The new CHI states,

Following an initial reference to the full name of the Church, the contractions “the Church” or “the Church of Jesus Christ” are acceptable.

Referring to the Church as “the Mormon Church,” “the Latter-day Saints Church,” or “the LDS Church” is discouraged.

It's no accident that Mormons think of their church, as "The church", the big guys like people calling it the church better than even calling it the LDS church.

I thought that it was kind of a spontaneous, collective group blinders sort of thing for them to call it the church, as if the others don't exist at all. Nope, it cultivated behavior written into policy that comes from the top.

I think I'm just going to refer to it from now on as "The Corporate Sole," or "The Corp."

"LD$ Inc." is acceptable but discouraged ;)

It is as arrogant as calling people that are not Mormons "non-members".

Imagine the outrage if Catholics referred to them as "non-Catholics"

I'm on board with RaptorJesus. I call it the Corporation, or the CoP.

Maybe we can call it, "Ex-Beneficial Life Insurance".

They made a similar staement several years ago.

Apparently, since it is the only real church, there was no need to qualify it with its full name. But that would only seem to work in the heavily infested areas of the morridor. Out here in the 'field' that naturally leaves people to ask, which church do you mean?

When the Church started having the Priest's wear robes and caps, it was found that other leader in THE church started losing hair...

when they are like "What are you talking about?"

say...oh you that I mean the Mormon Church, well obviously in the worlds eyes, THE Church is actually the Catholics, or a million other churches besides YOURS.

Primus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When the Church started having the Priest's wear
> robes and caps, it was found that other leader in
> THE church started losing hair...
>
> when they are like "What are you talking about?"
>
> say...oh you that I mean the Mormon Church, well
> obviously in the worlds eyes, THE Church is
> actually the Catholics, or a million other
> churches besides YOURS.


I agree, and I'll bet the Catholics haven't come up with a written policy from the Vatican telling their members to refer to it as, "The Church".

Who are they trying to kid? It is the Corporation of the President.

Calling CoJCoLDS "the church" in my completely non-Mormon area would be ludicrous. Here at RfM is the only place I can say "the church" and know that people will, obviously, know I mean the Mormon Church. It doesn't indicate that I am acknowledging the Mormon Church as somehow being _the_ church, pre-eminent amongst all others, or the only "true" one, not at all. God forbid, in fact. It's expedient shorthand here, that's all.

As for the new instructions (or newly emphasized in the most recent church operating manual) the church (!) is doing its usual soft shoe shuffle on that one - more evasive action to distance themselves from their murky past - why else would you have to keep on emphasizing to your own people what the church's name is? After nearly 200 yrs, would they not have settled that matter by now?

They themselves call themselves "Mormons" as do their own apologists, including many of their web sites and other material.

It wasn't that long ago they were emphasizing the "Latter-day Saints" part of their name, including to the media.

In the entirety of my Mormon interlude (adult convert for a 3-yr stretch) the name and person of Jesus Christ was scarcely given a nod. Indeed, that is 80% of the reason I had to leave "the church". Never was a Christian so thirsty for "the gospel" (i.e., Jesus Christ to Christians) despite spending more time in the CoJCoLDS, between meetings and callings and missionary work, than in any other church I had ever before attended, because the _only_ evidence for Jesus Christ being part of the CoJCoLDS, in my ward anyhow, was the name of the church. In fact, that is the single biggest "evidence" I ever heard from Mormons to validate their claim to being Christian. "We have the Saviour's name in the name of our church. That makes us _more_ Christian than everybody else!" (OK, that last statement is my paraphrase of their prevailing attitude). The fact that they didn't focus on Jesus, even at Christmas and Easter (!) (again, in my own experience at my specific ward, during those particular three years) gave me, a self-labelled BAC when I joined the Mormon Church (long story) a lot of grief and regret in hindsight (until I realized I could just leave!) It was an experience with a missionary that made me say aloud, "I'm in the wrong church" and that radically opened my mind to that fact. It was Easter morning and the entire SM was devoted to missionary farewells. Not a single person even _mentioned_ Easter, never mind framing the entire Sunday service around it, as at BAC and other mainstream Christian churches. I left the meeting very upset, crying even, wailing that I had "missed Easter" (and it was too late then to attend an Easter service at a more mainstream church). One of the missionary sisters asked me, "Why does Easter mean so much to you?" Not exactly a question you'd expect a "Christian" to ask another Christian in the context in which she meant it (as in "what's the big deal, it's just another SM to us").

