The label “Mormon” Is Out

[Katzpur]

I know, but once again, other Christian groups may not think that you are following Christ. Almost all think of Joseph Smith et al. as false prophets.

So what, specifically, do you think Christ said or taught that we're not following? If someone perceives something to be a certain way, there has to be some reason that perception exists. I just want to know what it is about Jesus Christ's teachings that we don't follow. I think it's a fair enough question that someone ought to be able to answer it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, that's really pretty stupid when you stop to think about it. If someone were to come up to you and say, "Hi, my name's Michael," would you say, "That's fine. Call yourself Michael if you want, but I'm going to call you David"?

Not really. If a person wanted to call himself "The smartest person in the world" he really cannot expect others to call him that. If your name has an element that others strongly disagree a person cannot expect someone to call him that.

Your example of "Michael" fails because that is a neutral name, what I suggested that the Mormons used. Baptists when they call themselves baptists are not putting claiming their baptisms are more important than others, or inventing a new aspect of Christianity that others would disagree with. The same applies to being a Lutheran a Presbyterian or countless other sects. Other sects are not going to see your saints as saints by any definition of the word.

 

[Katzpur]

The "restored Gospel" I find off putting.

I can understand that. But which Gospel is the "original" one? If the "original Gospel" is still taught today and has been taught continuously from the time Jesus Christ established His Church, there would be no need for a "restoration" of that gospel. But if, as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims, the "original Gospel" was corrupted over time, then there would indeed be a need for a "restored Gospel."

The Mormon, church of Latter Day Saints, is a church which has
reverted to the Old Testament.

I don't believe so. Christianity didn't exist in Old Testament times. Our focus is very much on Jesus Christ, and He is mentioned literally hundreds of times in the Book of Mormon." Our entire theology is built around Him, not around the Old Testament (although we also believe it to be a record of God's interactions with mankind).

It observes "special days and months"

Really? Which special days and months might those be? In 70 years as a Mormon, I haven't ever even heard of these days and months?

and "temples built with hands" and an "earthly tabernacle" and other
symbols, rites and rituals that were done away in the Apostolic church.

They were not "done away with." That is entirely something you've conjured up on your own.

But frankly, by declaring the Church of Latter Day Saints is not "Mormon"
is going to get MORE people calling them Mormons.

I doubt that. I don't think it will change things much either way.

And why should it matter? Jesus gave no name for his church and told the Jews they would accept him more if he had a name. No name was given to the genuinely restored church in one hundred years.

Huh? You lost me here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what, specifically, do you think Christ said or taught that we're not following? If someone perceives something to be a certain way, there has to be some reason that perception exists. I just want to know what it is about Jesus Christ's teachings that we don't follow. I think it's a fair enough question that someone ought to be able to answer it.

Did or did not Christ warn against false prophets? Other Christians will see Joseph Smith as one. Personally the Mormons are not that much better or worse than other sects of Christianity. They do introduce some new incredibly wrong claims. But that is about it.

 

[Scott C.]

.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued the following statement from President Russell M. Nelson on August 16 [2018] regarding the name of the Church:

“The Lord has impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He has revealed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have work before us to bring ourselves in harmony with His will. In recent weeks, various Church leaders and departments have initiated the necessary steps to do so. Additional information about this important matter will be made available in the coming months.”

The Church has released an updated style guide, which provides direction on how to properly refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In the coming months, Church websites and materials will be updated to reflect this direction from President Nelson.

Following is the text from updated style guide:

The official name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The full name was given by revelation from God to Joseph Smith in 1838.

In the first reference, the full name of the Church is preferred: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

When a shortened reference is needed, the terms “the Church” or the “Church of Jesus Christ” are encouraged. The “restored Church of Jesus Christ” is also accurate and encouraged.

While the term “Mormon Church” has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use. Thus, please avoid using the abbreviation “LDS” or the nickname “Mormon” as substitutes for the name of the Church, as in “Mormon Church,” “LDS Church,” or “Church of the Latter-day Saints.”

When referring to Church members, the terms “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” or “Latter-day Saints” are preferred. We ask that the term “Mormons” not be used.

“Mormon” is correctly used in proper names such as the Book of Mormon or when used as an adjective in such historical expressions as “Mormon Trail.”

The term “Mormonism” is inaccurate and should not be used. When describing the combination of doctrine, culture, and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term “the restored gospel of Jesus Christ” is accurate and preferred.

When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, it should be stated that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not affiliated with polygamous groups.
source​

Not that this will change what non-Latter-day Saints people call Latter-day Sainters. I expect "Mormon" will be used to describe Mormons for at least the next century-plus.

