Mormon Parenting: The wonderful name of the LDS Church

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    June 13, 2012 11:13 p.m.

    @ Mormoncowboy: If you read carefully, you will see that the Eyres said that the comparison doesn't work in *scope*. I agree; the comparison between atrocities against Mormons in America and the slaughter of Jews (and others) in Europe breaks down in scope. But the comparison is very apt in many other ways.

    I have, as you suggested, "cracked open" many history books. I am well aware of what the Mormons did to provoke the ire of their neighbors. Are you going to suggest that I crack open some histories and see what the Jews did to provoke their neighbors? I hope not, because that would be offensive. Just as it is very offensive for you to continue to justify (not explain, but justify) the atrocities against the Mormons.

    @ K: Our broad definition of what constitutes a Christian (anyone who believes in and follows Christ) does not extend to where that Christian is "churched." We still believe that the only true organization, endorsed by Christ, is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When we evangelize to Christians, our efforts are merely to present them the true Church, not the true Messiah--they already know Him.

  • crunchem Cedar City, Utah
    June 11, 2012 9:07 p.m.

    Having performed a simple word print analysis, I have concluded that all the posters from Bakersfield are the same person. Wish I could be allowed to comment 16 times on the same article.

  • garybeac Chapel Hill, NC
    June 11, 2012 8:19 a.m.

    K, I welcome anyone who wants to tell me about their faith into my home. I wish a couple of Roman Catholics would come to my home and tell me about their faith. I can imagine no more pleasant way for us to get to know each other better, and I'm sure they would have some things to teach me. I think such visiting programs strengthen the members of positive faiths, and such strengthening would be good for the country. I think our "missionary program" is a misnomer, one that certainly causes many of the young men and women engaged in the work to misunderstand the Savior's mission. Though he preached against misbehavior and for obeying the commandments, His message was never "my way or the highway" as regards anyone's personal relationship with Heavenly Father. Please forgive their youthful zeal and the fact that we can't figure out a better name for the program. Our deepest intentions are good.

  • K Mchenry, IL
    June 11, 2012 7:42 a.m.

    Why do you go into countries that are all but 100% roman catholic if you accept Catholic as Christian? It would be like me going to Utah and passing out catechisms near Temple Square. The LDS missionaries are the most respectful of those churches that do go door to door when they discover I alreaady am a devout member of a faith. But it bothers me that they show up in the first place. They go to any house that isn't in membership in their ward. It says if you aren't one of us you are wrong.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    June 10, 2012 4:38 p.m.

    @ K: By "main activity" do you mean missionary work? Your post seems to suggest that you don't know us or understand us very well.

    It's easy to be offended by missionary work, on the one hand. I understand where you're coming from. But on the other hand, if missionaries really do represent the true Church of Jesus Christ, then shouldn't they be expected to do missionary work? And shouldn't their evangelism be as aggressive as the Lord will allow?

    If they made you feel that you weren't a Christian, then they were in error. Tell their mission president, and he will set them straight. The Church of Jesus Christ typically defines "Christian" as a believer in and follower of Jesus Christ, not as a member of a particular church. We consider ourselves Christian under that definition, and certainly would believe you to be if you believed in Jesus Christ and sincerely followed Him.

  • Mormoncowboy Provo, Ut
    June 10, 2012 10:40 a.m.


    There were wrong's done in Missouri, as I admitted. Crack open a history book my friend and read all about Sidney Rigdon's famous "salt sermon" and "July 4th Oration". A couple of things worthy of note:

    1) Sidney Rigdon was the first person in the Mormon Missouri episode, to invoke the term "extermination". He called for a "war of extermination" between the Church and it's percieved aggressors. Furthermore, in the Salt Sermon, he compared Church defectors to the "salt that hast lost it's savor", and suggested that they should be cast out and "trampled".

