- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
One of the things that upsets me these days is so much attention is paid to words, and usually to derive offense from where none is meant! Since the word “Mormon” was nixed (except in ref to the BoM), I notice some LDS get annoyed about the use of Mormon. It never bothers me, to be honest, and I do not think it is an unkind nickname.
One thing some people don’t realize is “Mormon” and “Member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” aren’t always interchangeable. “Mormon” is a broader term that can refer to culture, not just religious membership. There are people who are “Mormon” but are not“Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”. And the other replacements they’ve offered have problems too. I doubt they would want people to start using terms like “the Restored Church” to refer to other branches of the Latter-day Saint movement. Also it’s one thing when words are normally used and taken offensively, like in the case of racial slurs. It’s another thing when a word like “Mormon” was perfectly fine with everyone and used in the church’s own marketing until suddenly there’s an announcement that it’s offensive.
Personally, I identify far more with the “Mormon” label than with my membership in the church.
I’m going to push back a little bit on Mormon being offensive. Officially, it’s been depreciated. Casually, I think we’re expected to see it as non-preferred. I sincerely feel ‘offensive’ is a counterproductive adjective to describe Mormon. It’s long been our unofficial moniker. We’ll give people whiplash if we suddenly deem it offensive. Also, it’s not offensive.
More personally:
As to applying to Mormon to non-Church members, I take a bit of a stand there. I’ve found it’s common for the public to conflate splinter groups (and some of the terrible things they do) with our church. One way I draw a bright line between the Church and offshoots is to refer to us as Mormon. The other groups are whatever they are. Again, this is my personal way of handling that situation.
I can appreciate the reasons Pres Nelson is depreciating the word “Mormon” and emphasizing Christ in our church focus. NoahVail wrote:
Also, it’s not offensive.
I also feel it is not offensive, so I don’t care much to avoid using it, even if others will correct me with a wink and a smile. Whatevs. That’s more about them than about the word or about me. I simply don’t care.
But for years I have wanted Sacrament meetings and SS lessons to be more Christ focused, and less Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith focused. So I see the emphasis to be on-track with my own feelings.
How other church members process the prophet’s words are part of their journey, which I can respect.
I’m a Mormon Boy…”true blue, through and through.”
This has been a long term project of Pres. Nelson, and it was commented on many years ago, by President Hinckley. What gets me is that some of the people who now get up tight about being called Mormon, are the very same ones who were so keen to share “I’m a Mormon” pass-along cards and Mormon.org website a few years back. I keep seeing this on Facebook too, people even saying things like “We’ve never been Mormons”
🤦 – there it goes down the memory hole.People outside the church still call us that name. My non-member friend referred to me.as such only last Sunday. Should I get angry about it? Well, he was being pretty offensive about my religion, but he didn’t use that term specifically as an insult. He said some bad stuff but “Mormon” wasn’t part of it.
It’s odd that a church which is so conservative in some respects has jumped on the whole “we’re not what we were called last week, and we’ll get angry if you use it” bandwagon. It’s occurring in other areas of the church where language is being shifted around. I get people jumping on me now if I say “home teaching” instead of ministering.
😏 NoahVail wrote:
I sincerely feel ‘offensive’ is a counterproductive adjective to describe Mormon. It’s long been our unofficial moniker. We’ll give people whiplash if we suddenly deem it offensive. Also, it’s not offensive.I don’t consider it offensive at all. And if people in the church tell me off for using it, how does that come over to non-members? How does it feel if people’s first encounter with the church is a lecture on “don’t call us Mormon!”, especially when one can see recent church materials (the last ten years) used it? We’re being encouraged to use the full name of the church (unwieldy) and some use “the Church of Jesus Christ” (which is not a bad name, but generic)
NoahVail wrote:
More personally:As to applying to Mormon to non-Church members, I take a bit of a stand there. I’ve found it’s common for the public to conflate splinter groups (and some of the terrible things they do) with our church. One way I draw a bright line between the Church and offshoots is to refer to us as Mormon. The other groups are whatever they are. Again, this is my personal way of handling that situation.
I don’t think any of us here are rushing to be conflated with the FLDS (who still partly share our initials) or Tom Green etc… But non-members still call us Mormon. That includes mainstream media.
Where I am, you will almost never encounter a member of another LDS offshoot. CoC is here, I believe, but their nearest branch is hundreds of miles away (I have nothing much against CoC/RLDS) You will never meet an FLDS or other fundy, but we do hear about them regularly on TV etc.
I don’t take offense at being called Mormon and I use the term myself, although I do moderate myself depending on the situation. I am of the belief that no matter how hard we try we are never going to get outsiders to stop it. I do subscribe to Heber’s thought though. If using the actual name of the church instead of Mormon helps people (including Mormons) understand we are Christian and focus more on Jesus Christ then I’m all in.
I’m split on it. I love the thought of making a bigger distinction of us as a church that worships Christ. I’m all for moving us in that direction since I honestly don’t think this church really does focus on Him enough sometimes. But, I also wasn’t a fan of the tone of President Nelson’s talk on the name of the church. It made a mountain out of a molehill IMO. I still use the word “Mormon” and refer to myself and other members as LDS. As DarkJedi said, we’re probably not going to get people outside the church to ever stop calling us that. I think it’s a bit persnickety to correct people as Pres. Nelson said to do in his talk, so I don’t and won’t.
SamBee wrote:
One of the things that upsets me these days is so much attention is paid to words, and usually to derive offense from where none is meant!Since the word “Mormon” was nixed (except in ref to the BoM), I notice some LDS get annoyed about the use of Mormon. It never bothers me, to be honest, and I do not think it is an unkind nickname.
