Quantcast
Utah

LDS or Mormon? It depends

Church prefers full name but is accepting more Mormon uses

Comments

Return To Article
  • Honor Code Denver, Colorado
    April 2, 2011 6:21 a.m.

    Interesting...........next week we should start calling ourselves "Past Polygamists"!!!

  • Max Syracuse, NY
    April 2, 2011 7:30 a.m.

    When asked for my religious preference (e.g. hospital) I always write: Church of Jesus Christ of LDS. It is critical that Jesus Christ be in there. We can abbreviate everything else.

  • Julianne North Salt Lake, UT
    April 2, 2011 8:00 a.m.

    There is no depends because we are both LDS and Mormons. Until people understand that we are both and the same they will always call us Mormons because of the Book of Mormon. I know that we are the same.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 2, 2011 8:21 a.m.

    They definitely put a lot into managing the corporate brand.

  • goatesnotes Kamas, UT
    April 2, 2011 8:44 a.m.

    Yet another evidence that Google algorithms rule the world.

  • GmaxD Lehi, UT
    April 2, 2011 11:00 a.m.

    Antagonists use the nick-name "Mormon" to their advantage in attempts to smear and tarnish the LDS Church by its ambiguous usage in reference to any and all of the offshoot denominations from the LDS Church.

  • Southern, Idahoan Spring, TX
    April 2, 2011 11:20 a.m.

    The origin and use of mormon by mobsters and other malevolent characters is of the same class and origin as bigoted terms coined by people who hated African, Chinese and other minority groups. Lets call mormon what it it: a hateful, bigoted term used by enemies of the Church of Jesus Christ to demean and denigrate.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    April 2, 2011 11:41 a.m.

    @Southern Idahoan...."Lets call mormon what it it: a hateful, bigoted term used by enemies of the Church of Jesus Christ to demean and denigrate"

    Um, did you know that the LDS church owns the domain name 'mormon.org'? Did you know that the LDS church's latest ad campaign features church members stating "....and I'm a Mormon"?

    It may have started as a negative, but kudos to church leaders for turning it into a positive.

  • Southern, Idahoan Spring, TX
    April 2, 2011 12:07 p.m.

    @Brave Sir Robin, Yep, and it does not change the origin of the term nor its unmistakable intent. Just another hate word variant regardless of the strong effort at adoption and brand management. Three cheers for SEO. It remains a hate word and an expletive at best.

  • Where's Stockton ??? Bowling Green, OH
    April 2, 2011 2:38 p.m.

    The prophet Mormon whom the book derives it's name was an honorable man...I hardly think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or we as members have any real need to fear or to be ashamed to be called by that name. Yes we are aware that there are those uneducated and misled by those who practice the art of priestcraft which has become a vocation of preaching, selling prayers, blessings, and performing other so called ministries for profit...none of which were neither practiced norcondoned in the Church originally organized by the Savior himself. When their congregations start to dwindle then they have always gone to the negative extreme to attack the other denominations who gained their former members because without doubt they invariably feel the pain of their pocketbooks when the collections subject them to the truth that they aren't doing as good a job of preaching as some other denomination in the neigborhood. That's why the term wailing and nashing of teeth is so appropriate. We have no paid ministry...but we do have a good message. So why should we fear. I'm proud to be..."A Mormon"

  • bobosmom small town, Nebraska
    April 2, 2011 3:18 p.m.

    In the area I live in and you mention the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints people give you a weird look like the dont understand and than you mention Mormon and than they even give you a weirder look. We are the definate minority back here.

  • FreeExercise Provo, UT
    April 2, 2011 5:05 p.m.

    The Church's Newsroom site asks the press to "avoid the use of 'Mormon Church', 'LDS Church' or the 'Church of the Latter-day Saints'. I think it's interesting that even the Deseret News has trouble following this guideline. They use "LDS Church" all the time, even in this article!

  • attentive Salt Lake City, UT
    April 2, 2011 7:32 p.m.

    A few hours ago, Elder Boyd K. Packer, instructed members of the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints to refer to themselves as Latter-Day Saints, not Mormons.

  • friedeggonAZstreets Glendale, AZ
    April 2, 2011 7:54 p.m.

    Again Elder Packard reminded us just today during his GC talk to not call it the "Mormon Church". We belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have no problem being called a Mormon by members or non-members. I just make sure the non-members understand what the name of our church is and that we are not affliated with those groups who left the church many years ago who may be called Mormon too.

    With the internet being used for members to share our testimonies it is becoming more important ("what you put out there stays out there") to correct the misunderstanding that the sign outside our ward buildings and Temples says "Mormon Church".

  • Oatmeal Woods Cross, UT
    April 2, 2011 8:55 p.m.

    @ Southern Idahoan:

    I prefer not to go through life worrying about another's intent, especially people that have been dead for over a century.

    It doesn't matter what people call us, but it matters what we really are.

  • Brother Paul Livermore, CA
    April 2, 2011 10:49 p.m.

    NoWhere in this news article are the initials "SEO" defined.