    Conveniently, no one ever pay's attention to how Mormon's treated their own, when they remember the tragedy of their persecution in Missouri. They kicked them out in the same manner the Mormons were kicked out of Missouri. What makes Missouri so unfortunate is that many innocent Mormons were caught in the crossfire between the Missouri "aggressors" and those who provoked them, such as Rigdon.

    2) I didn't redefine words, the Eyre's did by making this false comparison. If we agree that the incidents were different, then why would the Eyre's be making subtle inferences??

  • K Mchenry, IL
    June 9, 2012 10:45 p.m.

    The problem is your main activity. I can certainly admire that most members want to devote a year or two to studying scripture, practicing good works and sharing the good news missionaries knock of every door of those who aren't members and dont give credibility to the fact that members of other faiths can call themselves Christian. The person on the other end of the door is thinking why are they knocking on the door if they are Christian telling me I need to believe something else when I am currently a Christian?

    And there are so many breaks. Joseph Smith family did not follow BY. Two churches. Then some groups kept polygamy. More churches. All the names are really long and don't sound all that distinct.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    June 9, 2012 7:19 p.m.

    It's necessary, I think for me to acknowledge that my estimation of LValfre, Full-on double rainbow, and atl134 has risen. We have disagreed on any number of things in the past, but I appreciate it when someone is honest in the debate.

    @ the Bakersfield four-in-one: I have been to Bakersfield. I sometimes listen to Bakersfield Christian stations when I drive by the town. I read, love, and believe in the Bible. I don't grant any of you the right to publicly declare the doctrines I believe in, and I don't claim the right to publicly declare your doctrines. Just saying.

    @ Semper Fi: If you're still alive in 3812, you have my unqualified permission to do whatever you want.

    @ Mormoncowboy: I know you know that Mormons do not claim that the Missouri atrocities are on a scale with the Holocaust. But you also know that--on a small scale--what happened to Latter-day Saints in Missouri (and later Illinois) was horrible in and of itself, and stands alone in American history for religious persecution. Minimizing it (redefining "extermination"? really?) is about as offensive as one can get, especially for someone who knows better.

  • Mormoncowboy Provo, Ut
    June 9, 2012 4:41 p.m.

    Well...There was an "extermination order" issued, and it is common to refer to the holocaust as an "extermination", but can we really try and draw meanigful parallel's beyond that? I don't have a problem admitting that Missouri Mormons experienced some great injustices, but I can't even bring myself to compare their treatment to that of the Jew's during the Nazi period in Europe.

    Even more to the point, what Bogg's meant by "extermination" was clearly not the same as the Holocaust because no one was ever systematically killed. That isn't to say that there were no injustices or wrongs done during that time, but it is to say that the comparison is flat out wrong. It also begs the question of why the Eyre's would insist on making the comparison?

    June 9, 2012 12:18 p.m.

    "It's not our particular leader. We use the same "Book". That is a difference between so called traditional Christians and Latter-day Saints. The concept of not having a leader (Christ) but rather being led by a book is foreign to our way of thinking just as it would have been foreign to first Century Christians. Many of the so called "pillars" of what passes as historical Christianity did not originate with Jesus or his Apostles but are innovations themselves. Any honest study of the early Church and contrasting it with modern Christianity will support this conclusion.

    June 9, 2012 12:02 p.m.

    I have enjoyed reading all the "Biblical" Christians defending ideas as foundational to their faith that are not "Biblical" at all. It is impossible to prove that either Jesus or any of the Apostles or even those who followed them immediately believed in the Creeds they say defend the Bible. As Harper's Bible dictionary points out, the fourth Century Creeds do not find support in the Bible. Where in the Bible is the term Trinity or Triune? The events of Gethsemane are every bit as Biblical as the Cross. The idea that Paul had reference to Latter-day Saints when he brought up the idea of "another gospel" is ludicrous. Further, since this interpretation of Galatians 1:6-9 insists that the true gospel was given to the Galatians on Paul's first visit, Where is the record of Paul's first visit? Are we to understand that Paul covered every single truth embodied in the teachings of Jesus in his first visit there? Christians who proudly put others down because they alone are "Biblical Christians" seem unaware that first Century Christians never would have used such terminology. It would have made no sense to them.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    June 9, 2012 10:23 a.m.

