In Defense of the Name Emphasis

[Anonymous]

The more I think about it, the less annoyed I am about the Church’s name emphasis. Yes, the name is too long, no, we’re never going to stop hearing or even saying ‘Mormon’. And, sure, it seems like a petty thing in a troublesome world.

But…

Early followers of Jesus (in the period after his execution, anyway) called themselves ‘Saints’. The term is derived from those who had been ‘sanctified’ (or made holy) by Jesus’ death and resurrection. Outsiders called them ‘Christians’ which was probably viewed as a term of derision and was certainly viewed as a term of division. I imagine that the believers disliked having a label put on them that they didn’t use themselves.

In a way, that’s very similar to what Latter-day Saints have faced by being termed ‘Mormons’, again an outsider’s label. One difference between ‘Christian’ and ‘Mormon’ is that at least ‘Christian’ can be viewed in a more positive sense, because it relates to their theology, whereas ‘Mormon’ is a name that we never would have picked for ourselves and has little to do with our theology.

I also point out that many labels have been reworked when people didn’t like the connotation of them. Here are some examples, which have been actively replaced:

Liberal -> Progressive

Pro Abortion -> Pro Choice

Anti Abortion -> Pro Life

Indian -> Native American

A fascinating label to track is that of “Illegal Alien”. That was viewed as too harsh by some, so they introduced the term “Undocumented Worker”. Later, that proved to be problematic, because many of the undocumented are non-workers (family members). So, the dialog shifted to “Undocumented Immigrant”. But even that still connotes something nefarious, so it is common now simply to refer to any foreign-born person in the US legally or illegally as “Immigrant”.

With all this in mind, I feel somewhat less bothered by RMN’s emphasis. It won’t stick, but I sympathize with what he’s trying to do.

[Anonymous]

OON, I agree that I can see the argument for all those things and can think through the good from trying to rebrand and position for the future.

Heck, Dunkin wants to position itself as more about coffee and other things than unhealthy fried donuts, right? It is a strategy often used for good reason.

Perhaps my question is why God thinks this is so important that He must speak to his prophet about this… But stay silent other issues.

Perhaps I wonder if RMN is handling the issue right. He is coming out and calling it revelation, and not just approaching it as political correctness or letting others know we find it offensive to be called less than anything that takes away from our designation to follow and worship of Christ. There was a big press release, it hit papers and CNN, it was in conference … It seemed he waited for his position as prophet and then used that for a personal agenda item. And maybe that is what prophets do.

Fine.

But it comes back to priorities of things needing to be addressed with prophetic emphasis.

It’s not that I can’t see everything you are saying about it, just…. Why this now?

Perhaps I just don’t understand the importance of the branding, and am jaded by my own issues.

I tell myself to let it go and sustain the prophet, and trust he knows the importance of things.

Thanks for the reminder of reasons we can defend it.

It’s not my hill to die on. So…whatevs.

But it is interesting how it reflects this prophet and how he does things. I can accept that and learn to sustain those chosen to lead.

[Anonymous]

Is the Mormon moniker considered bad? If so, if all we change is the name will whatever conditions that caused people to feel the label Mormon is negative persist and taint whatever new name (in this case old name) we give ourselves?

It’s anecdotal but I often hear scenarios play out where someone that’s not a member of the church mentions the word Mormon, often in the context of something weird Mormons do, and some other non-member in the group will talk about how they once had a Mormon neighbor and how they were the nicest people you ever met, which is mentioned to counterbalance the weirdness of the belief/practice. I think the Mormon label does carry a lot of baggage but the overall connotation is generally good.

– – – – –

This wasn’t a change so much as it was a reminder. Nelson uses the word revelation but I wonder whether he is referring to a revelation he received sometime between 1924 and 2018 or a revelation received by Joseph Smith in 1838. Nelson could be a literalist and feel like he has to get everyone back to what’s technically correct in order for us to be more exact in our obedience. Literalness, exact obedience. It’s in the culture’s blood.

I know there are some fans out there so sorry, but not really sorry in advance. We could become like a certain university in Ohio.

THE Ohio State University.

THE ChurchofJesusChristofLatter-daySaints (you say the last part really fast)

Which would probably end up producing the same reaction among people outside of the tribe: 🙄 🙄 🙄

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

Is the Mormon moniker considered bad? If so, if all we change is the name will whatever conditions that caused people to feel the label Mormon is negative persist and taint whatever new name (in this case old name) we give ourselves?

In branding, a name change is sometimes the best thing you can do. In business, if there were sketchy things which happened in a company’s history, sometimes a name change will be used to distance themselves from those past things they were ashamed of. There are also several other groups which identify as “Mormon”, and have just as much claim to the title, but the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” we doesn’t want to be affiliated with (since they currently act and live the way we used to).

But this is bad branding, because no one outside of the Church is going to refer to us by our full name. Most member’s won’t either. If we could cut down our name to three words, I think we’d stand a chance.

Also, keep in mind with these labels:

Quote:

Liberal -> Progressive

Pro Abortion -> Pro Choice

Anti Abortion -> Pro Life

Indian -> Native American

Those are labels used mostly by those who are in the “in-group”, not the out group, because those names imply something the other side disagrees with. If you’re having an abortion, you’re taking away the baby’s ability to choose. If you’re preventing an abortion, you are ruining the mother’s life. If you’re undermining society with your leftist politics, that’s not progressive. With that last one… almost no one is a blatant racist against the native americans anymore, but if you were, I’m sure you wouldn’t use the term “Native American”.

[Anonymous]

dande48 wrote:

almost no one is a blatant racist against the native americans anymore, but if you were, I’m sure you wouldn’t use the term “Native American”.

Native Americans are the most likely of any ethnic group(s) to be shot by US police. More blacks are shot, but that’s partly because there are more of them. But as a native American encountering the police, you’re more likely to be shot.

Then there’s the sports mascot controversy.

Even the term “Native American” has issues. Many of the peoples had nothing to do with each other and looked different, there are hundreds of such groups, not the one; the USA is not a country of their creation so pre-American is almost better; and the term “America” doesn’t exclusively refer to the USA.

[Anonymous]

Sometimes I try to research where certain LDS standards come from (like the aversion to face cards). I had heard that having sleepovers was discouraged in GC so I did some googling to find the source. I found 2 talks, one by GA seventy Larry Lawrence in GC in 2010. The other talk that came up in my google search was from a stake president at a stake fire-side in 1995. The punch line is that both talks were from the same person, Larry Lawrence, from before and after he was called as a Seventy.

I found it interesting that this Elder Lawrence felt really strongly about sleep-overs, had given that speech in the past, and then when given a chance to speak to a larger audience 15 years later choose to give it again. 8 additional years have now passed and as far as I can tell, Elder Lawrence is the only person to have spoken out against this in GC.

There are legitimate concerns with sleepovers. DW and I have as parents gone from no sleepovers ever to very limited sleepovers under certain conditions. I certainly believe that Elder Lawrence speaks good and wise advise to be thoughtfully considered. Also Elder Lawrence never claimed to speak for God on the subject. I feel that there are both parralells and differences between the current Name emphasis and Elder Lawrences sleepover stance.

[Author]

Posts