Conference was full of revelations: The Revelation on Two-Hour Church (let’s all stop and give a silent moment of thanks for this one). The Revelation on Home Study As Long As You Only Study LDS Publications. The Revelation on Watching Monday Night Football Is Just Fine If You Hold FHE Some Other Night. The Revelation on It Will Be A Cold Day In Hell Before We Rescind or Modify The November Policy. But I’m going to talk about the revelation that is getting too much discussion in the media and online, overshadowing the more important revelations I noted above: The Revelation on Not Using The Term “Mormon” Except For The Book of Mormon — Another Testament of Jesus Christ.
First, let me defend my approach. These revelations aren’t going into the D&C to get a proper title like “D&C 139” or “D&C 140.” But they are plainly revelations: President Nelson said, in relation to The Revelation on Not Using The Term “Mormon” Except For The Book of Mormons — Another Testament of Jesus Christ, that “It is the command of the Lord.” And the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, which has produced more good PR for the Church than any person, place, or thing not named Steve Young, is now “The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square.” So this isn’t one of those here today, gone tomorrow revelations like The Revelation on First-Sunday Councils In Priesthood And Relief Society Where We Talk A Lot But It’s Not A Lesson. This is a real one, it’s here to stay, and it deserves a name. So I have named it The Revelation on Not Using The Term “Mormon” Except For The Book of Mormon — Another Testament of Jesus Christ. If you think that title is a bit too long, think of it every time you say, “No, I’m not a Mormon, I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” instead of “Yes, I am.” Short, pithy responses are out. Long and awkward titles are in. Get with the program, you recalcitrant Progressive Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Now, about content. I see some problems applying this The Revelation on Not Using The Term “Mormon” Except For The Book of Mormons — Another Testament of Jesus Christ. The leadership is not going to change the name of The Book of Mormon — Another Testament of Jesus Christ, so the term “Mormon” is still going to featured prominently in Church discussions. They won’t be able to stop everyone else in the world from referring to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as Mormons, and the media (except for the Deseret News) is likely to continue using the term to refer to the Church and its members. This is like a demand from President Trump that henceforth no one is to use the term “Americans” but instead Citizen of the United States of America. This isn’t going to stop the media and everyone who doesn’t work at the White House from using the term “American.” So at the very best this policy will meet only partial success at changing how the term “Mormon” is used, even within the Church.
One likely effect of The Revelation on Not Using The Term “Mormon” Except For The Book of Mormons — Another Testament of Jesus Christ is to change the way members speak to and about each other, substituting awkward and convoluted phrases to refer to the Church and its members where previously simple and understandable terms were used. You may have noticed I am embracing this new Latter-day Saint awkwardness in this post. Get used to it.
Another likely effect is to create some awkward and confusing conversations between members and non-members. Such as this perfectly predictable and straightforward conversation:
“Are you a Mormon?”
“Well, yes, but we don’t use that word anymore.”
“Why not?”
“Because our prophet-president has told us that term is part of Satan’s plan to misrepresent God’s true church on the earth, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
I am open to your responses identifying the positive effects of The Revelation on Not Using The Term “Mormon” Except For The Book of Mormons — Another Testament of Jesus Christ that I have somehow missed. I suppose that when you are asked, you can now legitimately respond, “No, I am not a Mormon.” That might come in handy from time to time.
Any other ideas? Please be careful to avoid the use of the term “Mormon” in your responses. You need some practice at this challenging new way of speaking and writing.
In the spirit of calling things by their proper name, I will no longer refer to Russell M. Nelson as The Prophet but by the correct name of the offices he holds in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, President of the High Priesthood, and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
There is a difference for me between saying ‘I am a Mormon’ and saying ‘I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.’ One defines my self identity. One defines my being a part of something outside of myself. I actually see both as being important. I feel weird about P.Nelson wanting to take away any sense of self-identity and leave me just a member of something. He didn’t give any kind of suggestion for re-identifying one’s inner self-devotion. Christian maybe?
I also felt like the entire time P.Nelson was talking about how Satan wins when we use the term ‘Mormon’, he was throwing P.Monson under the bus as that term was hugely encouraged during his presidency.
So the question I have for President Nelson is, was Satan influencing him and the other leaders when they came up with the whole “I’m a Mormon” campaign? Because it sure sounds like that’s what he’s saying. Forgive me for being a bit skeptical. I’ve always thought Satan was probably hard at work at sowing misery like poverty, famine, violence, giving power to corrupt officials, etc., not influencing our leadership to call our church by the name we’ve been using almost since day one. I’m really sorry to offend anyone, but this is simply nonsense and not at all credible. Yeesh.