    @Ad Rem, Good to know that Calvinists(Reformed) sound identical to Arminians (Baptists), and that *Preterists (excluded,outside) sound identical to Historicists(Reformed, RCC) and Futurists(Baptists). Or that Charismatics are Biblical Christians".
    Yes, if they are inside the “Pale” of Christianity(Trinitarians). The Apostles creed ( statement of faith).

    1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. 2. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son,(John 3:16) our Lord. 3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit(Mt 1:18) and born of the Virgin Mary. 4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate(historical event), was crucified, died, and was buried. 5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. 6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father(O.T. position of authority). 7. *’He will come again’ to judge the living and the dead. 8. I believe in the Holy Spirit, 9. the holy catholic(Universal) Church(called), the communion of saints, 10. the forgiveness of sins, 11. the resurrection of the body, 12. and life everlasting.

  • garybeac Chapel Hill, NC
    June 9, 2012 9:07 a.m.

    My family and I long ago dropped the "of Latter-day Saints" part. First, it's a mouthful; second, it avoids the hostility that you sometimes get in this weird town, which is a combination of hell-fire evangelicals and hateful liberals; and third, everyone, including a lot of members of the Church, confuse the words "latter" and "last."

    June 9, 2012 9:00 a.m.

    So a few hundred people dying and the rest escaping with their lives, if not their property, is equivalent to millions of people who could not escape being herded on to trains and taken to concentration camps where they wereshot, gassed and died of starvation and disease? Oh, and don't forget the people subjected to ghastly "medical" experiments. Sounds tiny bit arrogant to me. Hahn's Mill and the Holocaust are not the same thing.

  • JoeCoug OREM, UT
    June 9, 2012 8:13 a.m.

    I have one word for those of you "Christians" bashing us who embrace The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Priestcraft. With, perhaps, a few exceptions the pastors, preachers and authors who preach/write attacking us are paid (often handsomely). I could NEVER participate in any "religion" where my sacred tithing funds and other contributions go to completely supporting leaders of congregations or apologists who "set the record straight." Ironically, our success with a lay ministry serves as a threat to their very financial existence (though there is the hope for them that millions will continue to support their lifestyle by contributing a percent or two of their gross income).

    I can only report, personally, that where I was once lost, I am now found. My attempts on a daily basis to read, ponder, pray and listen lead me to receive daily confirmations that I am a sinner and need Jesus Christ as my Savior, but also that I am a Son of God and am loved. I love Him, and try to follow Him. If I wasted time pointing fingers at others I would miss opportunities to hear the still, small voice of love and encouragement.

  • Ad Rem Falls Church, VA
    June 9, 2012 7:10 a.m.

    @Capella said, "Here's why Biblical Christians sound 'identical': We study from the same book." Sounds pretty simple. Good to know that Calvinists sound identical to Arminians, and that Preterists sound identical to Historicists and Futurists. Or that Charismatics sound identical to non-Charismatics. Glad all these "Biblical Christians" study from the same book.

    But I know what you're going to say, the groups that disagree with >your< interpretation of the Bible aren't "real" Christians. How convenient :) LOL

  • Ad Rem Falls Church, VA
    June 9, 2012 7:04 a.m.

    @OnlyTheCross - It's interesting that you said, "When I read the Bible without all the Mormon definitions, I was shocked at the simplicity and beauty of God's gospel." If that is the case, you should read the Old Testament without all the Christian definitions. You'll really be shocked at the "simplicity and beauty" of God's teachings to Israel.

    It's amazing how new religions like Christianity, or Islam, or Mormonism all do the same thing: use the same terms as the older religion, redefine them and then reread the older texts thru the lens of the new definitions, and then go on to write new books . . . all the while claiming that theirs is the "real" reading of the text.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 8, 2012 10:03 p.m.