    What is SEO?? A news story that refers to a group of letters
    to represent an abbreviation, should Define somewhere in the story
    what the letters represent or stand for at least one time.

    Not everyone is up to date on all the constantly changing abbreviations
    (alphabet soup stuff).

  • Tahoemormon70 Bountiful, UT
    April 3, 2011 6:33 a.m.

    Let's just put it this way! When I became a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I became a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When I got confirmed, the words were something to the effect of "we confirm you a MEMBER of the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS..." not "we confirm you a MORMON..." With that in mind, my brothers and sisters, let's not bow to the uneducated and the uninformed of the world and let them call us what we aren't. That would be like us calling Jews 'abrahamians' or 'judians' or something that sounds border-line derogatory. What was the name of the Church that was registered when Joseph Smith and the other 5 saints founded the modern-day church? I don't think that they founded the Mormon Church. Why do we have to complicate such a no-brainer of an issue? Like I said before, I am a MEMBER of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I don't belong to any other church with a different name, duh!!!!

  • NightTrader Colonia, Yap
    April 3, 2011 1:04 p.m.

    @Brother Paul - the very first time SEO is used in the article, they acronym is explained. "And then there is the SEO factor search-engine optimization".

  • NightTrader Colonia, Yap
    April 3, 2011 1:16 p.m.

    The best way of removing the any negative connotation of unwanted moniker is to accept and change the public perception of it. I totally agree with the need to be identified positively with the name that most of the world, for better or for worse, knows us by. If the Church wasn't readily identified when someone searched for "Mormon" on the search engines... all they would find would be the anti-mormon railings. The policy makers at the church have done the right thing by embracing the term. I too am proud to be a Mormon. Where I am from, there is no negative connotation to the term. We are well known, respected, and appreciated by most.

  • Gentile brookings, SD
    April 3, 2011 3:54 p.m.

    Wow, it is all in a name isn't it. Interesting reading to an English major, no doubt.

    When I was younger, all of my Mormon friends called themselves... you guessed it... "Mormons." Now it seems more fashionable to not use that term.

    Ah, rewrites, they are wonderful. Mankind just keeps moving on, eh.

  • Brother Paul Livermore, CA
    April 3, 2011 6:56 p.m.

    Thank You NightTrader. I didn't see the explanation for SEO when I read it
    the first time through.

    Probably read it too fast or my glasses need repair or possibly both.

    If the Words "search engine optimization" were Capitalized like the abbreviation,
    I might have seen it the first time. Never heard that set of words before. It's always good to learn something New each day.

    Thanks again NightTrader

  • Freedup1 Baltimore, MD
    April 4, 2011 8:27 a.m.

    Yes- It is Jesus Christ that receives each person as a part of the body of Christ- since no one else can save accept Jesus Christ! The book of Mormon is about what Mormon passed down from generation to generation via the records. We don't follow Mormon and I don't think he would be happy to hear that people do. Nor are we mormons. We are children of God-saved by the Lord Jesus Christ. God calls and Jesus saves! The fact that men/women debate regarding the issue reveals within itself that the issue is man made- not of God. God,Jesus, nor Mormon stated that anyone should bear the name of Mormon. Man chose to do so. It is a battle of conflict amongst man/thus it is of the Advesary. The fact that humans debate regarding the issue really takes away from the credibiltiy of the book of Mormon. If you go by the book of Mormon and the Bible- it states in neither that we are to take on any name. Even the name Christian was developed by man.

  • Freedup1 Baltimore, MD
    April 4, 2011 8:37 a.m.

    In continuation to last comment: if for public eye sake- if there need be a name on the building then it should be the Church of Jesus Christ. As far as being later day saints- I see no problem with that being added on. I think we should all simple keep in mind that spiritual things are of God;the Holy Spirit is of God and not of this world. The Kingdom of God is not of this world;nor is our spirit. The things written in the Bible and the Book of Mormon are spiritual- and spiritual things are applied to the heart and spirit/thus our actions and what comes out of our mouths reflect who we are. Its not about a name- people; and to argue about such is a worldly debate- not of God and shows who and where a person is spiritually. We go to church to hear and learn about God - no one of God should be set apart like in a sect- Mormons over here- and another group over there etc. we should all be one!

  • Abeille West Haven, Utah
    April 15, 2011 1:36 p.m.

    GmaxD is absolutely right - the designation of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as 'Mormon' was, historically, provided by our detractors as an insult. This was so prevalent at the end of the 19th and the start of the 20th century that you can find discourses by Leaders of the Church referring to both 'Mormons' and 'Latter-Day Saints' in rather different ways - 'Mormons' being those who have learned of the gospel, but no longer keep the tenets of the faith, while 'Latter-day Saints' describe those active members keeping the tenets of the faith. This was over 100 years ago, though, and I believe few today know that the term 'Mormon' was used in this manner. I am a proud member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and hold fast to the gospel. However, if someone calls me a 'Mormon', I don't take offense. Why take offense at something that was never meant to be offensive?

  • BobP Port Alice, B.C.
    April 21, 2011 11:05 p.m.

    I can live with it both ways.