I have to agree with both ReTx and Brother Sky. I just can’t sign onto the idea that when I use the term Mormon that I’m seeking (even unintentionally) to push Christ from the center of focus of my religious devotion. I also see it as gigantic insult to the memory of President Monson. The sermon just didn’t sit well with me.
I remembered that when Hinckley was in the presidency he gave a talk about the nickname Mormon means. “More good” When I went to look it up and reread it I found something else he mentioned interesting. In the first couple of paragraphs he refers to a talk by Russell M. Nelson that he gave only six months before . His talk was entitled, “Thus my church shall be called.” This was in 1990! So for the past 28 years this has obviously been a pet peeve for him. I too think he threw Monson under the bus! The church just did the “I’m a Mormon” campaign and the movie called, “Meet the Mormons.” So this really bothers me and makes me think he’s talking as a man and not a prophet. And I guess Satan has really been winning for quite a long time!
With the exception of the announcement of the two-hour meeting block, and of course Dieter’s WONDERFUL talk on true Christianity – this was the most uninspiring Conference I have ever listened too. Blah, blah, blah…name change, repent, blah……and, of course, our resident homophobic (Oaks) just finds it impossible to keep his mouth shut about one subject in particular. I’m starting to wonder why he has been so obsessed with homosexuality throughout it public church career! What’s the old saying about “he that protesteth too much?”
For me the whole “name change affair” is silly and makes us look like petulant little children. It’s not going to change a thing.
(P.S. Personally, I think Dieter was demoted because people had grown to SIMPLY LOVE HIM and his message of love, inclusion, being Christlike and not just “towing the Mormon line….I miss him dearly!)
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
I suppose hindsight is 20/20, but maybe this is what could have been done. Pres. Nelson simply announces this: To emphasize the full name of the Church and our commitment to the Savior, I have directed all Church publications henceforth to avoid using nicknames like “Mormon” or even “LDS” when naming the Church. We are not “Mormons,” we are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We encourage the media and the membership of the Church to do likewise when referring to the Church and its members.
No reference to Satan. No claim that God is upset we have been using the term “Mormon” all these years. No throwing the media a story that fits and reinforces their perception of Mormons as weird.
As a convert I always wondered what the Mormon nickname was all about? Did this church worship someone named Mormon? I didn’t get it AT ALL.
I’m glad the name change was made. If you want to be considered a church that follows Jesus Christ, you should refer to the name…..it’s literally the church of JESUS CHRIST.
This name change makes it easier for my very anti Mormon family to realize who we worship.
Love it!
If transgender people want to be called by the name and pronouns they’ve adopted, that’s sick and wrong and part of Satan’s plan to destroy the family. We have to call them by their real name and eternal gender, no matter how much that hurts them, alienates the people who care about them, and gets good people upset at our callous, miserable asses.
But don’t you dare call us Mormons.
Well, hopefully this means that SLC Mormons will no longer try to act like they own the word and police its use among other Restoration churches.
Funny that this comes up right at a time in my life when I am thinking more about my own Mormon identity. I formally disaffiliated from the SLC church more than a decade ago and I disavow most of its truth claims, but Mormonism is still deep in my family and my formation as a person. I would be lying to myself if I tried to claim that I was somehow thoroughly non-Mormon.
(I am also lying to myself if I try to play a get-out-of-jail-free card and absolve myself of responsibility for Mormonism’s racism, homophobia, patriarchy, colonialism, and horrible history with Indigenous people.)
Mormon Helping Hands is one of the greatest things we are known for here in the south. After tornados, hurricanes and flooding, nearly every news story talked about those yellow shirts and the acts of love we were out performing. Our local channel even said “You know when you see those yellow shirted volunteers show up that Mormon means more good.” It is a shame to hear that these efforts at association meant Satan was actually winning. As a convert and lifelong southerner, I feel confident in saying that here in the south no name change is going to convince anyone we are Christian in the mainstream sense. The names of their churches don’t have Christ in them for the most part, yet they feel very comfortable in claiming their Christianity. I choose to do the same.
There’s nothing of revelation about it. It’s plain old fashioned silly. And embarrassing.
PS What does it mean if we call the leadership “prophets, seers and revelators” and the best they can come up with is administrative tinkering and a homophobic temper tantrum?
I’ve always wondered who are we referring to when we say “..of Latter-Day Saints.?” What Saints are we talking about? Are members of the
church “Saints?” who?