.

As a Latter-day Saint, I feel I have a pretty good handle on the reasons for the emphasis on the correct name of the church. Some people try to find an agenda which does not exist. The reasons given by my church are indeed the reasons for the change of emphasis. We believe that Jesus Christ himself spoke the following words to Joseph Smith on April 26, 1838: “Thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” (Doctrine & Covenants 115:4.) So the name of our church is in our scriptures and we believe was specifically assigned by God himself. Of course those not of my faith may challenge the validity of this revelation. But how could a believing member of my church possibly think that any other name should be used when God himself provided the exact words back in 1838?

Also in the Book of Mormon, Jesus is recorded to have said the following after his resurrection and during his appearance to Book of Mormon people about 2,000 years ago: "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." (3 Nephi 27:8)

Note that Moses was a great prophet, but we do not belong to the Church of Moses. Mormon was also a great prophet but we do not belong to the Church of Mormon. Jesus Christ is central to our beliefs. It is his name who we take upon ourselves, it is Jesus whom we worship as Savior, it is his church to which we belong, and the Lord himself has said we should call the church after the name of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon, is just that, a book compiled and partially authored by a human being named Mormon, who was a prophet of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon is a testament of Jesus Christ. But that is no reason to change the name of my church from the Church of Jesus Christ to the Church of Mormon. In fact, a revelation cited above from the Book of Mormon says we should not call it the Church of Mormon (since Mormon is a man).

Yes "Mormon" was first given as a nickname in the early days of the church. It was first derogatory and later accepted as not derogatory. We Latter-day Saints have called ourselves Mormons at times. We have also called ourselves LDS (Latter-day Saint). My church called it's choir the "Mormon Tabernacle Choir". But while this is true we have always known that the correct name of our church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You find that name on every chapel and temple throughout the world. You will not see "Mormon Church" on any church building anywhere (as far as I know).

So why did prior church leaders not go so far as President Nelson to empahsize the correct name? I don't know. But I support President Nelson and as a believing church member I believe that God is inspiring him to take this action now. I believe the Lord wants everyone on earth to know that this church professes to indeed be "The Church of Jesus Christ" the same church established by Jesus in the New Testament. The Lord also wants everyone to know that we are in the Latter-days. Finally, "Saint" is a New Testament term that means one who has been baptized unto Christ and does not necessarily imply that one has achieved some high level of "sainthood" if you will. Hence, the name The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a perfect construct with deep meaning and purpose and was articulated by God in my view.

I'm certainly not offended if someone calls me Mormon or LDS. I know the change takes time and only time will tell. But as for me, I am trying to break the habit and to use the correct name from now on. I believe if church members use the correct name consistently, never taking offense from others who do not, over the next 50 years, who knows, maybe everyone will know us as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The word "saints" is found 107 times in the New Testament. In every instance, it is used to mean a disciple of Jesus Christ, and not some person a church has decided has supernatural powers. It was not until 993 B.C. that the Catholic Church "canonized" its first "Saint."

Saints have been recognized since ancient times in the Church that became the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (before the split)

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

@Skwim, you already had a thread about this: "Mormon Leader: Nicknames for Faith are 'Victory for Satan' "

 

[Jane.Doe]

Not really. If a person wanted to call himself "The smartest person in the world" he really cannot expect others to call him that. If your name has an element that others strongly disagree a person cannot expect someone to call him that.

Your example of "Michael" fails because that is a neutral name, what I suggested that the Mormons used. Baptists when they call themselves baptists are not putting claiming their baptisms are more important than others, or inventing a new aspect of Christianity that others would disagree with. The same applies to being a Lutheran a Presbyterian or countless other sects. Other sects are not going to see your saints as saints by any definition of the word.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" is the church's name. It's totally ok for a group to ask to go and be called by their name. If other people have a problem with it, that's their problem.

 

[nPeace]

3 adulterated religions based upon specious prophets came out of America in the 19th century. the first being the Mormons, then the Seventh Day Adventists, then the Christian scientists. A version exists with the Jehovah´s Witnesses, who have a committee of ´ the anointed ´ to guide them.

Each has either their own personal Bible unlike the Greek original texts, or a body of holy literature allegedly given to the prophet.

They are all in error, all a chimera.

This is new to me.
Could you tell me please what Jehovah's Witnesses adulterated, and based upon what specious prophet.
Also, why do you say, these groups have their own personal Bible?
Which personal Bible does Seventh Day Adventists use?
What do you think of Wycliffe's Bible? Was that a personal Bible?
What about the Latin Vulgate? Was that a personal Bible?
Do you think the King James Version is a personal Bible?

