Sign in to follow this  
NeuroTypical

We can be Mormons again?

Recommended Posts

Recent change to handbook 2 (Italics and underlines mine)

Quote

21.1.34

Referring to the Church and Its Members

As the Church grows across boundaries, cultures, and languages, the use of its revealed name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see Doctrine and Covenants 115:4), is increasingly important in the responsibility of the Church and its members to proclaim the name of the Savior throughout all the world. Accordingly, references to the Church should include its full name whenever possible. Following an initial reference to the full name of the Church, the contractions “the Church” or “the Church of Jesus Christ” are acceptable.

Referring to the Church as “the Mormon Church,” “the Latter-day Saints Church,” or “the LDS Church” is discouraged.

When referring to Church members, it is preferable to use the phrase “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” As a shortened reference, “Latter-day Saints” is preferred and “Mormons” is acceptable.

The word Mormon will continue to be used in proper names like the Book of Mormon. It will also continue to be used as an adjective in phrases such as “Mormon pioneers.” In addition, it may be necessary to use the word Mormon to identify the Church as it is commonly known in some countries.

 

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Recent change to handbook 2 (Italics and underlines mine)

Prophetic utterances can inform policy as well as personal commitment, but policy is a very superficial application and reference in comparison to the impressions left upon the soul.

My take is that the policy is merely an application for administrative purposes, not a commandment or inspired counsel. Inspired counsel may well come to someone by referring the policy, but the policy is not the final word and does not counter what President Nelson originally explained.

"Mormons is acceptable" has to be taken very much in context such as historical use, ignorance, immediate circumstances, etc., and doesn't suggest that a leader is to correct someone using it on the stand, or that we scrub it from quotes from a bygone era, etc.

I think needing permission to use the term was never suggested by President Nelson's instructions or the policy.

Edited by CV75

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Interesting.  So, is your understanding that it is perfectly acceptable to say "I am a Mormon"?

No, my understanding is that when referring to Church members, it is preferable to use the phrase “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” And as a shortened reference, “Latter-day Saints” is preferred and “Mormons” is acceptable.  (Full context is important, and the word "perfectly" isn't there anywhere.)

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it depends on who you are talking to.

I met a LOT of antagonistic ribbing (joking at my expense) on regards to this policy from people from other areas of the world.  They thought it hilarious that the impression that the Church was trying to dictate to them what to call it was occurring.  They did a LOT to try to have me say certain phrases in reference to myself.  To say the least, their take on the policy was a laughing stock idea.

What made it worse was that there were many more who were unaware of this policy.  They found it very odd that the Church would try to change what people were familiar with.  If they were curious about the Church, they were puzzled how would people find out about it if the only name they knew it by was the term which we had, by policy, stopped using and refused to acknowledge?

Much as one might want to try, you cannot force the rest of the world to refer to you what you want in many places.  Much like we refer to the Baptists as the Baptists, or Catholics as Catholics, rather than Christians...even if some of their churches also probably request to be considered Christian as the main phrase of reference, we are in a similar boat.

In appropriate circumstances, I'd say, considering the ribbing I got about it this summer (and it was in their eyes, good humor, and not actually malicious as far as I could tell) it is appropriate to also use the term most colloquially understood.

That said, it is still probably best to try to refer to the Saints or Latter-day Saints as such, or Members of the Church.

There are some who will get a kick out of you referring yourself as a Saint.  As I am no saint (speaking of the normal idea of saint) but I AM a Latter-day Saint and thus include myself in that term as a Member of the Church, it also led to a great deal of humor to a degree this summer.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

To be honest, I think its unfortunate that this is even in the Handbook. That our prophets feel the need to have to clarify something that should already be understood.

 

I agree. The Savior Himself seemed troubled when He had to clarify the name of His church among the nephites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott

This thread brought back memories of a talk by Gordon B Hinkley I remember well.   I'd recommend reading or listening to the entire talk, but here are some excepts:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1990/10/mormon-should-mean-more-good?lang=eng

Many of our people are disturbed by the practice of the media, and of many others, to disregard totally the true name of the Church and to use the nickname “the Mormon Church.”....

I suppose that regardless of our efforts, we may never convert the world to general use of the full and correct name of the Church. Because of the shortness of the word Mormon and the ease with which it is spoken and written, they will continue to call us the Mormons, the Mormon church, and so forth.

They could do worse. More than fifty years ago, when I was a missionary in England, I said to one of my associates, “How can we get people, including our own members, to speak of the Church by its proper name?”

He replied, “You can’t. The word Mormon is too deeply ingrained and too easy to say.” He went on, “I’ve quit trying. While I’m thankful for the privilege of being a follower of Jesus Christ and a member of the Church which bears His name, I am not ashamed of the nickname Mormon.”

“Look,” he went on to say, “if there is any name that is totally honorable in its derivation, it is the name Mormon. And so, when someone asks me about it and what it means, I quietly say—‘Mormon means more good.’” (The Prophet Joseph Smith first said this in 1843; see Times and Seasons, 4:194; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 299–300.)

Gordon B Hinkley said this almost three decades ago.  The media and even church members are still calling us Mormons.  

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

They found it very odd that the Church would try to change what people were familiar with.

Yep - in the era of "brand recognition", it makes as much sense as Apple changing the name of it's iPhone to "The Electronical Telephonical Multi-function Personal Data Useful Tool from Apple" or some such.  But then, Apple (last time I checked) doesn't claim to be led and named by the Lord.

 

10 minutes ago, Scott said:

The media and even church members are still calling us Mormons.  

And so is the church handbook now, as a less-preferred-than-Latter-day Saints-but-still-acceptable practice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Thread title demands cat picture.

 

 

Elder-Whiskers2.jpg

I had thought that there is nothing more useless than a police cat.  And now that is challenged by a missionary cat.  

BTW - In my youth, referring to someone as a cat was an honor (ie. cool cat) - but it has been TOTALLY replaced with dude - which in my youth was a gentle way to shame someone. 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inerestingly, I came across a blog post over at one of those progressive blogs (that are often received with disdain here) that addressed this CHI update. The author compares the updated language to the language of an archived version from Oct. 2018, and notes only two edits -- the scripture reference in the first paragraph is changed from D&C 115:4 to Doctrine and Covenants 115:4 and to remove the reference to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir in the last paragraph. The blog author suggests that the edit to NT's highlighted text that will make referring to members as "Mormons" unacceptable is still in the works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this