-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why all the hubbub over the name?
- Thread starter Watchmen
- Start date
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I get the point of it, but it kind of seems like overkill to me. It has always bugged me to hear people refer to the Church of the Latter-day Saints, because they're omitting the most important part of the name, but honestly, I don't think God is all that offended when we call ourselves LDS or even Mormon. If that were the case, I think that He (i.e. God) would have made a point of correcting us back when we started the huge media campaign, "I'm a Mormon." That was an official Church-approved campaign, instituted under Thomas Monson. To hear President Nelson say that every time we use a nickname for the Church, it's a "victory for Satan," seems like a over-reaction to me. I do think it's reasonable to expect members of the media to get the name right the first time the name of the Church appears in a news article or on TV, but aside from that, I don't feel the need to repent every time I say the "LDS Church" or refer to myself as a Mormon.
Agreed. Does seem like overkill.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Having had to deal with critics of the CoJCoLDS for decades, I can absolutely understand this.
There is a hierarchy of belief going on here:
Theism
Abrahamic
Christian
Restorationist
Mormon
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints.
Yes, we are all still Mormons....but so are the FLDS and the Community of Christ and the Strangites and a bunch of other, smaller groups. We are Mormons the way the Alliance of Baptists or the United American Free Will Baptist Conference are Baptists, but....the Alliance of Baptists are not United American Free Will Baptist Conference folks.
Perhaps a better illustration would be Lutheranism. There are three major splits among the Lutherans in the US: the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America..these folks are the largest. They ordain women, take the bible as historical but not necessarily literal, and the idea of transubstantiation is up to the individual worshiper. The second largest is the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. It doesn't ordain women, though allows women to serve in church offices. The bible is literally true, and transubstantiation isn't an option. The third largest group is the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. They neither ordain women nor allow them to take offices in the church. The bible is literal and inerrant. They don't think that other Lutherans are legitimately Lutheran.
but every one of them is Lutheran, though their beliefs differ greatly. One of my favorite debate opponents over the years had, as her sig file, a statement that she was (I actually forget which group, come to think of it...hmmn) a member/believer in one group of Lutherans, but not another. It ended with "please learn the difference." Y'know, in the fifteen years I've been arguing with her, I never did 'learn the difference?" I feel embarrassed about that now. She would certainly understand the reasoning behind the 'new' emphasis upon using the correct name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints.
However, she identified as a Lutheran. Period. Lutherans were Lutherans, right?
Except they aren't, evidently. Big differences in beliefs. Huge.
How does that matter to Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints?
There are quite a few different Mormon groups. The largest one is the one out of Salt Lake City, with fourteen plus million people. All the others are considerably smaller; the largest 'other one' is less than a tenth as large. However, when people think "Mormon," I have found, they automatically go to the beliefs of those smaller groups: polygamy, etc. The CoJCoLDS does not practice polygamy, and hasn't for considerably over a century. I'm a little tired of being asked about Warren Jeffs, myself, y'know? THAT group hasn't been associated with us for a century, either.
So it's time to set the record straight. YES. We are Mormons. We aren't the only Mormons. We are not FLDS or STRANGITES or Community of Christ. We are also Restorationists. We are not Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists. We are Christians. We are not Catholics or Lutherans or Baptists. We are Abrahamic. We are not Muslims or Jews.
And there is absolutely no "rebranding' going on. No deceit or attempt to 'get away' from anything. We ARE Mormons...like the American Baptist Association, the Conservative Baptist Association and Westboro Baptists are all Baptists. However, It's not being deceitful at all for "Lancaster Baptist" to insist upon being referred to as such, and NOT as 'Westboro Baptist." Can you blame them?
We are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints. We are Mormons, too, but we are NOT the only Mormons, nor are all Mormons associated with us. We are not 'rebranding.' We are doing precisely the opposite, if you think about it.
As for me, yeah, I'm a Mormon. I'm also, and more specifically, LDS (Latter-day saint). My beliefs are not the same as those of the FLDS, etc., To quote my friend and Lutheran opponent, please learn the difference.
And stop getting PO'd because we point out that there ARE differences.
I’ll respond further later but a couple initial thoughts. First, who do you think is PO’d? Second, why do you assume “rebranding” is deceitful?