    "And please stop aligning yourselves with the extermination of 6 million Jews. There is no parity there."

    Is it really that much to ask for condemnation of atrocities regardless of magnitude differences?

    "But just "calling" yourselves a Christian will never make it so."

    The LDS church is Christian. They're quite obviously trying to follow what they believe to be the teachings of Jesus so, whether they are accurate of not, they're Christians.

    @deep in thought
    "How many people live in Bakersfield and troll a small LDS newspaper in good ol' Utah."

    Honestly, as someone from out east with some familiarity with SOME (emphasized to denote that I'm not criticizing all evangelicals) evangelical groups I would not rule out overzealous small groups thinking they can convert the world by condemning them.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 8, 2012 9:42 p.m.

    "I would prefer the moniker "New Testament Christian" to demonstrate that support for the Fourth Century Creeds are "not to be found in the New Testament""

    You prefer a name whose primary distinction to you is that it implicitly attacks other Christian faiths? I don't see that going over well...

    "You add the Garden to Calvary, works to grace"

    It's not like other churches believe the Garden thing didn't happen... also several "Christain" churches like the Catholic church believe in a works with grace thing (you could argue degree of specific works is a difference though but the idea of works is not LDS specific).

    "It really is time for Mormons to admit that they have disdain for the Bible"

    It's quite clear to me even as an ex-mormon that the idea that they have disdain for the Bible is an absurd notion.

    "We loved the fact that Bible-believers don't fall for false theology in Europe, Scandinavia "

    Uh, it's not just the LDS church that is having poor outreach in Europe, really all christian churches are struggling relative to where they were at decades ago.

  • deep in thought Salt Lake, UT
    June 8, 2012 8:49 p.m.

    @ Cats

    Right on girl. How many people live in Bakersfield and troll a small LDS newspaper in good ol' Utah. Gotta love the amount of free time there. As I remember you can have up to 4 pen names under one account here at DN.

    I had a bunch of Jehovah's Witnesses come to my house a few years back. I chatted with them several times, enjoyed their company, read their magazine and wasn't interested. I never felt compelled to troll their websites, magazines sites, or other publications. I simply wasn't interested and that was that. I would be happy to wave and welcome these women in if I was to ever see them again.

    The amount of venom, always surprises me when it comes to anti-mormons, it is almost ... pathological. The trolling, the obsession, the compulsive need to disprove, tear down, and mock. As a nurse I would love to do a psychological case study. Fascinating really.

    Until then, all those who hate the Mormons .. here is some love right back at ya! Come to my house for a nice warm meal and a big 'ol hug. :)

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    June 8, 2012 7:31 p.m.

    Apparently Only the Cross, Capella and DUP Daze, doesn't realize that the rest of us know that he/she is all the same person. Why would anyone want to give up the fullness of the truth for a partial truth? But there are those who choose to do it.

    The Lord has reestablished his Church in the latter days and given it his name. We need to stress this as much as possible and downplay the nickname, "Mormon." There is no such thing as the Mormon Church. It is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

  • Full-on double rainbow Bluffdale, UT
    June 8, 2012 6:51 p.m.

    The word cult is a loaded term. Many benign organizations meet some criteria of a cult. Referring to the LDS church as a cult is not helpful to any kind of meaningful discussion.

  • Michigander Westland, MI
    June 8, 2012 6:16 p.m.

    As people look more closely, we of the membership can boldly proclaim that we are truly The Church of Jesus Christ (WHQ: Monongahela, PA).

  • hermounts Pleasanton, CA
    June 8, 2012 6:08 p.m.

    I have often thought that part of the problem with people doubting whether "Mormons" (which is still the name most people know us by) is that "Mormon" sounds vaguely like "Muslim."

  • Semper Fi Bakersfield, CA
    June 8, 2012 5:45 p.m.

