“New” name and church identity

[Fether]

Ok, I know this is like the 4th thread, but Inhave a question that I feel justifies separating this from the others.

Today I witnessed my first inconvenience in using the full name of our church. My wife and I made friends with our neighbors who aren’t members of the church I if Jesus Christ. So my wife briefly mentioned we were members of the Mormon church when they asked about our missionary plaqs. After they left I swiftly berated her for her sinful ways and utter acts of apostasy. But then I got to thinking. 

If she said we were members of the church of Jesus Christ, the desired short hand name, there would be absolutely no connection in our friends minds between what they know of the “Mormons” and us. Any acts of kindness we do or any example we show to them they would not associate with the “Mormons”; but with our church (which they wouldn’t know until they made that cognitive connection).

It is almost as if we are creating a whole new identity and any work done by the “Mormon” church has been left behind. When we speak to people and use the short hand names (because let’s face it, the full name is rather long and not practical for normal conversation), people unaware of the names already may just think we are from a typical Christian denomination. Where as if I say “we are Mormons!” BOOM... immediate questions pop into their mind that lead to awesome missionary opportunities. No one has questions for the Presbyterian neighbor, no one comes across a Baptist and asks “do you really believe xyz???”. But you even mention “Mormon” and everyone has something to say.

 if someone feels the spirit in our homes and seeks out our church, they won’t be coming to the LDS church or the Mormon church, but will be coming into the true church of God upon the earth (the Kodge Kold)... Which I guess is what is desired... but if the name doesn’t matter but the true church and the doctrine is what matters, why worry about the new standard on referring to the church in the first place?

Did any of that make sense? Mostly it seems like a giant PR disaster.

I fully intend on obeying it completely, but just curious as to the purpose.

Thoughts?

[prisonchaplain]

From the outside looking in everything @Fether says makes sense. I finally got use to using LDS, and felt pretty good about being accurate and respectful. At the same time, as I read the report, President Nelson says he was impressed by the Spirit to encourage this move. So, putting myself in the mind of a member who wants to be missionary in my living, I'd probably start getting real used to saying the full name, as it seems to best convey the unique authority the church believes it carries.

[zil]

I have to assume there's a reason the Lord inspired this, and therefore, it's a good reason.  I can imagine a few reasons, but I also know that God's ways are not our ways and there's a fair chance my imagination would be wrong.  Revelation is probably the only way to get the reason(s), but the Lord doesn't always give us reasons - often he only gives us peace and/or testimony.

It seems the happiest outcome for all of us will come by choosing to get past any negative thoughts or knee-jerk objections to what appears to be a difficult task, and choosing instead to look for the positive.

 

[Overwatch]

It honestly can be to see if we'll actually do it. The Lord isn't stupid and knows the name is long. Let's try it out and see what happens. 

[Maureen]

3 hours ago, Fether said:

...Any acts of kindness we do or any example we show to them they would not associate with the “Mormons”; but with our church (which they wouldn’t know until they made that cognitive connection)...

Thoughts?

Why would someone need to relate the kindness or good example of a person with a church? Why can't they relate your good actions with you as a person? Anytime I've met someone and noticed their kindness or any positive action or characteristic, I credited it to the person and not due to any organization they belonged to.

M.

Edited August 19, 2018 by Maureen

[Jeremy A]

It's interesting that this would come up. Mormon is the most widely known name, but one has to realize where that name came about from an outsider's perspective. It was originally created as an insult. It's possible that God is attempting to get that insult part out of the name. Of course, that's only a guess. As stated previously, it's not entirely known why God has chosen to have us be known as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and not Mormons.

I've told a couple people about being LDS, and they get confused. They understand, however, when I say Mormon. I won't say Mormon first.

For those that haven't seen my posts, I announce when my trivia game is having games. The game is called LDS Trivia and Puzzles, not Mormon Trivia and Puzzles. I would probably get more people aware of the game if I do that, but this church isn't called the Mormon church.

In fact, I just wrote questions about the formal name to use, what nicknames to use, and what is frowned upon. I won't mention any of it here; however, that information is on the church's website, so please feel free to look it up. Maybe you'll play the game and come across those questions. I believe it was a post on this forum that got me the idea, but then again, I could have just stumbled upon when looking up something else.

