Official Statement From President Nelson Puts the Kibosh On “Mormon,” “Mormonism,” and “LDS”

[mordorbund]

A history of the name of the Church: https://askgramps.org/how-did-the-lds-church-get-its-official-name/

(and I think it has an unsourced citation of Old Possum's Book of Churches)

[jerome1232]

Browsing my phone's newsfeed today I cringed a little when I saw this headline.

"Mormon church leader wants people to stop using 'Mormon.'"

I find it hard to not use the word Mormon, heck just last night I was talking to a guy and it came up that I was Mormon, he then asked me where my hat was, and if that's why I had a beard 

Hat? I started laughing, "what hat!?" I think he was thinking about Judasim, idk. I didn't want to try saying that I'm LDS, knowing I'll have to clarify that I'm Mormon anyways. Saying "I'm a latter-day saint" sounds like I'm bragging. "I go to the Church of Jesus Christ" doesn't sound definitive enough, sounds like I'm talking about your generic Christian chapel down the block. Maybe I'll try using that but I have a feeling I'll always end up saying I'm "Mormon" to clear things up.

[Vort]

35 minutes ago, jerome1232 said:

just last night I was talking to a guy and it came up that I was Mormon, he then asked me where my hat was, and if that's why I had a beard 

Hat? I started laughing, "what hat!?" I think he was thinking about Judasim, idk.

Probably thought you were a Mennonite.

[Sunday21]

Not to worry! We will work out some form of words. There are over 15 M of us and some of us are writers. Let’s email Olson Scott Card and ask for suggestions. 

[Guest MormonGator]

Wasn't there a movie called "Meet the Mormons" that came out in the last couple years? Did the church fund that ?

[Sunday21]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Wasn't there a movie called "Meet the Mormons" that came out in the last couple years? Did the church fund that ?

I am sure!

We are under new management! Like the time we changed bishops here. Under one of our bishops, Brazilian, just saying..all unmarried adults had yearly interviews during which we explained why we were not married and our plans for improvement. All singles perfected our hangdog looks. I dressed down for the interview. Low heels.

Then we got a Canadian cop as bishop. And there was rejoicing in singlesville.

New management. 

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

I am sure!

We are under new management! Like the time we changed bishops here. Under one of our bishops, Brazilian, just saying..all unmarried adults had yearly interviews during which we explained why we were not married and our plans for improvement. All singles perfected our hangdog looks. I dressed down for the interview. Low heels.

Then we got a Canadian cop as bishop. And there was rejoicing in singlesville.

New management. 

Right, I understand that, and I accept that. 

I'm saying that a non-member will/might be confused by us having no problem with the name in 2014 than having a problem with it in 2018. I'm not sure the change will really change much. 

Again, I'm saying what a non-member might think. Not what I necessarily think, though I'm sympathetic to what a non-member might think about this. 

[NeuroTypical]

CoJCoLDS.

[Vort]

Just now, NeuroTypical said:

CoJCoLDS.

"Kodge Kolds"

[Sunday21]

40 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Right, I understand that, and I accept that. 

I'm saying that a non-member will/might be confused by us having no problem with the name in 2014 than having a problem with it in 2018. I'm not sure the change will really change much. 

Again, I'm saying what a non-member might think. Not what I necessarily think, though I'm sympathetic to what a non-member might think about this. 

Valid point! I plan to explain with a smile...and a rueful chuckle. 

[Fether]

9 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

You know what else ain't hard?  Putting a dang link to the dang news release in the dang article.  The author managed to link everydangthing else under the sun, but there's no actual link to the actual church statement.  [grinds my teeth at the state of journalism today]

just saying, I posted a thread on this 4 minutes before this garbage plagiarism was posted... and my thread had a link.

EVEVERYONE COME TO MY THREAD!!

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/65476-new-guidance-on-using-the-name-of-the-church/

[Fether]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

"Kodge Kolds"

I think you are on to something. I’m going to try to deliberately use this whenever possible

[MarginOfError]

This isn't new. This guidance has been in the Handbook since 2010. It may have even been in the 1998 version. In 2000 (or 2001) I remember the church issuing a similar release...and then following up with the I'm a Mormon campaign. 

I believe Elder Ballard has dedicated two Conference talks to the subject. 

And I will completely ignore it this time. I tried to adhere to this the first time it came around. I found that I spent so much time clarifying the name of the church to people that by the time I was done with that, they didn't care to hear anything about what we might actually believe.

[MarginOfError]

This isn't new. This guidance has been in the Handbook since 2010. It may have even been in the 1998 version. In 2000 (or 2001) I remember the church issuing a similar release...and then following up with the I'm a Mormon campaign. 

I believe Elder Ballard has dedicated two Conference talks to the subject. 

And I will completely ignore it this time. I tried to adhere to this the first time it came around. I found that I spent so much time clarifying the name of the church to people that by the time I was done with that, they didn't care to hear anything about what we might actually believe.