    LValfre, I don't write the books, I don't give the defs, and I did not write the Bible. The Biblical definition for anything other than what Paul gave the saints is "another gospel", a false gospel, to be eschewed and all the false teachers to be "anathema"- Greek for excommnicated, cursed. (2Cor.11)

    There are more than one definition of a cult. You described the extreme ones in terms of how society views them. In Webster's definitions, LDS have 7 of 8. You don't have to follow David Koresh or Jim Jones. Joseph Smith got his title teaching what he did in the 1840's; Brigham Young solidified the title by leading his group to the Utah wilderness; Warren Jeffs ditto. Jews consider Christians a cult break-off. LDS consider the FLDS and the RLDS the same way.

    A better adjective is to refer to denominations based on what their own leaders claim. Mormons would be an extra-Biblical religion, because it adds to Biblical teachings. In that category is also Jehovah's Witnesses and Christian Science. Some are just unbiblical, due to adding all their own rites and/or anti-biblical doctrines.

    Nothing personal.

  • LValfre CHICAGO, IL
    June 8, 2012 4:32 p.m.

    Just to be clear here Mormonism is not a cult. It's a religion. In my opinion it's a false religion manifested by Joseph Smith but it's definitely not a cult. I would appreciate, as a non-Mormon, not calling their religion a cult.

    KKK is a cult. LDS is a full-fledged religion.

  • Semper Fi Bakersfield, CA
    June 8, 2012 3:57 p.m.

    So Jeff, if I wanna be a Mormon can I just come along 1800 years from today, change all the basics that Joseph Smith founded, redefine everything "Mormon" to my own liking, and start my own Mormon church? Would future Mormons in 3812 AD be okay with that usurpation? Would they welcome me with open arms, all my new revelations and changes with my membership claims?

    If you want to know what's going on in Bakersfield, c'mon up and visit any Biblical Christian church. Listen to every pastor when they define what false gospels are, based solely on the Biblical guidelines. Sit in on any of the courses on "cults" at our Biblical churches.

    Or, just visit a Christian bookstore and go to their apologetics section. Or Google "Christian cults". Or purchase one of the many scholarly books on the subject. Listen to Christian radio. You're discussed there daily.

    When you want the authentic, you don't patronize the counterfeit. Then you'll begin to understand why Biblical believers sound alike, preach the same salvation message, define all the unbiblical gospels the same way:

    It's not our particular leader. We use the same "Book".

  • Capella Bakersfield, CA
    June 8, 2012 3:43 p.m.

    Jeff, just being honest with what Mormonism actually teaches. Please correct me if I present an incorrect LDS doctrine. I grew up LDS, taught and served in every auxillary, and am a proud 7th generation Mormon. Proud of my pioneer heritage and fabulous family. That I don't agree with their doctrines does not make me superior. That you disagree with the Bible does make you unbiblical. That's just the facts.

    What's going on in my town is that it is predominantly Biblical Christian and they won't fall for someone just claiming to be something because they put put a shingle on it.

    The boys on our doorsteps can't keep an accurate representation of the gospel they bring. Full disclosure is what we all want. I pass out more Books of Mormon at my Baptist church than my neighbors. I want everyone to know exactly what Mitt and Mormons believe, because my community finds it too confusing to be able to discern the differences. Now why is that?

    Here's why Biblical Christians sound "identical": We study from the same book. And we know the ex-Mormons stories because we listen to them. Try it.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    June 8, 2012 3:28 p.m.

    @Ldsdaniel, My question is, why do we want to so desperately conform to the world sooo baad? We are Saints, not Christians.

    A saint (hagios Greek,#40) seperate, a most holy thing; ie… Holy Bible ,Holy Spirit. Holy, holy, holy is the LORD.

    “Christ” is a title much the same way as “President’ or “King”. This title is taken from the Hebrew word “Mashiach”(Messiah) or “Anointed One, which was translated into the Greek “Christos” later Anglicized to “Christ”. The term Christian means followers of the Messiah or followers of the Christ.
    Why do we use the name Jesus instead of “Yeshua”. Jesus is the Hellenized-anglicized form of Yeshua. Yeshua never heard the name Jesus in His life-time,He was always called Yeshua,which is very similar to Joshua.

