“New” name and church identity


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours 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.

I know there are an awful lot of folks who are pretty quick to blame a person’s religion when that person turns out to be a stinker.  🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Maureen said:

Why would someone need to relate the kindness or good example of a person with a church?

For those who converted as teens or adults, there is often a dramatic turn around. "I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see." In such cases, credit for the change towards goodness often goes to the church or religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours 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 would be amazed at how many Lutherans and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints people I have met whom I have assumed to be Assemblies of God folks. :bouncingclap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 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.

It was probably the influence of their praying Pentecostal mother. :animatedtongue:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
9 hours ago, lostinwater said:

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

Why not?  We are expected to call others by their preferred names, including calling transexual people by their preferred pronoun.  I think "LGBTQIA+" is long and a bit redundant, but I use it because that is what those in that group have asked to be called.  So under the same token, a church should be able to choose what it prefers to be called also.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Why not?  We are expected to call others by their preferred names, including calling transexual people by their preferred pronoun.  I think "LGBTQIA+" is long and a bit redundant, but I use it because that is what those in that group have asked to be called.  So under the same token, a church should be able to choose what it prefers to be called also.  

Thanks.  

Apologies.  i could and should have been more clear about what i meant.  i thought i was, but given the response, i tend to think i must not have been.  And i take responsibility for that.

My intended meaning was that i hope nobody expects a disinterested third-party (ie most of the world) to believe that any and all references to "the church" - without any other contextualization - to be assumed to mean "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints".  

To me at least, that's sort of like Trump sending a memo to all other nations requesting that their citizens immediately begin referring to the USA as "the nation".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fether said:

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.

Your previous posts say:

Quote

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).

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

The reason why I think you associate kindness with religion is because that is what you wrote in these quotes.

So if an atheist can be kind, moral and ethical, how do you believe that happens, if religion did not teach them that? What do you contribute their goodness to, if you can't associate this goodness with a religion? And if an atheist can have good principles and actions without a connection to religion, why wouldn't other people base your good principles and actions on your own choices as a person, and not contribute them to your religion?

M.

Edited by Maureen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks.  

Apologies.  i could and should have been more clear about what i meant.  i thought i was, but given the response, i tend to think i must not have been.  And i take responsibility for that.

My intended meaning was that i hope nobody expects a disinterested third-party (ie most of the world) to believe that any and all references to "the church" - without any other contextualization - to be assumed to mean "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints".  

To me at least, that's sort of like Trump sending a memo to all other nations requesting that their citizens immediately begin referring to the USA as "the nation".  

Have you read the style guide? The first mention is to be the long version and after late the shorter versions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maureen said:

Your previous posts say:

The reason why I think you associate kindness with religion is because that is what you wrote in these quotes.

So if an atheist can be kind, moral and ethical, how do you believe that happens, if religion did not teach them that? What do you contribute their goodness to, if you can't associate this goodness with a religion? And if an atheist can have good principles and actions without a connection to religion, why wouldn't other people base your good principles and actions on your own choices as a person, and not contribute them to your religion?

M.

An atheist can be a good person through being taught to be good by various sources. And some can associate my good choices with my own will not based in religion.

Also, if someone sees a positive pattern of kindness and service in Mormons, then they may look into it in an attempt to find that goodness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

Have you read the style guide? The first mention is to be the long version and after late the shorter versions. 

Thanks @Sunday21

Yes, i did.  i guess i took different things from it than others did.  i'm still a bit confused, honestly - and also not sure how well all this will "stick".  But regardless how it plays out, to the extent i can, i will try my level best to use the terms requested.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

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.

You assume they'll read the whole title before tossing it on the "stuff we'll never read" shelf.

At least the JWs have enough diverse literature that there's usually something the right thickness to level a piece of furniture, so you'll see it every time you vacuum behind the couch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

You would be amazed at how many Lutherans and Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints people I have met whom I have assumed to be Assemblies of God folks. :bouncingclap:

It's easier here; "spot the Pentecostals" is a downright boring game when they stand out so much in the Texas summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

It was probably the influence of their praying Pentecostal mother. :animatedtongue:

So can you explain why LDS, AoG and SDA seem to generate more atheists than all other faiths combined?  I've known people to switch between Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopal, and even Catholic churches as their beliefs changed, (or as the denominations changed - United Methodists, for example, are expecting a split over same-sex marriage as soon as the church states its final position, so one side will stay UMC and the other will leave and pick a new name) but when someone leaves any of those three, they generally seem to leave Christianity altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please keep in mind that the name "Mormon" also applies to fundamentalist groups from which it is wise to distance ourselves, and it doesn't indicate the center and object of our faith--i.e. Jesus Christ, leaving certain non-members to falsely assert that we aren't Christian.  The minor inconvenience of a longer name seems worth the net advantages--not that strong impressions from God need my feeble justifications.

Thank, Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

So can you explain why LDS, AoG and SDA seem to generate more atheists than all other faiths combined?  I've known people to switch between Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Episcopal, and even Catholic churches as their beliefs changed, (or as the denominations changed - United Methodists, for example, are expecting a split over same-sex marriage as soon as the church states its final position, so one side will stay UMC and the other will leave and pick a new name) but when someone leaves any of those three, they generally seem to leave Christianity altogether.