It’s always seemed a bit presumptuous to call ourselves “Saints.” I don’t feel saintly. We are all sinners. Maybe we should just say, “The Latter-Day Church of Jesus Christ,” or “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Fallible Mortals?”
I nominate Lois for the best name change suggestion so far: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Fallible Mortals. That’s a name I could grow to like.
The homophobic temper tantrums and the focus on gender roles almost ruined conference for me. I know it was ruined for my sister. My daughters didn’t feel a sense of connection either. They have no interest in marrying young and basically being “called” to have babies and help their husbands. I think the revelation on the name of the Church, which threw Presidents Monson and Hinckley under the bus, was bizarre. Moreover, the voices of women seemed deliberately muted this conference. My eyes were really opened to how weird conference was when my daughter’s teacher watched most of the women’s session and came away thinking we don’t preach from scripture and we don’t preach of Christ. Her point was that all men and women should be developing Christ’s qualities–nurturing, healing, providing, humility, etc. These aren’t gender specific. Nowhere does Christ make the qualities of God gender specific. Because of what she heard, she seriously asked me not to limit my daughter’s aspirations!?! Sometimes I wonder how I ended up in this patriarchal and paternalistic church. I’ve had many good experiences, but I have had some truly terrible ones too.
President Nelson said when we use the name Mormon to describe the church we “offend Jesus.” Give me a break! Don’t these men EVER pick up the Bible. Here is a scripture that states when Jesus is actually offended, Matthew 25:41-45 – Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
The antics of these men clearly explain why I left this church.
I think the ‘E’ should be capitalized in “Even the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints”. Just sayin’.
A couple of things: the emphasis on not referring to the “Mormon Church” has been around for a LONG time. The actual focus of President Nelson’s talk was reference to the Church as a whole, which, again, has always been the case. Now, the deemphasizing of the term “Mormon” to refer to individual members has, officially, not been preferred for a very long time, and “Mormon” has typically only been used in references to historical events and places and efforts focused on non-members. The primary change here appears to be deemphasizing “Mormon” for those purposes.
It’s interesting to me that the embrace of the term “Mormon” does not appear to have been effective in missionary efforts, where it apparently has not been very effective. The PSAs of the 80s seemed to do just fine using the entire name of the Church.
Most importantly, however, I think so many members and observers have totally missed the point. The emphasis on the name is intended to draw our focus to Christ. If embracing a cultural identity has distracted people from embracing the Savior, then yes, it absolutely is a win for Satan, and yes, it does offend Jesus. If we focus on becoming disciples of Christ, then we can shed the tribalism that has swept across the country and the world like a plague. We get away from silly memes like “I can’t; I’m Mormon”.
An example of the confusion that can occur without a re-emphasis on the Savior and the revealed name of the Church (it’s canonized, after all), can be seen in modern Judaism. When someone says they are Jewish, it doesn’t say much about that person’s religious beliefs or practices. I see this as an effort to avoid confounding cultural “Mormonism” with membership in the Church.
What bothers me most about this discussion, though, is how it seems to get people so riled up. If you don’t like it, roll your eyes and move on. There’s no tangible consequence to ignoring this counsel, and if you think it’s all hogwash, then you won’t be afraid of spiritual consequences either. There is institutionally very little cost to this effort. I honestly don’t get why people get so worked up about this.
Jenny, I really like your post about what really offends Jesus. To me, worrying about how we offend Jesus by what we call ourselves, while neglecting the things Jesus said he really cares about is straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. We are so focused on a tiny way to convince people we are Christian, that we fail to even see how we are failing at being Christian.
I think that if the Mormon…or should I call it “the church of the living prophet” because that seems to be who the leaders really want us to worship? Anyway, I think that what the COJCOLDS should do if it really wants people to think it is a Christian religion is to start *acting* like it worships Jesus. When we spend out church time talking about temples, gender roles, tithing, obeying the prophet, how God doesn’t love this group or that group, and other things that Christ didn’t even teach, we don’t sound like Christians. When we emphasize all that one has to do to earn salvation, let alone exaltation, we don’t sound like Christians. When we spend so much money on temples, build malls, buy up land, build apartment buildings, we act like land developers, not Christians. When no tithing money goes to the poor, only fast offerings and humanitarian donations, we don’t act Christian. We’re just not going to convince anyone that we are Christian unless we act like it.