[MarginOfError]

Welcome to the world of rebranding

[Guest MormonGator]

I've had two non member friends ask what was up with this name change. Both said the same thing I did-that the word "Mormon" is already so entrenched in the culture that it'll be very hard to change it. 

It'll also be interesting to see the first battle between a transgender person demanding to be called by the gender/name they want and an LDS demanding to be called by the name they want. 😉

Edited August 19, 2018 by MormonGator

[Fether]

7 hours ago, Maureen said:

Why would someone need to relate the kindness or good example of a person with a church? Why can't they relate your good actions with you as a person? Anytime I've met someone and noticed their kindness or any positive action or characteristic, I credited it to the person and not due to any organization they belonged to.

M.

Because I want them to realize that it was the gospel that taught me to be good, and not my own drive. That is awesome is someone thinks I  am great... but that does little for them. If they see that it is the gospel of Jesus Christ that made me great, then they know where to turn so they too can be like Jesus Christ.

[lostinwater]

My understanding of grammar is not great.  

But this whole thing seems to be less a name change than an attempt to replace an indefinite article with a definite one.  To eliminate any reference that would miss an opportunity to make (or get those engaging in conversation with you to agree to) an empirical truth claim through the use of the name.

Not criticizing it really, as it's only a request - just an observation.

Though i really hope Nelson doesn't actually expect outside news sources or non-members to use "the church" .  

Edited August 19, 2018 by lostinwater

[zil]

3 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Though i really hope Nelson doesn't actually expect outside news sources or non-members to use "the church" . 

This happens all the time in reporting and not just with our church.  Fake news example:

The Church of Triple-Broad Nibs held their first meeting Saturday, at the downtown Marriott hotel. [blah blah blah]  The church plans to meet every 3rd Saturday, and will welcome any pen with a nib no narrower than a Japanese broad.

...that's just normal journalistic writing.  "The company", "the organization", etc. are always used as an abbreviated reference after the full name has been spelled out.  And I've seen journalists respect the request to capitalize Church in said abbreviated reference.  Style guides are a common, every-day thing for reporters and other professional writers, and their editors.  You can find them on many corporate / organizational websites, and they're often followed by professionals - particularly those who aren't motivated to either be derogatory / aren't willfully disregarding a style guide.

[Sunday21]

6 minutes ago, zil said:

The Church of Triple-Broad Nibs held their first meeting Saturday, at the downtown Marriott hotel. [blah blah blah]  The church plans to meet every 3rd Saturday, and will welcome any pen with a nib no narrower than a Japanese broad.

I knew it! Zil is starting a cult! 

[zil]

12 hours ago, Fether said:

Did any of that make sense?

I should have mentioned last night that yes, it did make sense - as in, it's understandable.  (Though I hope you were exaggerating / joking about berating your wife!)

And this morning, I've been pondering what other folks have written, and ministering changes, and member-missionary stories, and thinking (a) maybe this is just another way in which members are being expected to step up their personal ministering - not just to one another, but in any / every interaction - to not rely on "Mormon" to provide an info-dump or hook for them, but to inspire others to come unto Christ without that aid (or hinderance); with brings me to (b) maybe the negative perception associated with "Mormon" has reached its level - that is, all the advertising in the world won't convince the remaining haters that we're not an evil cult, or maybe continued use of the name will increase that perception.  Perhaps by switching our terminology, and relying more on that name we've covenanted to take upon ourselves, we will reach more hearts.  Maybe we'll start to think of and speak of ourselves, our Church, and our faith differently - in a generation raised without heavy use of the name "Mormon".

Or maybe God's ways are inscrutable and we should just try it and see what happens.

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

I knew it! Zil is starting a cult! 

Except mine would be The Church of the Extra-Fine Nib.

[lostinwater]

12 minutes ago, zil said:

This happens all the time in reporting and not just with our church.  Fake news example:

The Church of Triple-Broad Nibs held their first meeting Saturday, at the downtown Marriott hotel. [blah blah blah]  The church plans to meet every 3rd Saturday, and will welcome any pen with a nib no narrower than a Japanese broad.

...that's just normal journalistic writing.  "The company", "the organization", etc. are always used as an abbreviated reference after the full name has been spelled out.  And I've seen journalists respect the request to capitalize Church in said abbreviated reference.  Style guides are a common, every-day thing for reporters and other professional writers, and their editors.  You can find them on many corporate / organizational websites, and they're often followed by professionals - particularly those who aren't motivated to either be derogatory / aren't willfully disregarding a style guide.

