Correct terminology

[Calm]

7 hours ago, webbles said:

That sounds more like, when we (members) talk about the church, we shouldn't call it "Mormon" or "Mormonism". 

Especially given the suggested replacement for Mormonism is The Restored Gospel, which would be nonsense if applied to cultural or historical studies of the community that exists around the faith, not the faith itself.

I truly think their only care here is about the Church and what it is called.  They don’t bother to mention anything else because those topics are irrelevant to the issue in their view, imo.

[Tony uk]

On 11/22/2024 at 8:54 PM, Pyreaux said:

As everyone can see, it seems like you're just using the question, not to inform but, as an opportunity to express some frustration with leadership, as it doesn't even really address the question. To clarify, the preference of Church members varies, but official guidance from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has recently emphasized making use of the full name of the Church rather than the term the 'Mormons' or the "Mormon Church" to more accurately reflect our denomination's beliefs apart from denominations calling themselves "Mormons" and to honor Jesus Christ, not the Prophet Mormon. So, to properly shorten what we call members is the "Latter-day Saints", or "the Saints", members of the "Church of Jesus Christ" if anything. This is a respectful request, not a 'demand" as it was so disrespectfully framed. The use of "Mormon" has gone through phases of popularity, however it is both a historic and a modern pejorative, as evidenced here, because mainly it's critics of the church who seem to dislike the request more than anyone.

I am genuinely pleased to have joined this board, this reply, among all those I have received, is one of the reasons why. A knowledgeable and thorough response, for which I am grateful for. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tony uk said:

A knowledgeable and thorough response, for which I am grateful for. 

Just be aware that even devout Saints will have strong and very different opinions about  doctrine, policy, culture and all things Latter-day Saint, so if you are looking for official POVs look to the official website…but even there errors can be made (especially in older manuals and talks where they weren’t as careful in keeping speculation out).

This is probably something a longtime Catholic is used to in their own faith.  

Edited November 27, 2024 by Calm

[Tony uk]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Just be aware that even devout Saints will have strong and very different opinions about what doctrine, policy, culture and all things Latter-day Saint, so if you are looking for official POVs look to the official website…but even there errors can be made (especially in older manuals and talks where they weren’t as careful in keeping speculation out).

This is probably something a longtime Catholic is used to in their own faith.  

Absolutely, especially in recent times this is definitely the case, left hand not being familiar the right hand so to speak.

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, Tony uk said:

Absolutely, especially in recent times this is definitely the case, left hand not being familiar the right hand so to speak.

We do have a different attitude towards tradition…or at least in our descriptions of the impact of tradition on our faith (my version is tradition is meant to be thrown out the window if revelation occurs that contradicts it).  I think the way we actually treat tradition is much more trusting than it should be.  We don’t work that hard to figure out what is and isn’t tradition and tradition often gets assumed to be revealed even when there is no evidence of such.  We are getting better at that, which is one of the more frequent sources of debates among devout members.  For example, there are several traditions associated with the Book of Mormon that when you actually study what the text says the standard interpretation is wrong or at least only one of many possible ones. An easy example is where a description of weights in the Book of Mormon was assumed to be talking about coins.  That description even got published (added in 1920, removed in the 1980ish edition) in the summaries that come at the beginning of each chapter in the text for quite some time, though it’s no longer there.

Edited November 27, 2024 by Calm

[Tony uk]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

We do have a different attitude towards tradition…or at least in our descriptions of the impact of tradition on our faith (my version is tradition is meant to be thrown out the window if revelation occurs that contradicts it).  I think the way we actually treat tradition is much more trusting than it should be.  We don’t work that hard to figure out what is and isn’t tradition and tradition often gets assumed to be revealed even when there is no evidence of such.  We are getting better at that, which is one of the more frequent sources of debates among devout members.  For example, there are several traditions associated with the Book of Mormon that when you actually study what the text says the standard interpretation is wrong or at least only one of many possible ones. An easy example is where a description of weights in the Book of Mormon was assumed to be talking about coins.  That description even got published (added in 1920) in the summaries that come at the beginning of each chapter in the text for quite some time, though it’s no longer there.

That is one of the reasons I have come to at least admire the LDS. A better understanding of their own faith. Lot better than most of the other Churches that I have come across. And the members come across, at least in my opinion, as more Christian in behaviours.