Lois, I really like your suggested name for the church as it communicates more clearly in modern English, though I would still suggest Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Folks who have set themselves apart from the world by repentance and baptism and taking the Lord’s name upon them. Well, that’s a mouthful; let’s leave off the stuff after “folks”.
If you can indulge a non-expert’s pedanticism, you might want to note that the word “saints” is used in many places in the NT to refer to members of the church generally. It’s a translation of the Greek “hagios” meaning, most fundamentally, “different” or “set apart” and then “holy” in the sense of being dedicated to the Lord and therefore different from others. The church members in NT times were the “saints” in NT usage, hence in the restoration we have “latter-day saints.” According to the New World Encyclopedia, the “earliest known occurrence of άγιος [hagios] as “saint” (in the modern sense) seems to be in the Shepherd of Hermas, a gnostic text authored sometime in the second century.” Unfortunately for modern communication, most English speakers have lost both biblical literacy and any sense of the word “saint” other than the modern sense that grew to prominence in the Roman Catholic Church.
Nobody has reasonably supposed that we were not all sinners or that sinners cannot be saints in the sense intended in the NT and in the name of the restored church, having by a covenant of baptism set themselves apart from the world (whether fully successfully or not).
Now off my soapbox. 🙂
Lefthandloafer,
Did we watch the same conference? The messages from Elders Soares, Gong, and Holland were universal and powerful.
I’ll certainly agree with Gong and Holland….Oaks, Eyring, Gay, Bednar, etc….were real downers for me.
Blended Hope: I suspect there are people who really have no idea that Mormons profess a belief in Jesus Christ, but I think those people are really quite rare. As for your comment, “If you want to be considered a church that follows Jesus Christ, you should refer to the name:” Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians, Pentecostals, etc. etc. etc. Not a single mention of Jesus Christ there but nobody considers that they do not follow Jesus Christ. If the church wants to be seen as one that follows the example of Jesus Christ, it will start sounding a lot more like Uchtdorf and a lot less like Oaks. Sadly, this is not what we see happening.
“Satan wins”? Good grief. I thought it was just a random announcement – I hadn’t actually read it. Satan wins? Are you f#@king kidding me?
Are you a Mormon?
Nope, he died a long time ago. Wanna read his book?
-Hank Smith
I really like most of Dsc’s comment (5:41pm) even though I disagree with parts.
Almost every news article I see is misrepresenting the talk (as I understood it – I have not re-read it or listened to it a second time). It seems that news articles and blogs are saying that he said using the term “Mormon” is a win for Satan, when I think he actually said removing the name of Christ from the church was a win for Satan. That may be splitting hairs a bit for some people, but to me it’s a pretty big difference.
Even so, I think if we want to shift focus to Christ, there are better ways to go about it.
(thanks Bro Sky) and JR for the background. I like Latter-Day Folks! As you point out, “Unfortunately for modern communication, most English speakers have lost both biblical literacy and any sense of the word “saint” other than the modern sense that grew to prominence in the Roman Catholic Church.”
I agree with Troy. Nobody is confused as to whose teachings other denominations follow with/without the name Jesus Christ.
Perhaps one confusing factor is our heavy emphasis on the Book of Mormon. We are frequently pressed to read the Book of Mormon,
or read the scriptures. But rarely do we hear “read the New/Old Testament!” We also put the New/Old Testament in the “as far as it is translated correctly” category, apart from the Book of Mormon.
Perhaps we should go a bit further and rename the Book of Mormon, the “Newest Testament” so people don’t think we worship Mormon?
If the point is to be more focused on Christ then they — speaking specifically of the First Presidency — could work on being more Christlike. Hint: that can’t possibly include the kind of misogyny in evidence and the sort of homophobia directly spewed and underlined.
Christ overturned tables in the temple — a clear example of what raised his ire — but I never read a word about him making a judgment about a gay person. If it were as important to Jesus and Heavenly Father as Oakes likes to pretend it is then surely it would be addressed directly.
Can we at least all agree that crazy Uncle Bruce’s book might in fact might be satan’s handbook. I was super depressed last time I cleaned the temple and in the President’s office there were four books:
Book of Mormon
Bible
Jesus the Christ
Mormon Doctrine
It is good to see you on here again Kullervo.
The Deseret News coverage of this revelation points to an aspect of his remarks that offended my spirit in addition to the remarks about Satan.