That is just one example of how "non-Christian" the Mormon Church seemed to me, despite my best efforts to understand and fit in and "convert".

So, it is to laugh - or scream - when I see this latest shuffle towards more mainstreaming, pushing the label "Church of Jesus Christ" and de-emphasizing "Mormon" and "Latter-day Saint".

It is an appalling LIE. (I just posted yesterday about the LIES that still make me see red).

What would be the reason to keep redesigning their name? Only, it seems, to distance themselves from their history and unsavoury doctrines and practices, and to further obfuscate and avoid their own beliefs. They _KNOW_ they are now using; indeed, emphasizing, the same words and phrases and concepts as mainstream Christians do ("born again", "Lord and Saviour", and others I can't recall at the moment) but with different meanings. What would be the reason for that? To misrepresent themselves, as far as I can see.

I had a missionary and a stake missionary both emphasize the "born again" part of Mormonism (Alma 35, if I remember correctly, which is doubtful) to me, as they knew that is what would appeal to me, obviously, as a BAC. But that is the last time I ever heard anything about that in the following three yrs of membership.

They emphasize "Lord and Saviour" now, a common Christian phrase, but with an entirely different theology on the nature of God than mainstream Christians have, the Mormon leaders _KNOW_ they are misrepresenting their own beliefs.

I despise their shuffling and lies in this regard. If they believe in their own church, they should stand up boldly and emphasize their Mormanity, not seek to claim Christendom's labels to hide behind.

As for calling themselves "Church of Jesus Christ", others have got there first and are more out in front of it than the Mormons are. A quick Google illustrates this:

Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite):

"The Church of Jesus Christ claims to be the spiritual successor to the Church of Christ, organized by Joseph Smith, Jr. on April 6, 1830. The Church of Jesus Christ claims that Sidney Rigdon was Joseph Smith's rightful successor following the assassination of Smith because Rigdon was Smith's first counselor in the First Presidency."

http://en.wikipedia.org wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_(Bickertonite)


Church of Jesus Christ (Apostolic/Pentecostal):

"We believe that you must be filled with the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues."

http://www.apostolicsofnewlandnc.org/belief.html


Church of Jesus Christ (Reconciler):

"A church committed to the visible unity of divided Christians within the church, the Living Body of Christ. We seek the reconciliation of all in the Body of Christ. We seek this unity by living as one reconciled body, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, witnessing to the Good News of Jesus Christ through worship, service, teaching and justice."

http://christreconciler.blogspot.com/


The Church of Christ (Scientist):

Mary Baker Eddy: "If Christianity is not scientific, and Science is not God, then there is no invariable law and truth becomes an accident."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_sci.htm

-----

What's in a name, indeed. In the case of the Mormon Church, their "new name" is a good indication of the games they play. Looks like a complete turn-around from their early influential leaders who forcefully stated "We're not Christians, we're Mormons!". Today's crowd insists "We're not Mormons, we're Christians".

Maybe they'll get it figured out, given another 200 yrs. Meanwhile, their MO seems as though they wish to be as confusing as possible. Certainly, confusion was my overriding state in my three Mormon yrs. Fortunately, the fog has passed off. And hey, I ain't Mormon. That's for sure.

PS: Sorry for the broken link - I can't seem to fix it. :(



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/16/2010 04:28PM by Nightingale.

All I can say is that I refuse to use the term LDS, or anything that includes the word "saint." I freakin' beg to differ!

At one time the missionaries were instructed to refer to themselves as 'the mormons'....
later they were instructed not to refer to themselves as Mormons, but were allowed to refer to 'the LDS church'....
later still they were required to always refer to the COJCOLDS

I dont know if this was particular to the mission area where I lived (London, England mission) or whether it was a church-wide idea