 

[Skwim]

.

Exactly who was this prophet Mormon, the author of "The Book of Mormon," and why did Joseph Smith believe him?
And why do Mormons today believe what Joseph Smith said?

.

 

[ChristineM]

However, Mormons is too easily jumbled into Morons. ...

A moron is a Welsh carot

 

[Katzpur]

Not really. If a person wanted to call himself "The smartest person in the world" he really cannot expect others to call him that. If your name has an element that others strongly disagree a person cannot expect someone to call him that.

"The smartest person in the world" is not a name. It's a description.

Your example of "Michael" fails because that is a neutral name, what I suggested that the Mormons used. Baptists when they call themselves baptists are not putting claiming their baptisms are more important than others, or inventing a new aspect of Christianity that others would disagree with.

You're making no sense at all. There are many different Christian denominations that have the words "Jesus Christ" in their name. Are you going to come up with nicknames for all of them? What makes it okay for them to include His name in the name of their church but not okay for us to do so?

The same applies to being a Lutheran a Presbyterian or countless other sects. Other sects are not going to see your saints as saints by any definition of the word.

Well, that's their problem. We're just using the word as it was used in the New Testament, not as it is used today by the Catholic Church.

 

[Katzpur]

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Tabernacle Choir" just doesn't sound right.

Actually, it's now known as "The Tabernacle Choir on Temple Square."

 

[Subduction Zone]

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" is the church's name. It's totally ok for a group to ask to go and be called by their name. If other people have a problem with it, that's their problem.

If a person or organization misnames itself then the problem is not with other people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"The smartest person in the world" is not a name. It's a description.

You're making no sense at all. There are many different Christian denominations that have the words "Jesus Christ" in their name. Are you going to come up with nicknames for all of them? What makes it okay for them to include His name in the name of their church but not okay for us to do so?

Well, that's their problem. We're just using the word as it was used in the New Testament, not as it is used today by the Catholic Church.

Church of the Latter Day Saints is a description as well. What sects have such names? We are not talking about then name of individual churches but of a sect itself.

 

[Katzpur]

Current mainstream Mormons use the KJV, though many of the members believe that the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and the word of the Prophet, overrule the Bible, something I adamantly insisted was wrong. Not all the membership believe it either.

Any Latter-day Saint who believes that any one book in the Church's canon "overrules" any other book doesn't know his religion very well.

 

[Katzpur]

Church of the Latter Day Saints is a description as well. What sects have such names? We are not talking about then name of individual churches but of a sect itself.

None of your comments are the slightest bit convincing, and I'm not going to keep telling you that. As a matter of fact, I don't really care what you think or have to say on the subject. I've no reason to repeat myself yet again. Maybe somebody else would like to play with you.

 

[Watchmen]

Yes, but even that goes too far. Other sects of Christians will simply not consider the founders of the LDS church followers of Christ. A more neutral term is needed if one wants to get others to use that term For example many people object to the term "Native Americans". I was born here, most Americans were born here. That makes us "Native" by definition. Aboriginal or First Peoples is better and less likely to meed opposition since it reflects the fact that the ancestors of that group were here first.

I like the term a native nations.

 

[Ellen Brown]

Any Latter-day Saint who believes that any one book in the Church's canon "overrules" any other book doesn't know his religion very well.

There were some very good years with the church in the old Colonial Heights ward. They were seen as being sort of radical and um "Non-Compliant to the will of the Prophet". There were some good discussions in Sunday School. There were many times there where the Book of Mormon was supported at least in concept by the Bible. It was my experience that lots of those attending said they did not know the Bible well, but could quote chapter and verse in the BOM.

Sadly, they sent a "Hit Man" to the Portland Stake to split up and organize everything. Then they got on a peck about Temple Membership and worthiness. The constant implication that those who could not get a Temple Recommend were somehow not worthy, was for me really snotty and manipulative. I'd get questions from well meaning but brainwashed members about I needed to stop what I was doing and become worthy. That hurt just lots. Finally I'd just bluntly tell them exactly what the issue was and much to my astonishment, people were even more supportive then.

Then I started getting these requests for private meetings with the Bishop, and I found out that a meeting with the Stake President was coming. That's when I exercised a preemptive strike and resigned the church, thus robbing them of the chance to disfellowship and otherwise disgrace me.

 

[pearl]

See, I think that usage is what prompted the recent emphasis on using the correct name of the Church. There is no such church as the "Church of Latter-day Saints."

It came up several years ago when Mitt Romney was running for Governor of Massachusetts. His great grandfather had left the USA and settled in Mexico to avoid the US polygamy laws.