[Tony uk]

21 minutes ago, Calm said:

We do have a different attitude towards tradition…or at least in our descriptions of the impact of tradition on our faith (my version is tradition is meant to be thrown out the window if revelation occurs that contradicts it).  I think the way we actually treat tradition is much more trusting than it should be.  We don’t work that hard to figure out what is and isn’t tradition and tradition often gets assumed to be revealed even when there is no evidence of such.  We are getting better at that, which is one of the more frequent sources of debates among devout members.  For example, there are several traditions associated with the Book of Mormon that when you actually study what the text says the standard interpretation is wrong or at least only one of many possible ones. An easy example is where a description of weights in the Book of Mormon was assumed to be talking about coins.  That description even got published (added in 1920, removed in the 1980ish edition) in the summaries that come at the beginning of each chapter in the text for quite some time, though it’s no longer there.

In my own Church, the members tend to have limited understanding of what they are doing, or following. And there are those who seem to overthink teachings. As such, it can get a little bit confusing, especially when the hierarchy is splintered into factions. One group pulling one way, another group pulling a different way. Then along comes another group pulling another way entirely different. I need patience, but quickly.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Tony uk said:

That is one of the reasons I have come to at least admire the LDS. A better understanding of their own faith. Lot better than most of the other Churches that I have come across. And the members come across, at least in my opinion, as more Christian in behaviours.

I appreciate that POV.  Thank you.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Tony uk said:

As such, it can get a little bit confusing, especially when the hierarchy is splintered into factions.

You guys are a lot bigger and a lot older than we are plus developed when there was much less ability to control variability due to communication taking forever, so it’s not surprising to me your problems are more complicated….though I suspect if we stick with a lay ministry we will be able to avoid at least some of the factional issues (our administrative employees come from all sorts of disciplines so that may help as well).  
 

In the past our top leadership was more open about points of conflict, but we have a principle of leadership through persuasion and unity and while at lower levels my guess is conformity and group think and power dynamics may play too big a part in decisions at times, in the Quorum of the 12 they have from all reports a tradition/culture of openness to varied ideas and not pressuring to come to agreement (allegedly the least senior apostles speak first and vigorous debate is encouraged as well as taking time to mull over things).  We teach this ideal for our ward and other councils. Not always successfully though. 

[Tony uk]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

You guys are a lot bigger and a lot older than we are plus developed when there was much less ability to control variability due to communication taking forever, so it’s not surprising to me your problems are more complicated….though I suspect if we stick with a lay ministry we will be able to avoid at least some of the factional issues (our administrative employees come from all sorts of disciplines so that may help as well).  
 

In the past our top leadership was more open about points of conflict, but we have a principle of leadership through persuasion and unity and while at lower levels my guess is conformity and group think and power dynamics may play too big a part in decisions at times, in the Quorum of the 12 they have from all reports a tradition/culture of openness to varied ideas and not pressuring to come to agreement (allegedly the least senior apostles speak first and vigorous debate is encouraged as well as taking time to mull over things).  We teach this ideal for our ward and other councils. Not always successfully though. 

My own thought is that there has to be a starting point for everything. So, whether it be debate or openness, it may not be a roaring success to start with. It is a start, and that for me, is always encouraging. And as the old saying goes, if at first you don't succeed. Try, try again. And if there can be unity, regardless of view point, that is good thing also. 

[Tony uk]

On 11/23/2024 at 12:06 AM, Pyreaux said:

Latter-day Lingo and Catholic Counterparts

Ward and Parish

Ward: A local congregation of members within a given geographic area, typically led by a bishop.
Parish: A local church community headed by a priest, which also serves a specific geographic area.

Stake and Diocese

Stake: A Stake of the Tent of Zion is a larger unit consisting of multiple wards, usually overseen by a stake president. It is a geographical administrative district.
Diocese: A geographic area under the pastoral care of a bishop, with multiple parishes within its borders. An Archdiocese is a larger or more important diocese, often overseeing several dioceses.

Standard Works and Canon

Standard Works: Refers to the sacred scriptures of the Church, including the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.
Canon: The official collection of sacred scriptures recognized by the Roman Catholic Church, which includes the Bible with some books, such as the Deuterocanonical books.

Bishop and Bishop

LDS Bishop: The spiritual and administrative leader of a ward, responsible for overseeing spiritual and temporal needs of the members.
Roman Catholic Bishop: A high-ranking clergyman who oversees a diocese and has the authority to ordain priests and deacons. The role is similar, though the LDS bishop's responsibilities are generally more localized.

Relief Society and Women’s Catholic Organizations (e.g., Legion of Mary)

The Relief Society: A women’s organization within the Church that focuses on charity, welfare, and spiritual growth.
Roman Catholic Women’s Groups: While there isn’t an exact counterpart, organizations like the Legion of Mary and other parish-based women’s groups focus on charity, spiritual growth, and community service.