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Your OP made it rather clear that you were not...supportive? of the idea. "I don't get it." is an implication of criticism. "Rebranding" is like...oh...when Old Spice used ad campaigns to turn it's brand from "old fogey" to 'sexy," by using Isaiah Mustafa, or when Burberry turned a brand associated with gang wear to much admired luxury wear by having Kate Moss wear it.
Rebranding isn't about changing a name, it's about using advertising to change the public's perceptions of a product. And no, it's not deceitful....but "I don't get it" is certainly an implication that one thinks it may be deceitful, especially if, after having explained the reasons behind it, one still doesn't 'get it.' Not that you have given any indication that you don't, as far as I have read, anyway....
Asking that people think of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints (a name we've had a bit longer than the larger appellation of "Mormon," actually) as the specific group "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints" rather than committing the fallacy of composition by thinking that Mormons are all 'Latter-day saints," isn't deceitful at all. In fact, it's quite the opposite. the fact that you "don't get it," tells me that you are among the folks out there who NEED to 'get it.' To understand that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints may be Mormon....but we aren't the only Mormons and it's a good idea to figure that not all Mormon groups believe the same thing.
Wow. You sure are good about making assumptions. Do you even know anything about me? I doubt it.Your OP made it rather clear that you were not...supportive? of the idea. "I don't get it." is an implication of criticism. "Rebranding" is like...oh...when Old Spice used ad campaigns to turn it's brand from "old fogey" to 'sexy," by using Isaiah Mustafa, or when Burberry turned a brand associated with gang wear to much admired luxury wear by having Kate Moss wear it.
Rebranding isn't about changing a name, it's about using advertising to change the public's perceptions of a product. And no, it's not deceitful....but "I don't get it" is certainly an implication that one thinks it may be deceitful, especially if, after having explained the reasons behind it, one still doesn't 'get it.' Not that you have given any indication that you don't, as far as I have read, anyway....
Asking that people think of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints (a name we've had a bit longer than the larger appellation of "Mormon," actually) as the specific group "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints" rather than committing the fallacy of composition by thinking that Mormons are all 'Latter-day saints," isn't deceitful at all. In fact, it's quite the opposite. the fact that you "don't get it," tells me that you are among the folks out there who NEED to 'get it.' To understand that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints may be Mormon....but we aren't the only Mormons and it's a good idea to figure that not all Mormon groups believe the same thing.
“I don’t get it” means just that. I don’t get why the Church is emphasizing the name issue at this time. It seems to me it’s a moot point and the Church’s efforts could be better spent elsewhere. I seriously think focusing on the name issue is going to lead the general public to understanding the differences between the various versions of Mormonism. In fact, it might just creat more confusion given the recent “I am a Mormon” campaign.
Rebranding is EXACTLY what your original post describes. There’s nothing deceitful in and of rebranding itself. It’s simply steering people another direction. Seems to me the Church wants to emphasize the Jesus Christ part of its name. It’s not unlike when the Church changed its logo to emphasize JESUS CHRIST.
I quit making assumptions about me. I know the Church inside and out.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Do you? That's nice.
I guess the question here is...if not now, when?
See, my problem is that I have been debating critics of the church for years. Mostly evangelicals, but atheists and others chime in there frequently, and one of THE most annoying things I have to deal with, in conversations with them, is the accusations they come up with regarding, oh...polygamy or shunning or child abuse and the like. Because Warren Jeffs is a Mormon (and he is) and the FLDS is Mormon (and it is) then of course ALL Mormons are polygamists and child abusers and casters out of young men and...you name it.
It is very much as if Lancaster Baptist had to constantly defend the actions taken by Westboro Baptists. I think, personally, that it is a very good thing that the church is emphasizing the name of the specific Mormon group we belong to...the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints. I think so because all those other smaller groups with whose beliefs we disagree are indeed Mormons. We don't have the right to tell them they are not, any more than some evangelical can tell me I'm not a Christian and make me go along with it.
So...we are Mormons, but not the only ones, and it's time that we and the critics and those who are simply sorta curious understand that Latter-day saints are NOT FLDS, did NOT build that compound in Texas. We aren't Strangites or any of the other offshoots and breakaway groups.
We are us. We know what our beliefs are, and yes, Jesus Christ IS the center of those beliefs.
It's a good thing, and if we don't start doing this now, when would be a better time? Better late than never, perhaps?
Me? This is something I've been arguing about for years; yes, we are Mormons, but more importantly, we are Latter-day saints...members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints. It may take a bit of time and habit changing, but getting that straight in everybody's mind can't but be a very good thing.