Thanks.  Yeah, that ones seems perfectly reasonable.  But only because you first used "The Church of Triple-Broad Nibs"  .  The second alludes to the first.

To only use "The church" in both references would be the kind of thing i was referring to.

So to use your example, what would be the structure that would meet Nelson's request - for someone writing an article for say the Washington Post?  Just asking out of curiosity, as perhaps i misunderstood the news release.

Edited August 19, 2018 by lostinwater

[zil]

1 minute ago, lostinwater said:

To only use "The church" in both references would be the kind of thing i was referring to.

The style guide is not requesting / suggesting that, nor would any journalist do it.  The style guide requests use of specific shortened forms when the writer / speaker is going to use a shortened form.  (It goes without saying that the norm is to use the full official name for the first reference.)

2 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

So to use your example, what would be the structure that would meet Nelson's request - for someone writing an article for say the Washington Post?  Just asking out of curiosity, as perhaps i misunderstood the news release.

Quote

With eight words, 11 syllables and one hyphen, the full name of the Mormon Church is quite the mouthful: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Given its cumbersome name, it’s unsurprising that both members and nonmembers of the Utah-based faith have long used abbreviations, such as Mormon and LDS. Take, for example, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir or the LDS Business College. A 2014 documentary film meant to raise awareness of the church is titled “Meet the Mormons.” A famous ad campaign popularized the slogan “I’m a Mormon.” Even the church’s official websites use Mormon in their addresses.

But Thursday, the church’s leader, ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/church-president-use-latter-day-saints-not-mormon/2018/08/17/c19f7960-a1e8-11e8-a3dd-2a1991f075d5_story.html

(Not a terribly friendly / positive tone to the article, but whatever.)  The Church's style guide would have had those subsequent "the church" instances as "the Church" - but the above are normal abbreviated references.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

12 hours ago, Overwatch said:

It honestly can be to see if we'll actually do it. The Lord isn't stupid and knows the name is long. Let's try it out and see what happens. 

Yes. I think you're right. I also think people will figure out that we used to be called Mormons when they are given a Book of Mormon bye their Latter-day Saint neighbors.

 

[Maureen]

4 hours ago, Fether said:

Because I want them to realize that it was the gospel that taught me to be good, and not my own drive. That is awesome is someone thinks I  am great... but that does little for them. If they see that it is the gospel of Jesus Christ that made me great, then they know where to turn so they too can be like Jesus Christ.

To be honest, I don't quite paint a person as GREAT, just because I see goodness in them. I'm just saying I doubt many people would associate a person's positive characteristics with a religion. When you meet someone for the first time and see good qualities in them, do you automatically assume they are like that because they are members of an organized religion?

M.

[Anddenex]

I would specify the inconvenience is more a matter of perception than reality. We know from Church history and the Book of Mormon that the Lord is clear as to the name of His Church, otherwise if we continue to refer to our selves as Mormons (due to the Book of Mormon -- and Mormon the prophet) than we have not identified ourselves correctly. Honestly, if I had done a work in the name of my Lord, I wouldn't want people referring to the Church as my name either. I would correct that immediately and point people back to who my master is.

I hope this sticks this time. The Church, the Lord through his prophets, have been requesting this for some time now. Might be time we start listening.

In saying this, if a person were to ask if I was Mormon, I would say "Yes." Then I would clarify with a follow up by saying, "Although, the name of the Church is...."

I highly doubt when Mormon was performing this work he was thinking, "This is great they are going to call the Lord's Church after my name." My personal thoughts, if we had a chance to speak with Mormon he would be the first to ask that it not be used anymore. The mount of transfiguration is a great example here also regarding Christ being the only name, the only Church.

Edited August 19, 2018 by Anddenex

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Maureen said:

To be honest, I don't quite paint a person as GREAT, just because I see goodness in them. I'm just saying I doubt many people would associate a person's positive characteristics with a religion. When you meet someone for the first time and see good qualities in them, do you automatically assume they are like that because they are members of an organized religion?

M.

You prove my point even more with your comment.