Missionary and Missionary

LDS Missionary: A young adult (typically male or female) who volunteers to serve a two-year or eighteen-month mission to teach and spread the LDS faith within every area we are free to operate.
Roman Catholic Missionary: A person sent to spread the Catholic faith in areas where Catholicism is not well-established. Both faiths send missionaries, but the LDS Church has a more structured, widespread global program.

Temple and Cathedral

Temple: A sacred building supported by one or more stakes where important ordinances, like baptism for the dead, making vows, receiving sacred anointings and vestments and marriage and familial sealing are performed. Temples are distinct from regular meetinghouses, where regular baptisms, sacraments and blessings are done.
Roman Catholic Cathedral: The principal church in a diocese, often where the bishop’s seat (cathedra) is located. Though the function and purpose differ, both are considered very significant houses of worship.

Family Home Evening and Catholic Family Devotions

Family Home Evening: A weekly tradition where families gather for prayer, lessons, and activities aimed at strengthening family bonds.
Catholic Family Devotions: While the specific structure differs, Catholic families also engage in practices such as prayer and scripture reading together to strengthen familial faith.

Many thanks for this Pyreaux. This is most helpful to get me to understand the correct wording.

[Tony uk]

On 11/22/2024 at 9:52 PM, Calm said:

I prefer “Saints” because it’s short, lol, and it’s what early church members typically called each other, I believe.  Latter-day Saints (small letter “d”) distinguishes us from other denominations under the Mormon umbrella….though many Saints would insist “Mormon” only applies to us as well, I am not sure if that is historically accurate.  I personally am fine to include anyone who believes the Book of Mormon as scripture and Joseph Smith as prophet under the umbrella term Mormon (one reason I am glad our leaders are moving us away from using it for us specifically), but it is very confusing for most people who associated “Mormon” with the Salt Lake centered denomination (also known as Brighamites by the Reorganized Church, see below).

Leadership discourages the shorthand LDS in the official style guide, but since this is more casual conversation, I don’t think anyone here would mind if you wrote “LDS” if you felt awkward about using “Saints” given its meaning in your own faith and you found Latter-day Saints a bit too long to write out every time.

We used a “I am a Mormon” publicity campaign not that long ago, so even the use of “Mormon” here likely won’t be seen as disrespectful since most of us grew up calling ourselves that.  Leadership asked us to stick with what we believe is the revealed name of the Church and drop the nickname both as a sign of respect for the Church and to avoid confusion over who we are the disciples of….or trying to be.

And while we are discouraged from using “Mormonism”, they didn’t give as a viable replacement as “The Restored Gospel” only covers some of what “Mormonism” covers.  For examples cultural traditions of Mormonism are not identical to cultural traditions of the Restored Gospel as Mormonism is more than just the religion.  And it feels inappropriate to me to claim to be doing scientific studies on The Restored Gospel to me that is the set of doctrines and practices that teach us about Christ and how to become like him.  Studying The Restored Gospel is something very different in my head that studying Mormonism.  So I see us as forced to still resort to “Mormonism” now when talking about something besides the set of doctrine, beliefs, teachings and practices of our faith.  “Latter-day Saintism” would likely be the appropriate replacement in line with the other changes, but I haven’t seen anyone using it.

Btw, explaining the same “d” and hyphen…those are required to distinguish us from other early break offs.  Of course, we see them as breaking off from us, the original faith, they might not agree.  The first (I believe it was the first) and most successful schism group was The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (capital D and no hyphen) to me was less of a break off and more a splitting of the original group under Joseph Smith after his death.  A good portion of members did not accept Brigham Young as the successor of Joseph and later on determined the appropriate successor was a son of Joseph, Joseph Smith the III.  I believe they probably have the strongest case for a different form of succession.  Latter-day Saints probably see the succession as pretty clear cut looking back, but it surely wasn’t so obvious when you are on the ground at that time because church leadership structure had changed over time and while we believe the final form left the keys of authority in the hands of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles once the President of the Church dies, others do not and in some cases for go reason.

The Reorganized Church changed their name to Community of Christ awhile back.  They never adopted some of the later developments that occurred in Nauvoo before Joseph died and instead claim they were novelties introduced by Brigham Young, such as polygamy and temple ordinances.

