to church dressed like that. I said I was just happy he was at church. I wonder how many are made to feel as if they don’t belong by people like my sister who care more about outward appearances than the person on the inside? 

[Hamba Tuhan]

50 minutes ago, Calm said:

And why shouldn’t temple workers themselves be treated with the same level of kindness?

It's odd to me because (with the possible exception of area seventy?) I can't think of any other non-fulltime calling in the Church that dictates how one wears his hair.

Quote

I just don’t understand the mentality that drives some to complain.

Agreed. And remember, we were told that it was temple workers who had been complaining.