If I meet someone that I later learn is Jewish and he is very kind and is always seeking to love and serve me, and then if I think back in my life and notice that all 23 Jewish people I have ever met were all kind and service oriented, you better believe I am going to associate that kindness with their religion. It is a habit everyone on earth has. It is why when we think of Utah we think Mormons, when we think WW2 we think nazi and halocaust, when we think J R Tolkien we also think Lord of the rings... I can go on. Now whenever I think of Jews, O think of kind service oriented people. When I think “Mormon” I think of whatever experiences I have had with Mormons.

Now, when someone sees me being kind and they find out I am a member of the church of Jesus Christ, they are going to look back on heir life and think they have never met anyone from my church but they know a lot of Christians so they will categorize that kindness from Christianity as a whole. BUT if I said I was Mormon, then they have a specific religion they have heard a lot about to look back on and file away in their kind.0

[Maureen]

@Fether, if you meet a kind person, whose morality and ethics you admire and you find out he or she is an atheist, how do you reconcile their good characteristics with the fact they are not a member of any God-centred religion?

M.

[CV75]

18 hours ago, Fether said:

Ok, I know this is like the 4th thread, but Inhave a question that I feel justifies separating this from the others.

Today I witnessed my first inconvenience in using the full name of our church. My wife and I made friends with our neighbors who aren’t members of the church I if Jesus Christ. So my wife briefly mentioned we were members of the Mormon church when they asked about our missionary plaqs. After they left I swiftly berated her for her sinful ways and utter acts of apostasy. But then I got to thinking. 

If she said we were members of the church of Jesus Christ, the desired short hand name, there would be absolutely no connection in our friends minds between what they know of the “Mormons” and us. Any acts of kindness we do or any example we show to them they would not associate with the “Mormons”; but with our church (which they wouldn’t know until they made that cognitive connection).

It is almost as if we are creating a whole new identity and any work done by the “Mormon” church has been left behind. When we speak to people and use the short hand names (because let’s face it, the full name is rather long and not practical for normal conversation), people unaware of the names already may just think we are from a typical Christian denomination. Where as if I say “we are Mormons!” BOOM... immediate questions pop into their mind that lead to awesome missionary opportunities. No one has questions for the Presbyterian neighbor, no one comes across a Baptist and asks “do you really believe xyz???”. But you even mention “Mormon” and everyone has something to say.

 if someone feels the spirit in our homes and seeks out our church, they won’t be coming to the LDS church or the Mormon church, but will be coming into the true church of God upon the earth (the Kodge Kold)... Which I guess is what is desired... but if the name doesn’t matter but the true church and the doctrine is what matters, why worry about the new standard on referring to the church in the first place?

Did any of that make sense? Mostly it seems like a giant PR disaster.

I fully intend on obeying it completely, but just curious as to the purpose.

Thoughts?

All I've seen online is the Newsroom announcement, and its link to a style guide for journalists/media outlets to use. I'm open to reiterating what members have been asked to do for decades, and maybe hat will be reiterated.

[Fether]

2 hours ago, Maureen said:

@Fether, if you meet a kind person, whose morality and ethics you admire and you find out he or she is an atheist, how do you reconcile their good characteristics with the fact they are not a member of any God-centred religion?

M.

Someone can easily be a kind person and be an atheist, I know many that fall in this category I don’t know where you are getting this from. I’m not suggesting, nor did I in my comments, suggest otherwise. Whether atheists can be good or not has nothing to do with the point Im trying to make.

I’m talking about the relationships between a people and their actions. When I say the word “Mormon” to people, they immediately associate that with a lot of good and strange things. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir, Good neighbors, kind people, Mormon Helping Hands, missionary work, temples, Donny Osmond, Mitt Romney, Polygamy, Word of Wisdom, BYU, Utah, etc. ( this is of course is subject to the individual). Any of these topics are plausible opportunities of discussion that are unique to our church and lead to missionary opportunities.

When I tell someone “I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ”, they have no mental connection between that church but rather just the connection to Christianity as a broad topic.

[Guest MormonGator]

 A friend asked me "Are they trying to distance themselves from the Book of Mormon?" I said no of course, but it was a good question. 

[Sunday21]

Yo know what is funny! I have some really nosey coworkers so... when I started work, coworkers asked me what religion, I was and what church I belonged to, which NEVER happens here. I said Church if Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. They knew instantly. So maybe, the transition will be easier than we think! 😊