Nice list of the “Mormon” umbrella denominations…though some reject the label “Mormon” to avoid the link to our faith, which is the one most associated with the label or to the history of polygamy, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_denominations_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

Another btw, we tend to call our first two presidents by their first names, Joseph or Brigham, later ones are typical referred to as Pres Hinckley or by their full name including their middle initial…somehow using three names instead of two for leaders became traditional.  Speculation alert:  Maybe because to more easily tell the difference since many leaders came from the same families and even had the same name or close.  We have President Joseph Smith, Pres. Joseph F Smith, Pres Joseph Fielding Smith, Pres George Albert Smith, leaders included one George A. Smith for the most obvious example.  With early church leaders in Utah having large numbers of children due to their polygamous marriages, there could be a lot of duplicate first and last names within a few generations.

Also originally “The Prophet” (capital P) always referred to Joseph, in the 1950s it started to be used for the current President of the Church….kind of incorrectly because it implies we have only one prophet in our faith, while we have many as all of the apostles are also prophets, seers, and revelators.  Plus since “prophet” isn’t a priesthood office, it is possible to view people outside the hierarchy as prophets if we cared to…but most who do these days tend to be among some of the more extreme groups who see themselves as seekers of more hidden sacred knowledge, our version of Gnosticism.  Unfortunately that has led to some making money or creating their own fan group by exploiting this natural and spiritually worthy desire to seek greater knowledge from the Lord by claiming visions and wisdom beyond what is taught by our authorized leaders….

Looks like I have gone way off topic, lol.  Should wait till you are more familiar with the basics, but once I start going, everything just interlocks with so many topics, I can take off in so many directions at once.

Many thanks Calm. I am getting the information I hoped for, and in a way more than I expected, from people who know best.

[Pyreaux]

On 11/22/2024 at 3:52 PM, Calm said:

Leadership discourages the shorthand LDS in the official style guide, but since this is more casual conversation, I don’t think anyone here would mind if you wrote “LDS” if you felt awkward about using “Saints” given its meaning in your own faith and you found Latter-day Saints a bit too long to write out every time.

 

[Tony uk]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

 

Hi Pyreaux 

Thanks for the post. This information is helpful to me, and from now I will be referring to the Saints on this board and elsewhere. I am grateful for any  help, advice and guidance that can be given.

[the narrator]

On 11/26/2024 at 12:36 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes.  I see now that we discussed all this back in 2019.

Have there been any excommunications yet based on failure to comply with this rule?  

Yes we did.

I didn’t say anything about excommunication. I was just paraphrasing Holland’s description of it being “anathema” (which Holland knows the religious context of) and that “we will be held accountable” for using what Nelson said was a “victory for Satan.”

That reminds me. Is “Xmas” still discouraged?

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, the narrator said:

.....................

That reminds me. Is “Xmas” still discouraged?

Since the Greek letter X was a direct symbol and abbreviation of Christos, it should not be.

[Tacenda]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since the Greek letter X was a direct symbol and abbreviation of Christos, it should not be.

Thanks Robert, sometimes when I shorten it some might feel I don't believe in Christ. Thanks again!

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks Robert, sometimes when I shorten it some might feel I don't believe in Christ. Thanks again!

Yes.  It is spelled in Greek χριστός (Xristos).

[Duncan]

On 11/26/2024 at 3:06 PM, Tony uk said:

Many thanks for that manol. Sometimes, I tend to say, or write the wrong thing, unintentionally. I try my best not to be disrespectful in anyway if I can help it. Better to be forewarned, 

you might be interested in the UK site for the Church as well. The Birmingham England temple just got approved so when it's constructed they have an open house that you may find interesting to do a tour. They announced temples in Dublin and Edinburgh but haven't picked sites or anything like that yet

https://uk.churchofjesuschrist.org/?fbclid=IwY2xjawG9iN1leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHbF6hh0Je0ASymxVN8bOK6_28q6kuTWcmh6SEYtyv3UMO93859fG75BYPA_aem_bRTjA30FdUFOOiokyxjJ6A

[Tony uk]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

you might be interested in the UK site for the Church as well. The Birmingham England temple just got approved so when it's constructed they have an open house that you may find interesting to do a tour. They announced temples in Dublin and Edinburgh but haven't picked sites or anything like that yet

https://uk.churchofjesuschrist.org/?fbclid=IwY2xjawG9iN1leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHbF6hh0Je0ASymxVN8bOK6_28q6kuTWcmh6SEYtyv3UMO93859fG75BYPA_aem_bRTjA30FdUFOOiokyxjJ6A

Many thanks Duncan for the information. It seems the Church is growing here in England.