    My question can you a Saint(holy)and not follow Yeshua the Messiah/ Jesus the Christ?

  • conspiracygirl FPO, AE
    June 8, 2012 2:53 p.m.

    While you're over there in Poland why not take the blinders off and notice that not all members of the Church (at least outside of lock-step USA) are thrilled with Mitt's candidacy or the way he represents the wonderful name of the Church. The members here in Naples have been scared by his aggressive calls for more war, since they are very close to all these hotspots . The European headquarters for NATO are located in their city, making them feel targeted.

    Americans like to think that all people around the world shout "Rah, rah USA, USA" over every American bomb dropped, but it isn't so. Having the most prominent Mormon in the world being the one calling for war pretty much everywhere, all the time (name one he doesn't want) makes the church look very, very bad. If Mitt is elected the Church will be engaged in full-bore damage control.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    June 8, 2012 2:47 p.m.

    Wow, what goes on in Bakersfield? One might have the impression that all the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who live in the lovely San Joaquin Valley have suddenly left the Church under the assumption that true Christianity exists elsewhere.

    DUPDaze, OnlytheCross, and Capella, each writing posts identical in tone and diction, seem to suggest that three different people came to the conclusion that the Church was not for them, left the Church, then felt the need to advise the Church on what it should teach, call itself, and act upon.

    I tell you what--if you really believe your leaving the Church has led you to true Christianity, then, great. Proselytize me all your conscience allows. But you are not convincing. In one breath, you tell me that all the good things the Church teaches me really come from Satan, then you tell me how the LDS Church is called by the wrong name and believes non-Biblical things (every doctrine of the Church is supported my reading of the Bible; I don't know why your reading is superior), and you give me nothing to compensate me for your suggested apostacy.

  • Sneaky Jimmy Bay Area, CA
    June 8, 2012 1:54 p.m.

    @LonelytheCross and @Dupedhaze

    Thank you for illustrating Mark Twains famous assessment: If Christ ere on the earth today there is on thing he wouldn't be and that's a Christian.

  • Capella Bakersfield, CA
    June 8, 2012 1:22 p.m.

    You are "another gospel", according to the Holy Bible's definition. It does not matter what name, nickname, new name, new revelation you put on yourselves. Lovely people can still belong to cults, false religions, unbiblical, non-Christian denominations. Charity and repentance are part of every major religion in the world.

    Just reading Seek2Understand's comment says it all: Biblical believers know that it doesn't matter how humble, gracious, religious, pious, charitable, repentant, etc. you are. It's all about "Who do you say I am, Peter?" You can follow Mohammed and live like a Christian. You can dwell deep in Ethiopia and practice ancient Jewish and Christian rites (and they do). It's Who you say Jesus Christ is.

    Mormonism is all about the gold angel on top of the temples. He defined your new gospel, your "other" testament of another Jesus.

    C'mon to the BBQs, belong to the PTA, become the next POTUS. But just "calling" yourselves a Christian will never make it so. You have to have the original. Complain, or join the fold. We'd love to have you, but not your unbiblical gospel.

    We are to protect and preserve God's Word.

  • Seek to understand Sandy, UT
    June 8, 2012 12:51 p.m.

    The thing I love about being a latter-day Saint is that we are led to seek humility and understanding through revelation, which requires repentance, a broken heart and contrite spirit, and a desire and willingness to do good continually.

    It makes perfect sense that this makes no sense at all to those who cannot accept that humility, love and service are prerequisite to being "humble followers of Christ".

    I believe true Christians will spend their time and energy seeking to be humble, and who realize that "my ways are not your ways" when trying to "make sense" of doctrinal truths. We cannot possibly understand it all, and there are numerous conflicts in teachings, doctrines and theology throughout the decades and centuries.

