Tuesday, August 27, 2019

2019.08.27 - The term "Mormon" is now acceptable? Latest update in the Handbook of Instruction.

A recent letter dated August 23, 2019 was sent to all of the Church Leaders regarding changes and updates to the Handbook of Instructions in both volumes 1 and  2.

Since the Handbook 2 is available to all members on the Church website,  I read some of the new updates. Below is from the Church Policies and Guidelines. If I understand correctly,  under the  section 21.1.34, it sounds like it is still acceptable to call the members Mormons. Also, depending in what country you live in, it is also might be necessary to still call the Church, the Mormon Church.

I was under the impression though that using the term Mormon was a victory for Satan. Not just a victory, but a MAJOR victory.

In his conference talk last year, President Russell M. Nelson said the church’s name “is not negotiable.”
“When the Savior clearly states what the name of his church should be, and even precedes his declaration with, ‘Thus shall my church be called,’ he is serious,” Nelson said. “And if we allow nicknames to be used and adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, he is offended.”

So, super confused. Because I sure don't want to offend God by using the term Mormon. Some Church Members consider it a 4 letter word  (actually it is 6 letters, but whose counting)  So, I am not sure if this is just a mistake, an oversight, and maybe the Handbook still needs to be updated. Or maybe this is soft back-peddling for us to be able to still use the term 'Mormon'. (a revelatory U-Turn?)

A few weeks ago we just observed the 24th of July. Maybe the Church Leaders and members found hard if not confusing  to not use the term  'Mormon Pioneers.' It is quite a mouthful to call them 'the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint Pioneers', or just 'Latter-day Saint Pioneers' or even 'Saint Pioneers.'  Maybe that is why this policy was changed back. Pluse, this is not the first time a policy/revelation has been reversed.

1 comment:

Taylor said...

This is from the current Church Official Style Guide:

"While the term "Mormon Church" has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use. Thus, please avoid using the abbreviation "LDS" or the nickname "Mormon" as substitutes for the name of the Church, as in "Mormon Church," "LDS Church," or "Church of the Latter-day Saints.""

So let me get this straight, use of the term Mormon is a major victory for Satan, unauthorized, also discouraged, but also it's acceptable, and sometimes necessary in some countries. Got it. This name change has cost untold sums of money, gotten very poor press, and I can only speculate on the complexity and ramifications, but now seemingly not really that important after all.

I came across something that speaks to this contradictory dilemma. It was in the Official Church news, quote:

Keith A. Erekson, director of the Church History Library, said using the revealed name of the Church was a decision with huge ramifications. The clearest indicator of the size of this issue: “how long it is taking to comply.”

The Church “can change the name of the choir, it is gradually moving through websites and Church products, but it may be several years before every piece of Church material has been updated,” he explained.

He said the name of the Church is one example in a shift in how Church leaders are ushering in change. “In the past, Church leaders would prepare for a change, do all the homework and announce it in a package …,” said Erekson. “Under President Nelson, we have seen him announce a direction and admit we haven’t figured everything out yet, but we will do it together. … In a way it brings all of us into the process of making the change a reality.”"
(End quote)

Interesting comment by the Director. A shift in how leaders are ushering in changes. It’s almost like throwing stuff at the wall, knowingly without doing all the homework, and then seeing what sticks. The poor employees (and members) who have to implement these changes. They take the brute of the contradictions. Caught between doing what they are told, and what is an awkward or logistical nightmare to implement. It’s as if the top is ushering in change in a way that makes everyone else responsible for its success. What doesn't stick can simply be reversed by virtue of revelation or by saying the members "couldn't handle it" or people “weren’t ready” or something along those lines.

Interesting times.