Fascinating. I don’t think I’ve ever had the arguments you describe in your post. Just out of curiosity, where are you located. Maybe it’s a geography thing as I know perceptions of the Church vary from West to East.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
?????
I'm in California, actually, though I was born and raised in Idaho and Utah, where two of my daughters still live.
Perhaps you could address those particular arguments and tell me what you think about them. rather than simply assuming that I have somehow picked up the culture and am knee jerk parroting someone else's position? That is, you realize, a rather condescending and insulting position to take, and isn't exactly responsive to the actual argument being made.
I didn’t assume you picked up some culture and were knee jerk parroting. I specifically explained that views on Mormons varied from East to West, and suggested that perhaps the “arguments” you described were the result of the geography (not you). I happen to be in a California now and have always been on the west coast. I’ve never had the arguments you have had, but I’m starting to think that’s more about the person than the topic. You seem incapable of responding to any of my posts without trying to pick a fight. Since this is a DIR, and not a debate forum, I’ll just bid thee adieu.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
My apologies. Put it down to contending on CARM for years. I've got a chip on my shoulder that is about the size of Yosemite. I would still, however, like to know what you think about the argument I just made, though, regarding the name "Mormon" and the new emphasis on the 'formal' name of the church.
MJS
Member
Well, if you believe that there is a living prophet receiving direction from God, it doesn't matter if it seems like "overkill" or "rebranding" or "hubbub". President Russell Nelson has declared that it is the word of the Lord. He has not minced words. He expressed that it is what God wants. So regardless of how the world perceives such an action, that's the action to take.
Now, if you DON'T believe that there is a living prophet who receives these directions from God, it is easy to question this action and any other action the church takes. That's the nature of it.
As far as the why, it is pretty explicit in scripture. And it is nothing new. Church officers have been discouraging the term "mormon" for a long time.
3 Nephi 27:
"3 And they said unto him: Lord, we will that thou wouldst tell us the name whereby we shall call this church; for there are disputations among the people concerning this matter.
4 And the Lord said unto them: Verily, verily, I say unto you, why is it that the people should murmur and dispute because of this thing?
5 Have they not read the scriptures, which say ye must take upon you the name of Christ, which is my name? For by this name shall ye be called at the last day;
6 And whoso taketh upon him my name, and endureth to the end, the same shall be saved at the last day.
7 Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake.
8 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."
So being called "Mormons" and calling the church the "Mormon church" would seem to insinuate that it is the church of Mormon, correct? That's what the Lord warns against in those BOM scriptures.
It is very easy to understand why people outside the church question this direction. But for people inside the church, why do you question it? It is doctrinaly and scripturaly supported. The prophet has declared it the word of the Lord. Seems pretty straight forward.
Now, if you DON'T believe that there is a living prophet who receives these directions from God, it is easy to question this action and any other action the church takes. That's the nature of it.
As far as the why, it is pretty explicit in scripture. And it is nothing new. Church officers have been discouraging the term "mormon" for a long time.
3 Nephi 27:
"3 And they said unto him: Lord, we will that thou wouldst tell us the name whereby we shall call this church; for there are disputations among the people concerning this matter.
4 And the Lord said unto them: Verily, verily, I say unto you, why is it that the people should murmur and dispute because of this thing?
5 Have they not read the scriptures, which say ye must take upon you the name of Christ, which is my name? For by this name shall ye be called at the last day;
6 And whoso taketh upon him my name, and endureth to the end, the same shall be saved at the last day.
7 Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake.
8 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."
So being called "Mormons" and calling the church the "Mormon church" would seem to insinuate that it is the church of Mormon, correct? That's what the Lord warns against in those BOM scriptures.
It is very easy to understand why people outside the church question this direction. But for people inside the church, why do you question it? It is doctrinaly and scripturaly supported. The prophet has declared it the word of the Lord. Seems pretty straight forward.
MJS
Member
Well you are wrong. The Prophet specifically stated that God has asked us to stop doing this. In fact he specifically states that the Lord IS offended.
"“I did this because the Lord impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He decreed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
"The effort is not a name change, not rebranding, not cosmetic, not a whim and not inconsequential. Rather, it is a correction and the command of the Lord."
"“Thus, the name of the Church is not negotiable. When the Savior clearly states what the name of His Church should be, and even precedes His declaration with, 'Thus shall my church be called,’ He is serious. And if we allow nicknames to be used and adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, He is offended.”