    It is folly for any of us to think we "get it" all or can somehow make logical sense of it. I believe that learning to hear the word of God, follow it, and seeking revelation with a humble heart is the only hope to coming to an understanding of spiritual things. Trying to make sense of it in wordly terms will always end in a mass of confusion and contention.

  • ldsdaniel San Diego, CA
    June 8, 2012 12:42 p.m.

    I'm not here to correct anyone - the author or the "commenters" - but I think suffice to say that in the modern definition of Saints, we probably fit Christians better than Saints. HOWEVER, a very timeless definition of "Saints" we are indeed, true to the word, Saints and I daresay, not Christians (just like how we are NOT Mormons). In fact, Christians, as many of us know, is a nickname given to the Saints in the New Testament times. IT IS A NICKNAME AFTER ALL - as far as deity is concerned. There are Saints, Jews, gentiles and other tribes and religions out there but Christians is truly and simply a nickname and will be.

    So calling ourselves Latter-day Christians (I feel, is quite blasphemous) is just the same as calling ourselves Latter-day Mormons. In my opinion, there's no difference. My question is, why do we want to so desperately conform to the world sooo baad? We are Saints, not Christians. Give me a time in the history of mankind where deity referred to his people as Christians.

  • DUPDaze Bakersfield, CA
    June 8, 2012 11:23 a.m.

    If Christ "himself gave to the church" its name, why couldn't He get it right the first time? I grew up with this kind of circular logic and unbiblical rhetoric. It really is time for Mormons to admit that they have disdain for the Bible and love their 19th century remake. It is evident on these sites and thinly-veiled at best. Free Bible give-aways haven't fooled any blood-bought Bible-believers, because we actually read and follow God's Word. Bereans aren't fooled, only the unschooled are mislead.

    The sad truth, regardless of the valiant efforts to put lipstick on it for journalists and public consumption, is that you deserve all the bad press and jokes about your moniker. "Mormons" were polygamists and still believe in it. We just cannot believe the efforts to distance yourself from the very practice that got you maligned, persecuted and "extermination" orders actually worked. And please stop aligning yourselves with the extermination of 6 million Jews. There is no parity there.

    I survived growing up a proud Mormon with no excuses. Today's "LDS" want acceptance without acquiesence to God's Word.

    That will never happen.

  • OnlytheCross Bakersfield, CA
    June 8, 2012 10:58 a.m.

    When you add to the Cross of Christ, it doesn't matter what you add or change in your name. You are what you teach, and Mormonism has always been another gospel with another Jesus and another reality.

    Please- You need more than name clarification. You need to get yourself out of every cult section and book in (literally) every Christian bookstore on earth! We loved the fact that Bible-believers don't fall for false theology in Europe, Scandinavia and the Middle East. While you have churches there, the local Christian bookstores in Oslo, Bergen, Vienna, Stockhölm, London, Prishtina, Athens, Santorini, Jerusalem, Amman and Tiberias all had great apologetics sections with classic books that still classify Mormonism as an unbiblical religion. You are there with all the others that refuse to accept and follow God's Word as authoritative and accurate.

    When I read the Bible without all the Mormon definitions, I was shocked at the simplicity and beauty of God's gospel. Although I had seen several changes in my 35 years in the church, all the accusations that Joseph Smith first leveled at 1830's Christianity were never altered. Only his revelations were reversed.

  • sharrona layton, UT
    June 8, 2012 10:46 a.m.

    Mormon tabernacle choir, should be changed to the LDS tabernacle choir.

    Church(ekklesia)means “called” out ones. The Apostle Paul identified the church of God in Corinth, those in Galatia he called the churches of Galatia. God recognizes His people by their faith in him, not by a name over the door. The invisible church or the Holy catholic church.

    The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were "Mormons." Jedediah M. Grant(JoD 1:346)

  • DUPDaze Bakersfield, CA
    June 8, 2012 10:38 a.m.

    There's been lots of changes in the church name, the First Vision, the temple endowment, the Book of Mormon, the Word of Wisdom, plural marriage, blacks and the priesthood, church doctrines.

