Comments on: LDS v. Mormon: a quick note

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:32:39 +0000

Kinda O:
“Mormon church” is just a nickname. It is misleading in that it doesn’t convey the true character of the church.

By: Kinda O

Kinda O — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 23:28:33 +0000

Sorry, but what bothers people about the term “Mormon church”?

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:37:27 +0000

A friend of mine went on a mission to South Africa, where some of the locals referred to them as “Normans.” I thought that was funny.

By: Wilfried

Wilfried — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:51:38 +0000

Thanks, Norbert, for referring to my post on the names. It’s here if it works.

One of my main arguments is the international perspective. By using LDS (and its dozens of weird translations in other languages) we fraction the perception of what the church is into a myriad of little sects – JUNS, OSZA, HLD, SPD, HLT, SDJ, KMNAKN, FMMMHN… Good PR requires a strong, well-known brand name, to which good things are attached. Mormons and Mormonism are known all over the world, but as detractors revile those names, we need to provide counterweight.

My proposal: when in need of an adjective, use “Mormon” as much as possible, and avoid LDS. Language is dictated by use, not by norms. At the same time, of course, squeeze in the full official name of the Church.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 06:00:13 +0000

Nick, it seems to me that it doesn’t matter if the church is the same as that taught by Joseph Smith…because as 38 notes, it is a church based on prophecy and revelation.

so no one is saying that the two stand side-to-side. But, unless we want to be fundamentalists as 45 notes, it’s good that the two don’t stand side to side.

I, for one, think that a ~180 of revelation and in some ways, moderation and normalization has done the church good. Notwithstanding recent forays into public politics, many people will note that the mormons they know personally are on an individual level friendly, have good, normal families, etc., Could they say that if their mormon neighbors were as “different” as the church was in Joseph’s or Brigham’s day?

By: Cris

Cris — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 03:38:10 +0000

Nick, does that make you a “fundamentalist” Mormon?

(Just a hopefully humorous attempt to point out the difficulty of trying to define ourselves using words that have different meanings to different people at different points in time).

By: queuno

queuno — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 03:32:35 +0000

I’m pretty much whatever people associate me as being. In Alabama, that most often was “damned cultist” or “serpent”.

Auburn fan, were you now?

By: Rebecca J

Rebecca J — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:43:18 +0000

The reason people don’t like to refer to us as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that it is cumbersome and time-consuming. I’m 99.9% confident that’s the only reason.

And “Mormon” sounds cooler than LDS. I embrace the former and eschew the latter.

By: Nick Literski

Nick Literski — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:42:50 +0000

To clarify my #41, I don’t personally see the religion of Mr. Monson as the same faith taught by Joseph Smith. Since I consider “Mormonism” to be the religion of Joseph Smith, I can’t personally assign that title to the religion taught by Mr. Monson’s.

Your mileage may vary, of course, and you may feel that the two stand shoulder-to-shoulder, teaching the same doctrines and principles.

By: Nick Literski

Nick Literski — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:37:18 +0000

Steve, I didn’t say that “Mormon” means “absolutely nothing at all.” Rather, I suggested that “Mormon” and “Mormonism” refer to the religion of Joseph Smith, and not so much the religion of Mr. Monson.