This always seems to come up every now and then, the desire to reemphasis the real name of the Church. One of the reasons its not as regularly used when describing the faith as some may wish is because its so darn long. I mean really “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”? That’s nine words, or only eight if you count the hyphen. Whatever happened to something easy like Methodist, even United Methodist? I know the name came from the D & C, buts its not a particularly practical one for others to use in conversation repeatedly. Yes I suppose they could make the effort, but come on. Now ‘LDS’ does make it easer for repeated usage and should probably be the preferred vernacular. The Church would prefer the use of “Church of Jesus Christ” for a media short hand, buts that’s not practical either, most wouldn’t know what church was being referred to, besides which it’s a trifle heavy handed on the PR front.
Mormons not a bad term, its easily identifiable. We’ve adopted it, perhaps reluctantly over the course of time, but its now intimately tied in with our sense of history, culture and identity. I mean we still call it “The Mormon Tabernacle Choir”, and we still refer to “Mormon pioneers”. I don’t have a problem with the word or title Mormon, save that people don’t always readily identify it with Christianity, and it’s a broader term not limited to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Like it or not the polygamist in Colorado City and else where are as much Mormons as we are, owing to shared heritage and formative beliefs. To say other wise is like saying Free-Will, Missionary, of Seventh-day Baptists aren’t Baptists because they don’t belong to the SBC. We as a people have got to get over our bipolarized approach to the term Mormon, “We’re not Mormon, but don’t call those Mormons Mormon, people might think there Mormon like us.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I agree, the long name is sorta clunky.
Often, religions are named by their detractors & over time the name sticks. They are named after the founder, or some distinctive attribute as to their form of worship. Lutherans, Methodists, and Quakers are examples. Even we were once called Russelites, and later Rutherfordites, though neither name stuck.
Yet, once "over the hump," these, at first, derogatory names often have more staying power than the names religions choose for themselves. Aren't Quakers known as the Society of Friends? A little bland, is it not? And our original self-assigned name, I blush to say, is International Bible Students Association. How's that for cumbersome and nonspecific?
Post a Comment