I don’t know if this could be a new subject; but I was thinking of this while I was reading the Mormon/Google comments.

Words are defined by their use by the public or the public’s interpretation of the meaning of the word. In the late 1800’s, I would be proud to be gay.

Ten years ago, I moved from Washington, D.C. area to southwest Missouri. I live in Carthage, Missouri. It is a small town of 15,000. After being here a short time, I was amazed at the ignorant and basically stupid beliefs that my neighbors had/have about the Church.

A member of the Miami Oklahoma Ward (our Stake has units in three states) told me about a comment that his best fishing buddy made recently. His friend told him that he no longer believes what his preacher tells him about Mormons. There is no way that the preacher’s comments (definition) of Mormon and Mormonism fits the actions of this member.

Besides, I am amazed at the lack of knowledge and attention by the members of my Ward on their neighbors. On Sunday, my wife and I take walks about the neighborhood. After seven wonderful years of marriage to me, she is accustom and knows that if I see someone that I will stop and talk to them.

I am not doing this to brag. I know all the people on our block and several blocks around our house. My immediate neighbors throw dead the branches in their yard to my burn pile. With another member, I have given Priesthood blessings to two neighbors and one of them was a preacher. I have given a non-member and two inactive members subscriptions of the Ensign for many years. Though my wife and my health are not always great, we have had neighbors for dinner or just a dessert.

I am not suggesting that this will solve the Google problem. I am just saying that members of the Church can do a lot more to change the definition of “Mormon” by their positive interaction with non-members and inactive members.

In teaching Elder’s Quorum, I try to define words by replacing them with other words. For the lesson on debt and financial responsibility, I replaced the word “interest” with “the cost of money.” A lot of the brethren including one with a business told me that now he looks at interest in an entirely different matter when he thinks of it as “the cost of money.”

My step-son recently received his call to the Recife, Brasil mission. A year or more prior to his calling, I had been talking to almost everyone including grocery clerks about his going on a mission. Constantly, I would receive the reply, “Where is he going?” I would explain the process. I could mention it again a couple of months later and receive the same reply. I have been in sales and know that people normally remember only 10% of what you say.

Frustrated, I tried a different line. Austin is waiting for his mission call. This is understandable. He wants to go on a Mission. He doesn’t know where he going because he hasn’t received his Mission Call.

I have noticed that too many members of the Church have a scripted position, talk, reply, attitude etc. when they are dealing with non-members and inactive members. Besides, members hold certain biases about non-members and inactive members.

I enjoyed the comments about Mormon bad in Europe but good in Japan. Sometimes we need to use our hearts, minds and intellect.

Anyway thanks for allowing the meanderings of an old man.

Sincerely;
Benyamin Abrams

a href=”http://www.mormon.org/temples” target=”window” title=”Mormon temple, Mormon temples, LDS temple”

For what’s it worth, I’d like to point out that the first pro-LDS Website listed in the top 10 Google results for “Mormon temples” or “Temples Mormon” happens to be one of my LDSFAQ pages, http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_masons.shtml dealing with questions about temples and Masonry. In addition to adding links to the mormon.org site using “Mormon temple” as a term in the link, I’ll also add some using “Mormon temple.”

Anyway, thanks, Kaimi, for raising our awareness about this issue.

>”The M-word should be considered tantamount to the N-word, in my opinion, because that is how it is used by people not of our faith.”

Well, guess who took the N-word back, sir. The people it was used negatively against. They don’t let others define it for them anymore.

How dare anyone let someone else define what the word Mormon means. Mormon was a man and a rather good one at that. The word Christian is getting a VERY bad reputation around the world and in our own country. The very word turns many people off. By the analogy above, it should be abandoned because of how it is used by many not of the Christian faith.

IMO, that would be way off base. I’m not ashamed of Christ. I’m not ashamed of Mormon, either. And if people call us Mormons with disdain, that’s their problem – a problem which I’m sure was far worse 150 years ago. My responsibility is, if I choose to be part of the groups considered Mormon and Christian, to live a life that exemplifies the principles Christ taught, regardless of what book those teachings came out of. I will not be ashamed of either moniker.

I was raised a Lutheran but I don’t recall anyone ever accusing me of worshipping Martin Luther. If they had (and maybe this happened in the 15-1600s, I don’t know), I would have explained to them who Martin Luther was.

There are members who cringe and change the subject when polygamy is brought up. If someone thought polygamy was not ordained of God when it was happening, then I suppose that is a good response. However, if they don’t feel that way, then why run from the topic instead of defending it in the proper context? Same goes for this “M-word” as many of you are calling it. If you are not ashamed of Mormon, then don’t be ashamed of being called a Mormon. Just be glad someone’s talking about “Mormons” at all and use the opportunity to educate them on what that means.

But the next problem was that the M-words continued to be used, mainly by outsiders. With the internet came the issue of anti-Mormon sites using the M-word in their URL’s. Moreover, the media continued to identify as “mormon” other related churches, polygamists, etc. This led the Church to reclaim the M-words as it’s trademark. So now you can read on the official Church website, in a reaction to “mistakes in the news” : “There is no such thing as a “polygamous” Mormon. Mormon is a common name for a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Church discontinued polygamy more than a century ago. ”

The Church Style Guide for the Media reads (as Left Field pointed out):

“Please avoid the use of “Mormon Church,” “LDS Church” or “the Church of the Latter-day Saints.” … When referring to Church members, the term “Latter-day Saints” is preferred, though “Mormons” is acceptable. “Mormon” is correctly used in proper names such as the Book of Mormon, Mormon Tabernacle Choir or Mormon Trail, or when used as an adjective in such expressions as “Mormon pioneers.” The term “Mormonism” is acceptable in describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”

However, I could not locate the text any more on the general Church site (www.lds.org), but the official Australian URL of the Church still carries the text as of today. Moreover that site adds the recent text:

When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, the terms “Mormons”, “Mormon fundamentalist”, “Mormon dissidents”, etc., are incorrect. The Associated Press Style Guide notes: “The term ‘Mormon’ is not properly applied to the other … churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith’s death.”

Also a fascinating topic for linguists dealing with semantics…