They say:
“He grew emotional when he said the church itself, both administration and members, have perpetuated nicknames that do not include Christ’s name, “subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us, even his Atonement.” “After all he had endured,” President Nelson said, his voice trembling slightly, “after all he had done for humankind, I realize with profound regret that we have unwittingly acquiesced in the Lord’s restored church being called by other names, each of which expunges the sacred name of Jesus Christ.” That is a strong accusation to level at prior church administrations and to those of us who have embraced our nickname.
“Christ overturned tables in the temple — a clear example of what raised his ire — but I never read a word about him making a judgment about a gay person.” Oh please. Jesus also never specifically condemned pederasty either, but we don’t pretend that it’s either acceptable now or was then. 1st century Jerusalem wasn’t exactly permissive of homosexual relationships, so wouldn’t the SJW that liberal Christians imagine Jesus to be have condemned the people for not accepting gay people if he were concerned about it?
Lois and Troy IMO are absolutely correct. Our zeal for the Book of Mormon has backfired somewhat when it comes to convincing the world we are Christians. I’m not sure what can be done about that as we as a church are not going to back off that heavy emphasis. I tend to think President Hinckley’s advice about working hard to be good and kind and by so doing making term Mormon a compliment is the best course, but now I am officially wrong.
Boy do I miss the days when I told people I was a Mormon and they explained how they had a Momon friend or three and how nice they were (even if to them Mormon beliefs were a bit silly or heretical). That doesn’t happen much anymore.
Lois, I agree 100%. Mormons are woefully unversed in the Bible. It is for exactly this reason that I think Mormonism misses the mark on some of Christianity’s most fundamental doctrines. If Mormons really take a good hard look at the NT (particularly Paul’s epistles to the Romans and Galatians), they would learn that the “restored church” has actually changed the fundamental understanding of Christian grace.
I am 32 years old and cannot recall an edict from the prophet being cast so explicitly as revelation. By stating that it is “the will of the Lord” that we not use “Mormon,” and that the Lord is “offend[ed]” by that name, Pres. Nelson left no wiggle room for future moderation on this issue. The Church cannot simply slip back into using Mormon in coming years without repudiating Pres. Nelson’s putative revelation.
I support expanding use of the Church’s full name in a smart and realistic fashion, but I wonder if Pres. Nelson didn’t set the bar a too high.
Well, choose as you will. I’m still going by “former Mormon”. Not going to say “I used to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints”. Four syllables vs nineteen. Not doing it.
And for the same reason after time has run its course, members will again refer to themselves as Mormons.
We are all ex mormons now.
Dsc, In Mathew 19:11,12 Christ has been talking about marriage and divorce, he then says these rules don’t apply to unuchs, whether from birth, or man made.
He is not condemning at all.
D&C 107:4 suggest that we renamed higher priesthood to avoid redundant use of the name of deity. I am very uncomfortable with the redundant use of His name when referring to the church. Why the discrepancy?
“Boy do I miss the days when I told people I was a Mormon and they explained how they had a Momon friend or three and how nice they were (even if to them Mormon beliefs were a bit silly or heretical). That doesn’t happen much anymore.”
Well said.
Geoff Aus
Eunuchs were celibate.
All those who are SO happy with the reduced Sunday meeting time, I step back to watch if it increases your attendance/support. It shouldn’t be too long before you have another “Change” to champion.
I also wait to see if the emphasis on the full Church name becomes a test of fellowship(“brother Mark. you’re NOT supposed to be saying Mormon”). Now we have to make new T-shirts for our relief workers that say “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Helping Hands”
Before my son had surgery, the hospital called to get pre-op info. Asking for religious preference, I replied “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints’. When she stammered to repeat it back, I just said ‘Mormon’ and her computer understood that.
Nicely put alice 😊
Concerning to me was President Nelson’s advice to use the term “The Church of Jesus Christ” when a shorter name is desired. Isn’t The Church of Jesus Christ the name of another restorationist church, the one also known as the Bickertonites? (Those who felt that Sidney Rigdon was the rightful successor? This is the church Alice Cooper (though not a baptized member) grew up in. His grandfather was the president of the church. By using that name as a substitution for the full TCOJCOLDS, aren’t we infringing upon their property? Since TCOJCOLDS membership is much larger than TCOJ (Bickertonite), it seems bullyish to usurp their identity. Their website is thechurchofjesuschrist.org. That url is already registered. Calling ourselves their name doesn’t seem like a neighborly gesture. It’s akin to saying if TCOJCOLDS is too long, just use the nickname “Community of Christ’.
Just think of the all the prophets starting with Joseph Smith who have been handing Satan major victories all these years. I mean, it’s a wonder we’re still afloat with all that victory swirling around.
