A Church is no longer a "Church"!

[Jamie123]

https://www.foxnews.com/world/church-england-appears-stop-using-word-church-sound-more-relevant-study

OK I'm doing something no good Latter-day Saint would ever do: I'm going to slag off my own church in front of members of another denomination.

So we mustn't call a church a "church" anymore, because that might put people off who don't like the word "church"! How many other words are we soon not to be allowed to use?

Much as I love the congregation I belong to, overall the Church of England (if I'm even still allowed to call it that) is going quite batty. GAFCON is looking ever more attractive!

[Phoenix_person]

I volunteer for a faith-based organization and I very rarely hear the word "church" used. "Congregation" is the more common term, which makes sense. A church without a congregation is just an empty building. In the case of our org, I think it's also because we have a lot of Jewish and Muslim membership, and they don't use the word "church". 

[NeuroTypical]

We LDS folks have learned the value of doing volunteer and charitable and community work 'behind the scenes'.  Last month at our local small-town Independence Day parade, I noticed we were manning two booths "undercover".  One was trying to get people involved in the JustServe org, the other was a booth on how cool genealogy is.  Zero mention of Mormons or church.   My church is on the parade route, and as usual it was open so people could use the bathrooms.  Missionaries were there just to make sure nobody got lost in the building.  Zero proselytizing, not even so much as a table of Book of Mormons to hand out. 

But yeah, we're not going to stop calling ourselves a church, or working to ensure religious liberty any time soon.  Good luck to the C of E!

[Jamie123]

42 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

much as a table of Book of Mormons

"Books of Mormon"

[zil2]

...table with copies of the Book of Mormon to hand out...

 

Dilemma solved!

[Carborendum]

5 hours ago, Phoenix_person said:

I volunteer for a faith-based organization and I very rarely hear the word "church" used. "Congregation" is the more common term, which makes sense. A church without a congregation is just an empty building. In the case of our org, I think it's also because we have a lot of Jewish and Muslim membership, and they don't use the word "church". 

There isn't much of a distinction between these words as far as usage and definition.  These are all just a bunch of synonyms that people tend to be ignorant of.

• Jews use the word "synagogue" which means "assembly" or "place to congregate".
• Muslims use either "Mosque" or "Temple".  These tend to mean "place of prayer" or "place of worship".
• Church means "place to call upon the Lord."  But as language evolves, it came to mean the "establishment" or "organization of people" who run/use the building in order to call upon the Lord.

All these words pretty much mean the same thing in different languages and different origins. The building.  The organization of people who congregate in said building.  The system of beliefs that are observed in said building...  It's all the same.

But we tend to continue traditional words to differentiate between Christian, Jewish, and Muslim houses of worship.  They also differentiate between the organization, system of beliefs, and congregations therein.

Change one word for another that means the same thing?  Well, yeah, it happens.  But I don't like the idea of being forced to change language.  It needs to be a natural evolution that happens slowly across generations. It should be obvious and reasonable.  Not forced.

When it's forced, it just doesn't feel right.  Our prophet has mandated the abandonment of the appellation "Mormon".  And yes, it proper to do this because a LOT of people got the wrong idea.  And it is making a difference.  But I still don't like the fact it is "forced".

[Jamie123]

14 hours ago, Carborendum said:

When it's forced, it just doesn't feel right.  Our prophet has mandated the abandonment of the appellation "Mormon".  And yes, it proper to do this because a LOT of people got the wrong idea.  And it is making a difference.  But I still don't like the fact it is "forced".

I don't think Russell M. Nelson did it to get away from the negative connotations of the word "Mormon" (blood atonement, polygamy, no beer or coffee, A Study in Scarlet and caricatures of the Osmonds) - though if he did it was a bad move. Who is going to say "Mem-bers-of-the-Church-of-Je-sus-Christ-of-Lat-ter-day-Saints" = 14 syllables, when the 2-syllable word "Mor-mons" is available?

[NeuroTypical]

15 hours ago, Carborendum said:

All these words pretty much mean the same thing in different languages and different origins.

It amazes me how many millions of folks got killed before Catholics and Protestants stopped fighting over what "church" meant.   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion#Death_toll

(I know it's an oversimplification, but it's not wrong.)

[Ironhold]

23 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/church-england-appears-stop-using-word-church-sound-more-relevant-study

OK I'm doing something no good Latter-day Saint would ever do: I'm going to slag off my own church in front of members of another denomination.

So we mustn't call a church a "church" anymore, because that might put people off who don't like the word "church"! How many other words are we soon not to be allowed to use?

Much as I love the congregation I belong to, overall the Church of England (if I'm even still allowed to call it that) is going quite batty. GAFCON is looking ever more attractive!

The issue is that the UK, like much of Western Europe, is going warp factor 27 into the "progressive" future without first stopping to ask if that's even a good idea. 

They're voluntarily overturning everything that made Western Europe successful in the first place and forsaking their national identities to appease groups that will never be appeased unless they get to conquer those countries and reshape those countries into something that history says is doomed to failure. 

This is another symptom of the rapidly spreading disease. 

[Carborendum]

4 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I don't think Russell M. Nelson did it to get away from the negative connotations of the word "Mormon" (blood atonement, polygamy, no beer or coffee, A Study in Scarlet and caricatures of the Osmonds) - though if he did it was a bad move. Who is going to say "Mem-bers-of-the-Church-of-Je-sus-Christ-of-Lat-ter-day-Saints" = 14 syllables, when the 2-syllable word "Mor-mons" is available?

No, the purpose was because far too many people actually had no idea we were a Christian church.  I'm not even talking about the evangelicals who insist on excluding us even though they knew better.  I'm talking about people with no agenda who had no idea we were a Christ-centered church.

I'll give you an example that is the picture-perfect reason why we needed to drop the usage (or at least couple it with the full name):

The community we lived in about 15 years ago had a huge service project where they asked for all the volunteers that could be available help.  Our stake and a couple of neighboring stakes involved many of our members to participate.  The government official in charge of organizing this event gave a concluding speech of gratitude.  And in that speech he said:

Quote

We wanted to thank all the people who volunteered here.  You all did a wonderful job.  But we want to make special mention of two groups who gave overwhelming support to this project.  The first is The Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints.  And the second is the Mormons.  Without these two groups, we simply would not have had the numbers to complete the project on time.

I also remember way back when I was a teenager and someone I worked with a girl who said that she had heard the name "Mormon" before.  She knew it was a religion of some kind.  But she had no idea if we were a Christian religion or what we were.  If she knew the official name of the Church, then it would have been obvious.

So, in this case, I certainly see a need to use some level of force.  But I'm really not aware of any Latter-day Saint who would "get offended" by someone calling us "Mormon."