I don't know how much more explicit he can be. If you question this, you are questioning the truthfulness of when he says that it IS important and that he DID receive it from the Lord. This is plain. This is simple.
Like I said, if you don't believe that he received it from the Lord and you don't trust that he is telling the truth, it's natural to question this, just like any direction coming from the prophet.
And this is nothing new. Members have been receiving direction to not use these terms for years and years.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
You forgot to add, "in my opinion."
And yet it took God 189 years to mention this offense to His prophet.
As recently as 2011, Church members were encouraged to call themselves "Mormons." Have you forgotten the enormous "I'm a Mormon" campaign? It was a multi-mullion-dollar advertising campaign seen around the world -- with the official blessing of the Church's leadership, specifically President Monson. Did President Monson somehow miss the memo? Why didn't God tell Him not to use the word "Mormon" if it was that big of a deal? And what about "Mormon Helping Hands," the volunteer group that provides so much needed service following natural disasters all over the country. I'd be willing to bet that the hundreds of thousands of individuals who have been the recipients of their help over the years don't care what was printed on the bright yellow T-shirts of the people who were shoveling the mud and debris out of their destroyed houses. The words on those T-shirts didn't represent a "victory for Satan" in the minds of the people who benefited from their selfless acts of service. Go ahead and smugly try to imply that I'm not as good of a Latter-day Saint as you are if I occasionally commit the gross sin of referring to myself as a "Mormon," but I think the Lord has bigger issues to worry about -- maybe like how we treat our fellow men and how we try to demean our fellow members of the Church who are so brazen as to express a different point of views. Pharisees. Ya gotta love 'em.
MJS
Member
It's not my opinion. It is a direct quote from the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He literally said God is offended.
You can reject what he says, but in doing so you reject his claim that it came from the Lord, God is offended if we don't follow, and that it is important and not merely "rebranding".
Cheers.
MJS
Member
I am not saying you are not as good of a "Latter-day Saint". I am trying to provide clarification of what the president of the church has stated on the matter. Similar statements have been made in the 1990's, in 2002 around the time of the olympics in Utah, and again today. I, for one, was confused about the "I'm a Mormon" campaign because I knew that getting people to stop using the term Mormon had been something the brethren had been talking about for a long time. I don't know the ins and outs of the campaign and who signed off on it, or where it stems from. I haven't heard church leadership talk about that campaign. So I can't speak to that. You said President Monson approved it, but I haven't seen that anywhere. I am not doubting you, I just personally have not seen that.
What I do know is that President Nelson is claiming (and that is up to you and me to accept or reject) that the name of the church is important and that God revealed it to him. His words are pretty clear, firm, and not up to interpretation.
I'm really not trying to fight. Perhaps my words are coming across as accusative or demeaning or arrogant, as another poster put it. That is not my intention. My intention was to highlight what President Nelson specifically said about the issue and remind people that if you believe that he is indeed a prophet of God (and people might not, which is ok too), this matter about the name of the church is not something that we can say is just his opinion, because he specifically said it came from God and that it is important. The deeper issue is whether or not we, as members, trust that he is telling the truth. We can't claim that he is a prophet and then deny his claims when he has been so explicit.
There are other times where we can think "Hmm, maybe that is just his opinion", but this does not seem to be one of those times because of what President Nelson has firmly claimed: that this came directly from God.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I never implied that it was merely "rebranding." I think it's important that people know and understand what the full and correct name of the Church. (By the way, when writing the name of the Church, the word "The" is always capitalized. Just for the sake of accuracy, I thought you'd want to know.)
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Well, use your brain. Do you, for one minute, think that a major advertising campaign that was in effect for several years would not have been approved by the First Presidency? The First Presidency does not make a habit of informing the general Church membership of every decision they make, but how many thousands of members responded to the Church's invitation for us to submit a personal profile to the "I'm a Mormon" website? I know I did. Are we all guilty of contributing to a "victory for Satan?" Seriously? If I were to write a news article about the Church or were to speak about the Church to a group of people about the Church, I'd use its full, correct name. But in daily life, if I refer to the teachings of "Mormonism" rather than to the teachings of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," I will do so without any pangs of conscience.
You might want to work on your delivery then.
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
Hmm. Comes right up for me.I tried to find the individual who I put on Ignore to hopefully come to a mutual understanding, but their name does not show anywhere that I can see.