    Why would a believer want a church whose God can't get it right the first time around? Every General Conference runs the possibility of doctrinal reversals in the smorgasbord of tenets. Boil it down and Mormonism is a 19th century remake/amalgamation of Biblical, New Age, secular humanism, and misunderstandings of basic Biblical doctrines.

    * You add the Garden to Calvary, works to grace, food laws to exaltation, tithing to temple recomnends, other books to God's One, polygamy to an unbiblical heaven and its requirements, etc..
    * You totally change Jesus Christ's DNA, His Mission and Message, His origin and uniqueness; the ancient temple sacrifices, the Way back to our Father, etc.
    * You take away the central meaning of the Cross, salvation by grace, the authority and trust of the Holy Bible, and our Triune God.

    Those of us who grew up in the church love our families and heritage, but we had to choose between them and God's truth. Painful but liberating, the Truth!

  • gailcrich Herriman, UT
    June 8, 2012 10:07 a.m.

    I have been told by reliable sources that we may call ourselves "The Church of Jesus Christ." My understanding is that the church has copy written the name "Mormon" not because that is our preferred title but because it is still so prevalent. We use it as a way to invite people to look more closely at the religion because that is known in the world. As they look more closely we can explain that we are truly The Church of Jesus Christ. I think if we used this title it would clear things up.

    LDS while appropriate just ads to the confusion. There was a news story after the disaster in New Orleans where a woman was interviewed. She said that there were two sources you could rely on for help. The LDS church and the Mormons.

    If we are confused about what to call ourselves, how can we expect others to know?

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    June 8, 2012 9:38 a.m.

    It's a complicated issue at times. I have no problem being referred to as a "Mormon", though I consider myself a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When people ask me what my religion is and the setting requires a condensed response, I tell them that I am LDS.

    Nicknames are not so problematic; depending on the qualities of people the nickname describes. For example, if someone uses the word "Gypsy" that rarely carries with it a positive image, because of the conduct of some of that group. And so, when many hear the word Gypsy they think thief.

    It becomes critical that we all live our lives in such a way that when people say Mormon they think Christian --- a rose by any other name.

  • John Marx Layton, UT
    June 8, 2012 9:11 a.m.

    From the article
    "Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve indicated in a recent general conference talk that being called a “Mormon” is not particularly offensive to many members"

    Considering the church has been running "I'm a Mormon" ads I would say they've embraced the title for individuals.

  • TeamLaws Ventura, Ca (SoCal), CA
    June 8, 2012 8:55 a.m.

    We (my wife especially) have loved the Eyre's for years. They continue to inspire. Great article and explanation!

  • Full-on double rainbow Bluffdale, UT
    June 8, 2012 8:45 a.m.

    Here is the chronology of the name of the church. Enjoy!

    1830: Church of Christ
    1834: The Church of the Latter Day Saints
    1838: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

    The 1834 name is particularly interesting.

  • coltakashi Richland, WA
    June 8, 2012 8:32 a.m.

    In Mosiah Chapter 18, the editor, Mormon, after describing the Church of Christ which was restored in ancient America by the prophet Alma, waxed rhapsodic over the name of the place where this key event took place: the forest and the waters of Mormon, which was the fountain of the Church among his people for five hundred years, and was the reason his parents named him after that significant place of refuge and covenant. We don't know if "Mormon" became a nickname for the saints in that era, but it was the editor's name because it was a shorthand for the Church of Christ, just as Melchizedek is shorthand for the Priesthood after the Holy Order of the Son of God.

    So when we are explaining what the name Mormon means, we should point to the meaning it had for the man who humbly wore it as his name: It is an ancient name for the Church of Jesus Christ in the Americas.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    June 8, 2012 6:35 a.m.

    It is unfortunate that the implication of "Latter-Day Christian" is that of a Johnny-come-lately religion. I would prefer the moniker "New Testament Christian" to demonstrate that support for the Fourth Century Creeds are "not to be found in the New Testament" according to Harper's Bible Dictionary.