[zil]

2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

This isn't new. This guidance has been in the Handbook since 2010.

This is different from what is in Handbook 2 (chapter 21) right this very second - I'm looking at it.  Handbook 2 is OK with members being called "Mormons" - the announcement is not.  Handbook 2 allows that "Mormon" may be needed "to identify the Church as it is commonly known in some countries" - the new announcement doesn't allow such a concession.  I imagine the handbook will be updated before too long (indeed, my GL app is now doing massive downloads, so HB2 updates may be among those).

Elder Ballard's most recent talk on the matter matches the handbook.  My memory doesn't extend far enough (and I don't have the desire to dig out all the statements of the past).

As for the rest, I've already expressed my thoughts on that.

[Sunday21]

I wish the Ensign would give us a very short Style Guide, maybe a paragraph. Perhaps the 3 Mormons could do a video? I am calling coreligionists, ‘members’ until I find a better method! 

Edited August 18, 2018 by Sunday21

[MarginOfError]

4 hours ago, zil said:

This is different from what is in Handbook 2 (chapter 21) right this very second - I'm looking at it.  Handbook 2 is OK with members being called "Mormons" - the announcement is not.  Handbook 2 allows that "Mormon" may be needed "to identify the Church as it is commonly known in some countries" - the new announcement doesn't allow such a concession.  I imagine the handbook will be updated before too long (indeed, my GL app is now doing massive downloads, so HB2 updates may be among those).

Elder Ballard's most recent talk on the matter matches the handbook.  My memory doesn't extend far enough (and I don't have the desire to dig out all the statements of the past).

As for the rest, I've already expressed my thoughts on that.

Weird. I remember instruction being much more firm on the matter. Perhaps that was just the mission's take.  

I'll still be ignoring it though, for the reasons stated above. I've yet to meet anyone who has any problem with Mormons being Christian that wouldn't object to that under these new guidelines anyway. 

[Sunday21]

Help with new terms: Trying to explain to someone why we need to obey commandments

Me: God has a greater understanding than we do of the eternal consequences of our behaviours. He makes rules to help us: commandments. MEMBERS would be wise to obey these commandments.

Do you think this phrasing works? Harder for nonmember to follow conversation. Also non members have told me that they dislike being asked if they belong to the ‘church’, because they belong to another church. I wonder how they will feel about being designated ‘nonmembers’ 

Edited August 19, 2018 by Sunday21

[zil]

3 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

Help with new terms: Trying to explain to someone why we need to obey commandments

Me: God has a greater understanding than we do of the eternal consequences of our behaviours. He makes rules to help us: commandments. MEMBERS would be wise to obey these commandments.

I see no issues with the above.  But I don't see the requested change in how we refer to the Church and its members as a commandment - it's a request to use different terminology.  I must assume there will be blessings associated for those who happily meet this request.

Are you trying to figure out how to explain the name-change to nonmembers?  I don't see any reason to distinguish between members and nonmembers when it comes to this request - logic seems like the best approach.  We are not and never have been the "Mormon Church" - explain that, where "Mormon" (as a church / member reference) came from and why we'd like to be rid of it - at the end of the day, it's about respecting the Lord and the name He established for his Church and the members thereof.

I suppose you could say something like, "We believe President Nelson was inspired of God to make this change.  Therefore it behooves members to support him, and we're asking everyone to please use our real name instead of a nickname that doesn't reflect our beliefs." (or something)

3 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

Do you think this phrasing works? Harder for nonmember to follow conversation. Also non members have told me that they dislike being asked if they belong to the ‘church’, because they belong to another church. I wonder how they will feel about being designated ‘nonmembers’ 

Obviously, when talking generically, there may be times when referring to "members" versus "nonmembers" is the logical thing to do in relating whatever you're trying to say.  This makes sense only with vague mass generalizations.

But when actually addressing an individual or group of people, referring to someone(s) as "nonmember" or "non-Mormon" is indeed dislike-able.

"What is your religion?" or "Do you attend a church?"  Open-ended questions that invite discussion are far better than yes/no questions that imply "we're the Church and everyone else is irrelevant".

We have been instructed not to address people as "nonmembers" (or maybe it was "non-Mormon", or both).  (I'm too lazy to go search for the talk.)  But essentially, the idea is to identify a person the way they identify themselves, and not as "not one of us".  "Bishop, this is my friend John.  I invited him to come and see what our Sunday meetings are like."

[askandanswer]

Governor Lilburn Boggs tried to get rid of all the Mormons. Now it seems as though President Nelson wants to do something similar

[Sunday21]

2 hours ago, zil said:

I see no issues with the above.  But I don't see the requested change in how we refer to the Church and its members as a commandment - it's a request to use different terminology.  I must assume there will be blessings associated for those who happily meet this request.

Are you trying to figure out how to explain the name-change to nonmembers?  I don't see any reason to distinguish between members and nonmembers when it comes to this request - logic seems like the best approach.  We are not and never have been the "Mormon Church" - explain that, where "Mormon" (as a church / member reference) came from and why we'd like to be rid of it - at the end of the day, it's about respecting the Lord and the name He established for his Church and the members thereof.