I agree completely with you SamBee. Maybe I’m oblivious to the whole controversy. It is like someone became offended with my user name
on this site. (You would tell me if you are offended with Minyan Man right?)
I really hadn’t referred to myself publicly as “Mormon” for a while before President Nelson’s change to the church nomenclature. I would usually say “member of the LDS Church” or “member of the Church of Jesus Christ etc.” (Of course, living in the “Mormon” belt, I didn’t have to explain myself all that often.) But I didn’t mind the term though I do understand why we might want to change it. The question is: what do I call myself now? Member of the Church of Christ? Christian? Latter-day Saint? I’m really not sure how to present my religious affiliation. I’m sure it’s been said somewhere (too lazy to look it up) but it’s clear that it’s a bit of challenge. Let’s face it: the name of the Church has always been a mouthful. No wonder we didn’t really mind a shorter version. “I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
ah, heck, I’m a Mormon.”Gerald wrote:
I really hadn’t referred to myself publicly as “Mormon” for a while before President Nelson’s change to the church nomenclature. I would usually say “member of the LDS Church” or “member of the Church of Jesus Christ etc.” (Of course, living in the “Mormon” belt, I didn’t have to explain myself all that often.) But I didn’t mind the term though I do understand why we might want to change it. The question is: what do I call myself now? Member of the Church of Christ? Christian? Latter-day Saint? I’m really not sure how to present my religious affiliation. I’m sure it’s been said somewhere (too lazy to look it up) but it’s clear that it’s a bit of challenge. Let’s face it: the name of the Church has always been a mouthful. No wonder we didn’t really mind a shorter version. “I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter
ah, heck, I’m a Mormon.”
I think terminology is of limited use. Most people do not think we are Christian. Some think we are even Luciferian!
Scientology calls itself a church – but who outside that group considers it Christian?
The full name really is a mouthful as you say.
Remove the Latter Day Saint (Latter day Saint?) bit and it becomes incredibly generic. It may look Christian, but there are dozens of groups called Church of Christ/Jesus Christ etc which are all quite different. We have a Church of Christ in this city which is even more controversial than LDS.
PazamaManX wrote:
I’m split on it. I love the thought of making a bigger distinction of us as a church that worships Christ. I’m all for moving us in that direction since I honestly don’t think this church really does focus on Him enough sometimes. But, I also wasn’t a fan of the tone of President Nelson’s talk on the name of the church. It made a mountain out of a molehill IMO.
The focus on Jesus Christ should have always been there and it has been there in the name and even on the cover of the BoM for a while -“Anotheer Testament of Jesus Christ”… We are continually told to focus on him in fast and testimony too.
However, people will label us. Lutherans are Christians, and so are Baptists, but people want to have something to distinguish the two. I believe “Quaker” started out as a nickname too, but they have taken that name to their own bosoms and now own it, and no one uses that as a term of abuse.
Minyan Man wrote:
SamBee wrote:
One of the things that upsets me these days is so much attention is paid to words, and usually to derive offense from where none is meant!Since the word “Mormon” was nixed (except in ref to the BoM), I notice some LDS get annoyed about the use of Mormon. It never bothers me, to be honest, and I do not think it is an unkind nickname.
I agree completely with you SamBee. Maybe I’m oblivious to the whole controversy. It is like someone became offended with my user name
on this site. (You would tell me if you are offended with Minyan Man right?)
No, def not offended at you!
😉 I don’t know how many Gentiles know what a minyan is though (a quorum, more or less.)I did get abused by someone for being a “Mormon” recently, but I don’t consider that to make it an insult in itself. After all, I could be abused for being white or a man (which happens a lot now), but neither or these are offensive concepts in themselves.
Names can be strange things. Talking of Judaism, I remember once years ago, I get a message deleted automatically by a forum somewhere, because I used the word “Yiddish”. The message was about literature, and Yiddish literature is one of the great literary traditions of Europe (although it sadly has been in heavy decline). However, the forum’s police bot decided it was a nasty word, because the first syllable is an anti-Semitic slur! I think it has been fixed now…
So people and even bots can react to the wrong things and the wrong words. (Using some words on Twitter, Facebook or Youtube can get you shadow banned now, even if you aren’t supporting bigotry – Flat Earth gets tagged with a warning for example.) I think it is just as easy to abuse people using plain English as without it. A lot of the critics of our church are not Christian at all, so they wouldn’t hesitate to use more generic anti-Christian terms – “Bible basher” and the like. There is a lot of hate against religion in general where I live. So if people want to abuse us they still can.
SamBee wrote:
One of the things that upsets me these days is so much attention is paid to words, and usually to derive offense from where none is meant!Since the word “Mormon” was nixed (except in ref to the BoM), I notice some LDS get annoyed about the use of Mormon. It never bothers me, to be honest, and I do not think it is an unkind nickname.
My only objection to the word concerns when people speak of “Mormon polygamists.” I wish there were a easy way to distinguish ourselves from the fringe groups. “LDS” as opposed to “FLDS” seems to work, so in that respect, I prefer “LDS” to “Mormon.” However, I use both “Mormon” and
“LDS” and refuse to feel like I’m giving Satan any kind of a victory when I use the word “Mormon.”
Katzpur wrote:
However, I use both “Mormon” and “LDS” and refuse to feel like I’m giving Satan any kind of a victory when I use the word “Mormon.”
I generally chuckle at the Satan thing. I think it’s one of those instances where RMN has no clue what he’s saying or even talking about. Satan and I aren’t best buds (I don’t believe there is actually a singular Satan being) but I don’t think the rest of the world cares as much about Mormons as some Mormons seem to think they do – and neither does Satan (if there is one).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.