And I bet they all got super chastised on that one at the pearly gates. For hours, probably.
Did you think Presbyterians worshipped the presbytery? Did you think Methodists worshipped a method? Did you think Lutherans worshipped Luther? Did you think that Episcopalians worship their bishops? Did you think that the Greek Orthodox worshipped Greece? Did you think that Baptises worshipped baptism?
“To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan”. This comment from President Nelson was very disturbing to me; as I knew that the Church, during the Kirtland era, was known as The Church of the Latter Day Saints. During earlier years, it was known as The Church of Christ; until it was discovered to be used by several Christian faiths. In both times, the Church was under Joseph Smith’s leadership.
Also mentioned is the encouragement of using “The Church of Jesus Christ”. That, also, is used by protestant faiths.
Rigel, The RLDS tried for many years to propose a name change, but Conference vote always defeated them. One of the suggested name changes was “Restored Church of Jesus Christ” but was abandoned infavor of Community of Christ, which is taken from their current mission statement. They also tried a nickname of “Saints Church” in the mid-70’s but it didn’t catch on.
Russell Nelson gave a talk in 1990 titled “And thus shall my church be called.” This has clearly been an issue of great concern to the man. I think it is petty, pointless, and silly but obviously Nelson has a strong personal preference. Good for him. That’s fine. Whatever. Here’s the problem. The fact that he has so quickly moved to stress the church’s actual name and to make changes according to his preference means that he recognizes that he is the guy in charge now. He’s the head honcho. He now has the opportunity to dress his personal preferences up in the language of revelation, knowing that when spoken of in this manner, the membership of the church will fall in line. It is dishonest and, frankly, he is taking the name of God in vain by speaking in this way.
markagblog: I have tried in the past to use the full name, but stopped for the very reason you state: people don’t know what I’m talking about, so I just end up saying “you know, Mormon.” I feel a bit disingenuous telling someone something I know they won’t understand just so i can launch into an explanation of our beliefs. It makes me feel inauthentic–like an infomercial–and people pick up on that. I fear that whatever advantage we gain from using the full name will be lost as we are forced into inauthentic conversations with people.
[Note: Case-in-point for how cumbersome this will be, I can”t help but notice that I instinctively wrote “full name” instead of typing out the full title of the church.]
PLM: I’m going to give President Nelson the benefit of doubt and say that there may be places and events in which the full name is needed. For my part I will try to rely on my gift of the Holy Ghost to guide me on how to identify my Church affiliation in each opportunity. Who’s going to argue against that?
I don’t mean to be a snot, but Sister Nelson is the one that wrote the “Not Even Once” book that pretty much “disregard[ed] all that Jesus Christ did for us, even his Atonement.” Maybe she is the only one that needs the correction.
This was an interesting analysis:
This is a great example of how brother Nelson is starting to frame members speach; reminds me of Newspeak from George Orwell’s 1984… ‘Newspeak was the corrupted/purged language everyone was supposed to speak according to the totalitarian dictatorship which ran everything. Words with subversive potential and those which had unclear meanings were eliminated, along with references to the past. The attempt was to bring language, and therefore thought, into line with the wishes of the rulers’… hmmm
This silly name “revelation” is what happens when subordinates are not free to say, “hey, that’s a stupid idea.” Nelson is surrounded by yes men who will agree with anything he says, even when it’s dumb.
Thanks for the comments, everyone. Great discussion.
I don’t really have anything to add or respond to (I agree with almost everyone above). When transcripts are available in the next day or two, I may update the post with the relevant quotation from Pres. Nelson’s talk, as there has been some defenders saying that the media and online commentators are exaggerating or mischaracterizing his remarks.
“This silly name “revelation” is what happens when subordinates are not free to say, “hey, that’s a stupid idea.” “
Yup, I’m gonna be quoting that one.
Revelation aka “the authoritarian’s gavel”.
Russell M., Sometimes it looks that way. But your comment reminded me of my favorite long ago stake bishopric training meeting in which one of the bishops interrupted the stake president to say, “Bruce [name changed to protect the guilty], that’s the stupidest thing I ever heard!” I doubt that meeting was the only one where such a thing happened.
Thanks for an excellent (and funny!) post, Dave. I agree with you and most commenters that this seems like a petty little gospel hobby of President Nelson’s that he now gets to shove down everyone’s throats claiming “revelation” because the fates decreed that he would outlive President Monson. If Monson had been a little healthier, Satan would have just kept on *winning*!