I suppose you could say something like, "We believe President Nelson was inspired of God to make this change.  Therefore it behooves members to support him, and we're asking everyone to please use our real name instead of a nickname that doesn't reflect our beliefs." (or something)

Obviously, when talking generically, there may be times when referring to "members" versus "nonmembers" is the logical thing to do in relating whatever you're trying to say.  This makes sense only with vague mass generalizations.

But when actually addressing an individual or group of people, referring to someone(s) as "nonmember" or "non-Mormon" is indeed dislike-able.

"What is your religion?" or "Do you attend a church?"  Open-ended questions that invite discussion are far better than yes/no questions that imply "we're the Church and everyone else is irrelevant".

We have been instructed not to address people as "nonmembers" (or maybe it was "non-Mormon", or both).  (I'm too lazy to go search for the talk.)  But essentially, the idea is to identify a person the way they identify themselves, and not as "not one of us".  "Bishop, this is my friend John.  I invited him to come and see what our Sunday meetings are like."

I imagine that for the next few decades, classes and conversations will be interrupted with...don’t use that word, don’t phrase it that way. Imagine the online discussion forums! The constant, don’t say that! Say it this way! The OCD people will go nuts! 

[zil]

42 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

I imagine that for the next few decades, classes and conversations will be interrupted with...don’t use that word, don’t phrase it that way. Imagine the online discussion forums! The constant, don’t say that! Say it this way! The OCD people will go nuts! 

I would suggest that those who want to comply with the prophet's request stick to using it themselves (and teaching their children to use it), and let other adults make their own choices.  In threads like this, or in similar conversations, it makes sense to encourage one another to support the prophet in this, and explore the positive reasons to do that.  But it's not going to be helpful in a discussion where "what to call the Church and its members" is not the topic of discussion to correct people.

Edited August 19, 2018 by zil

[Sunday21]

17 minutes ago, zil said:

I would suggest that those who want to comply with the prophet's request stick to using it themselves (and teaching their children to use it), and let other adults make their own choices.  In threads like this, or in similar conversations, it makes sense to encourage one another to support the prophet in this, and explore the positive reasons to do that.  But it's not going to be helpful in a discussion where "what to call the Church and its members" is not the topic of discussions to correct people.

Yes, this is sensible advice.

We have had issues with older members who were taught things that we no longer emphasis who have difficulty interacting with more recent generations. For the most part, people here do not say what they think, so the situation does not get out of hand. I have ministered to older sisters who find it upsetting that: younger mothers work; that young people wear jeans. Fortunately, people rarely say anything but they do complain to each other. I just hope that the sticklers for rules can give people some slack while others are trying to learn new habits.

i was once asked to give talks to various wards in the stake on abusive behaviour. The leaders sometimes make these situations worse with their advice -lots if sad stories- and I was trying to explain in a sacrament service that the advice that your bishop gives you has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Some older men found my words to be very threatening. Many people have a hard time holding a variety of nuanced points of view in their heads at the same time. 

Anyhoo, life will be interesting. I hope that the older people don’t find the change to be too threatening.

[anatess2]

On 8/17/2018 at 10:44 AM, NeuroTypical said:

[singing]
I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints!  I know who I am. I know God's plan! I'll follow him in faith!
[/singing]

It ain't that hard people.  Say it the long way first, then say "the church" the rest of the time.  

You know what else ain't hard?  Putting a dang link to the dang news release in the dang article.  The author managed to link everydangthing else under the sun, but there's no actual link to the actual church statement.  [grinds my teeth at the state of journalism today]

Here.  https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/name-of-the-church

[back to singing]

 

@MormonHub @pam @prisonchaplain @mirkwood 

@MoreGoodFoundation

Seriously, people... somebody please vet these articles.  That Missionary food article still has a bad title that needs changing and then there's this article without a link.  Mormonhub articles need quality improvement.

[mordorbund]

On 8/19/2018 at 12:25 PM, zil said:

We have been instructed not to address people as "nonmembers" (or maybe it was "non-Mormon", or both).  (I'm too lazy to go search for the talk.)  But essentially, the idea is to identify a person the way they identify themselves, and not as "not one of us".  "Bishop, this is my friend John.  I invited him to come and see what our Sunday meetings are like."

That would be Elder Russell (LabelsMeanThings) Ballard.

Quote

Second, I believe it would be good if we eliminated a couple of phrases from our vocabulary: “nonmember” and “non-Mormon.” Such phrases can be demeaning and even belittling. Personally, I don’t consider myself to be a “non-Catholic” or a “non-Jew.” I am a Christian. I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That is how I prefer to be identified—for who and what I am, as opposed to being identified for what I am not. Let us extend that same courtesy to those who live among us. If a collective description is needed, then “neighbors” seems to work well in most cases.