All 3 faith groups have unique beliefs and are generally rigorous in practice. If one has been to a temple, prayed in tongues, or eaten vegetarian and insisted on Saturday Sabbath (to the point of alienated non-SDA friends), and then later come to doubt these practices, the result is likely a great feeling of foolishness. If I was wrong about THAT, how can I trust the rest of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
8 hours ago, lostinwater said:

My intended meaning was that i hope nobody expects a disinterested third-party (ie most of the world) to believe that any and all references to "the church" - without any other contextualization - to be assumed to mean "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints".  

To me at least, that's sort of like Trump sending a memo to all other nations requesting that their citizens immediately begin referring to the USA as "the nation".  

I agree, but I don't think that's what was intended.  My understanding was that if a media outlet, say writes an article about the the church the request is that the first time they use the full name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  Then, in the same article, other references could be shortened to The Church of Jesus Christ.  Again within the same article.  

Of course, "the church" could apply to many different churches, no one is saying otherwise, not Pres. Nelson, or anyone else that I am aware of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

I'm not sure that the media/non members care what the church asks to be called. It's not based in any negative feelings towards the church, it's based in apathy. 

And since virtually all Christian churches think they are the true church of Jesus Christ, I'm not sure other Christian denominations will accept the name change either. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering what effects this is going to have with certain church websites that use "Mormon" in its name and address such as https://www.mormon.org/this-is-church

https://www.mormontabernaclechoir.org

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org

https://mormonandgay.lds.org

Especially in the latter, it changes the effect to say- Latter Day Saint and Gay

Edited by Rob Osborn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2018 at 8:45 PM, 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?

When they asked about your mission plaqs you couldn't have simply said something like "So we are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon church, which you have probably heard of.  We prefer to be referred to as Latter-Day Saints, that is the proper name"?  Is saying something like that that difficult?

Edited by FoolsMock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FoolsMock said:

When they asked about your mission plaqs you couldn't have simply said something like "So we are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon church, which you have probably heard of.  We prefer to be referred to as Latter-Day Saints, that is the proper name"?  Is saying something like that that difficult?

On paper no it is not difficult, but it would be a drastic shift in the conversation we were having. I had the exact same thought you had when I first heard of the change and complaints that followed, but in reality it is a mouthful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yo Momma so Mormon jokes just don't work the same way without using the word Mormon.

For example, the below wouldn't have the same ring to it if it said Yo Momma so member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints...

Image result for yo momma so mormon

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/19/2018 at 7:50 AM, lostinwater said:

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

It looks as though you are misunderstanding the news release.

Quote

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.

The second bullet point (bolded above) appears to be your source of confusion. In journalism and technical papers, it is standard practice to refer to an organization by its full name on first reference, then refer to it by an abbreviated version of some sort afterward. The news release simply say that, when writing about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, use its full name on first reference. If the publication then desires to use a shortened version, they are asked not to use "Mormon Church", "LDS Church", or "Church of the Latter-day Saints". Instead, the suggestion is to use "the Church" in later references; if that is not specific enough, "the Church of Jesus Christ" is suggested, as is "the restored Church of Jesus Christ".

How realistic it is to expect or even hope that news organizations in general (much less an antiMormon -- can I still say that? -- rag like the NYT) will actually follow these requests is debatable. But saying the Church is being presumptuous is simply not true. If an article is talking about seven churches, or even two, then "the Church" might not be specific enough. But most articles that mention the Church are talking about "the Mormons", not a bunch of different groups. In such articles, there is no confusion in using "the Church" in non-first references. I think it's a perfectly reasonable and valid request, though I seriously doubt most news organizations will have the courtesy (especially to a religious organization) to use the preferred terminology.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2018 at 11:01 PM, Maureen said:

Why would someone need to relate the kindness or good example of a person with a church?

Exactly. And when I meet someone who is well-educated, I don't credit his school with any of that. If a woman is well-mannered, she gets the credit, not her parents. Everyone knows that people are who they are, without any effect whatsoever by, you know, who they've associated with or what influences they have experienced. Another brilliant insight!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/20/2018 at 8:49 AM, Rob Osborn said:

I'm wondering what effects this is going to have with certain church websites that use "Mormon" in its name and address such as https://www.mormon.org/this-is-church

https://www.mormontabernaclechoir.org

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org

https://mormonandgay.lds.org

Especially in the latter, it changes the effect to say- Latter Day Saint and Gay

These are some of the very things that have caused me confusion over this issue in the past when requested of church membership to use the full name and then the church seems to turn around and default back to promoting the term in other ways. It starts to make it seem like perhaps it isn't that big of a deal to use the full name. It will be strange though if names like the Mormon Channel change to the channel of the of the Church of JCoLDS. Perhaps since the channel and the websites aren't direct references to the church itself, but merely useful names for finding information, they aren't important to change as well? It will be hard to distance the organization from a moniker that it continues to use for PR and advertising as it were. 

Edited by SpiritDragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share