The label “Mormon” Is Out

[Subduction Zone]

I like the term a native nations.

That works. They are still in a way their own nations. They are in a sort of "in between" state where they are both their own nations and citizens of the U.S..

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Perhaps you won't let yourself understand because it affects you too much personally. I could see how other Christians would balk at using the term "saint" when describing your church. To me it does not matter, but I have enough empathy to see the viewpoints of others.

 

[Jane.Doe]

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.

Quick history crash course:
There is no "Church of Latter-day Saints."
Mitt Romney belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Over a century ago, polygamy was permitted, and Romney great-grandpa was a polygamist.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints then banned polygamy in 1890.
Some people were mad about this and left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
They then founded the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (italicizing mine for emphasis) which today practices polygamy and has a ton of problems. These are two different churches that vary great in belief, practice, leadership, scripture, etc.

 

[wandering peacefully]

.

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.

.

Isn't the title of their holy book called "The Book of Mormons? That's going to waste a lot of paper and ink changing out all those books. Not to mention new letterhead for all their communications.

 

[wandering peacefully]

The Book of Mormon should now appropriately be referred to as the Book of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saint?

My thoughts exactly .

 

[Jane.Doe]

Isn't the title of their holy book called "The Book of Mormons? That's going to waste a lot of paper and ink changing out all those books. Not to mention new letterhead for all their communications.

The Church's name is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Has been for approach 200 years now. The focus is Christ, more than any book of scripture.

The "Book of Mormon" is one of 4 books of scripture used, which obviously includes the Bible. The church was never actually named the "Mormon Church", rather such was originally a slanderous nickname given by enemies of the church.

The "name change" lately isn't a name change at all, rather just being more insistent about calling the church by it's actual name.

 

[wandering peacefully]

The Church's name is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Has been for approach 200 years now. The focus is Christ, more than any book of scripture.

The "Book of Mormon" is one of 4 books of scripture used, which obviously includes the Bible. The church was never actually named the "Mormon Church", rather such was originally a slanderous nickname given by enemies of the church.

The "name change" lately isn't a name change at all, rather just being more insistent about calling the church by it's actual name.

Are they going to change the name of the book?

 

[Jane.Doe]

Are they going to change the name of the book?

Why?
Should we likewise change the name of the Bible?
The Church of Jesus Christ is of Latter-Day Saints is founded upon Christ Himself, not any book.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Why?
Should we likewise change the name of the Bible?
The Church of Jesus Christ is of Latter-Day Saints is founded upon Christ Himself, not any book.

All I can tell you is the book the LDS visitors to my home was titled "The Book Of Mormons". I didn't write it. My only question was are they changing the title of the book they pass out on their missions.

I have no idea why people would change the name of the Bible. It's not ttiled "The Book of Christians." I don't think I've heard of anyone wants to change the name of the bible.

 

[Jane.Doe]

All I can tell you is the book the LDS visitors to my home was titled "The Book Of Mormons". I didn't write it. My only question was are they changing the title of the book they pass out on their missions.

I have no idea why people would change the name of the Bible. It's not ttiled "The Book of Christians." I don't think I've heard of anyone wants to change the name of the bible.

They also hand out the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The books are named after the person who wrote them or was otherwise involved in the writing process. In the case of Mormon: a man named Mormon was the compiler/editor of the writings, hence how his name got associated with it.

But we don't worship Mormon, Mark, Luke, John, Joshua, or any other of the books human writers. It's not their church, it's Christ's Church. And the Church's bears His name: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

 

[shmogie]

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?

The Adventists have their study Bible, The Clear Bible. Like yours, the New World Translation, it is personal to the denomination and it is written to fit the theological points of the denomination. Yours, and theirs are not direct translations from the original Koine Greek texts. Translations, be it Vulgate, Wycliffe, KJV or whatever are the best effort to translate the original texts to English. They are not paraphrases, they do not substitute words they think should be in the text for what is actually there.

The NWT is not an accurate translation of of the original Greek NT texts, it has been modified, changed, adulterated from the original

As I pointed out, you do not have a prophet. You have a group of Elders you believe are specially anointed by God to lead, members of the 144,000 from Christian history to today, who are the extremely special group identified by John in Revelation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They also hand out the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The books are named after the person who wrote them or was otherwise involved in the writing process. In the case of Mormon: a man named Mormon was the compiler/editor of the writings, hence how his name got associated with it.

But we don't worship Mormon, Mark, Luke, John, Joshua, or any other of the books human writers. It's not their church, it's Christ's Church. And the Church's bears His name: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

No, none of the gospels were written by the person that they were named after. Perhaps Luke was, but even that was an anonymous book. And none are eyewitness accounts. The earliest was written more than a generation after the crucifixion.

 

[Jane.Doe]

No, none of the gospels were written by the person that they were named after. Perhaps Luke was, but even that was an anonymous book. And none are eyewitness accounts. The earliest was written more than a generation after the crucifixion.

Hence the "otherwise involved in the writing process" part of my statement.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

No “Apple” in there?

 

[Watchmen]

All I can tell you is the book the LDS visitors to my home was titled "The Book Of Mormons". I didn't write it. My only question was are they changing the title of the book they pass out on their missions.

I have no idea why people would change the name of the Bible. It's not ttiled "The Book of Christians." I don't think I've heard of anyone wants to change the name of the bible.

No. Mormon refers to an individual — not the Church.

 

[Katzpur]

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.

What came up? The name of the Church? It has come up periodically over the years. We just want people to include the name of "Jesus Christ" in the name of the Church. I don't know why that's too much to ask. Then again, it's not an issue I'm personally losing any sleep over.

 

[Katzpur]

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

You keep saying that, but you haven't yet said why you believe it to be misnamed. Is your issue with "Jesus Christ" or "Latter-day Saints" and why?

 

[Katzpur]

Isn't the title of their holy book called "The Book of Mormons? That's going to waste a lot of paper and ink changing out all those books. Not to mention new letterhead for all their communications.

All I can tell you is the book the LDS visitors to my home was titled "The Book Of Mormons". I didn't write it. My only question was are they changing the title of the book they pass out on their missions.

First off, it's The Book of Mormon, not the Book of Mormons. Secondly, they're not changing the title of the book. It's named after a man we believe to have been an ancient prophet and who compiled the records of his people. You have apparently misunderstood the whole issue. Before there was a Bible per se, there were still a collection of writings called "books." They were often named after their supposed authors. So there was a Book of Matthew, a Book of Mark, a Book of Luke and a Book of John. They all testified of Jesus Christ, and believers in these books are known as "Christians."

 

[Katzpur]

Perhaps you won't let yourself understand because it affects you too much personally. I could see how other Christians would balk at using the term "saint" when describing your church. To me it does not matter, but I have enough empathy to see the viewpoints of others.

It really has nothing to do with empathy. In the Bible, congregations of believers were called "saints." We are congregations of believers today. That shouldn't offend anybody.

 

[Katzpur]

No, none of the gospels were written by the person that they were named after. Perhaps Luke was, but even that was an anonymous book. And none are eyewitness accounts. The earliest was written more than a generation after the crucifixion.

And while you are right, that's beside the point.