That was pretty damn irresponsible of CNN and it makes me (an atheist) mad, too.
Monty it doesn’t look like your dictionary.com cite actually backs you up. It seems clear that “Mormon” is fact, widely used to describe any church or individual who believes in the Book of Mormon.
Nevertheless, I think there’s some room for prescriptivism here (and I’m usually pretty descriptivist). If neither the LDS church nor any of the offshoot churches uses “Mormon” to describe any but the CoJCoLDS, then I think a strong case can be made that doing so is incorrect and perhaps offensive. At one time, anyone of East Asian appearence was likely to be percieved by whites as Chinese. Even if it had become common to refer to all Asians as “Chinese” and such usage had been recorded in a dictionary, there would still have been reason to object to that usage as wrong.
Furthermore, the fact that “Mormon” is a trademark of the CoJCoLDS means that any other church is legally prohibited from identifying themselves as Mormon. None of these other churches can put a sign by a building calling it a Mormon temple or advertise Mormon services in the newspaper or ask to be listed under “Churches (Mormon)” in the yellow pages. In fact, if a newspaper or television program identified one of these offshoots or one of these poligamists as “Mormon,” I woldn’t be surprised if the CoJCoLDS could sue them for harming their trademark. (Perhaps a lawyer could comment.)
Missed this while composing my post. Other churches besides the CoJCoLDS use the term “Latter-day Saint.” That’s hardly conclusive. But see the rest of my post above for a better argument.
Note that trademarks apply to a particular jurisdiction, so it’s entirely possible that “Mormon” churches outside the US are free to use that term to describe themselves. Also, trademarks are not necessarily indicative of common usage. I could probably go to some country where Mormons don’t exist, found a Church of the Mormon Flying Spaghetti Monster and get a trademark on the word “Mormon” for its use. That doesn’t mean that my Church’s use of that term is the linguistically preferred one.
The phrase was used a couple of times on the 5/21/06 episode to refer to Bill’s journey through life after being expelled from the Compound . . . and to something else, I forget what; but it wasn’t explained and stuck in my mind.
But, that still leaves us in want of a generical term that encompasses all religions derived from Joseph Smith’s revelations. Do you have any suggestions? (I can’t accept “Restorationist,” that could be construed to apply to too many non-LDS movements like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc.)
That’s a good point. There’s a good book out calld Divergent Paths of the Restoration; however, that only deals with those churches that trace themselves back to Joseph Smith, Jr. Oddly enough, the author never addressed this issue.
I remember seeing the term Latter Day Saint movement (with that spelling) somewhere. It’s still a bit confusing, though.
Those churches which came out of Alexander Campbell’s ministry might lay claim to that title first- the main ones being Disciples of Christ (Christian), churches of Christ, and United Church of Christ… and yes, some followers of Campbell’s “Restoration” ministry did regard Joseph Smith to be fulfilling Campbell’s work.
Here are some reasons why not:
[ul]
[li]Not all media outlets use the AP Stylebook. There are plenty of alternatives to choose from.[/li][li]A stylebook is not a dictionary. It’s prescriptive, not descriptive, and thus doesn’t necessary reflect language usage outside the organizations where it’s used.[/li][li]A press stylebook may deliberately advocate non-standard usages in order to help users avoid trademark lawsuits, or to advance or protect a particular political or economic point of view.[/li][li]Your argument that we’re “referring to the press” is disingenuous. Your original objection was to Dopers’ use of the term, not its use in the media.[/li][/ul]
Psychonaut, we’ve established the following things:
[ul]The CoJCoLDS does not use use “Mormon” to describe other churches.[/ul]
[ul]Members of the CoJCoLDS do not generally use “Mormon” to describe other churches.[/ul]
[ul]Members of those other churches don’t use “Mormon” to describe themselves, or to describe other churches besides the CoJCoLDS.[/ul]
[ul]Other churches are legally prohibitted from using “Mormon” to describe themselves in the US.[/ul]
[ul]The Associated Press does not use “Mormon” to describe churches besides the CoJCoLDS.[/ul]
[ul]The many other media outlets who use the AP stylebook do not use “Mormon” to describe churches besides the CoJCoLDS.[/ul]
[ul]People such as myself who respect the general principle that people should be refered to as they wish, or who wish to avoid ambiguity and confusion do not use “Mormon” to describe churches besides the CoJCoLDS.[/ul]
Now from a descriptivist point of view, you are absolutely correct that none of the above matters. All that matters is establishing widespread usage. Now, my question for you is, given the above how the hell widespread can your usage actually be?
I haven’t seen any evidence that anyone uses “Mormon” to describe anything but the CoJCoDS except in ignorance. But people seem awfully bent on proving that it is standard usage. Cite?
I’ve always seen those churches grouped together as the “Stone-Campell Movement.”
Having a term to describe the group of churches originating in Joseph Smith’s movement might be convienient, but arguing that there must be such a term is a perverse sort of prescriptivism. The historians, theologians, journalists, and others who study the movement presumably in fact have a way (or various ways) of referring to these churches, but I’m guessing it isn’t “Mormon.” "Later Day Saints movement strikes me as likely; so does “the Mormon and related churches,” or “followers of Joseph Smith” (as in “Today the followers of Joseph Smith comprise several denominations, including the Mormons”).
Since no other church could use the term in that country, I’d argue that your church’s use very likely would be the linguistically preferred one in that country. But not in American English.
Widespread enough to be a primary or secondary definition in the three dictionaries and encyclopedias I referenced. What is it about them that leads you to believe they don’t reflect actual usage? Or are you just deliberately ignoring them in the interests of stubbornly clinging to your argument? I’m sorry, but I don’t have a hundred-thousand-dollar social sciences research grant to prove to you, using statistics drawn from candid primary sources only (that is, unobtrusive observation of a large random sampling of English speakers around the world), that “Mormon” can be applied in a general sense. The best I can offer you is secondary sources compiled and checked by other scholars (i.e., reputable dictionaries prepared by professional lexicographers) or by a large and diverse community of lay English speakers operating on consensus (e.g., Wikipedia and Wiktionary).
You obviously haven’t read any of the posts in this thread, then, where several Dopers are using the word in this broader sense, or explicitly defining it that way, or defending that definition. And ignorance also doesn’t matter when it comes to descriptive linguistics; once upon a time the words “pea”, “newt”, “ax”, and “apron” were considered to be ignorant mistakes by those who didn’t know that the proper terms were “pease”, “ewt”, “ask”, and “napron”. That doesn’t change the fact that these “ignorant” usages were widespread (and eventually became standard).
I’ll thank you not to cast aspersions on my honesty. My original objection is on anyone using the term to refer to other than the Utah-based big outfit. As I mentioned before, in my experience, I’ve never heard any members of the other outfits that trace themselves to Joseph Smith, Jr., refer to themselves as Mormons. On the contrary, I’ve heard a fair number of them adamantly state that they are not Mormons.
IIRC from Under the Banner of Heaven, there’s a bit more to it than that, at least in Rulon and Warren Jeff’s brand of FLDS religion. And I don’t think the name “Roman” (the leader of The Compound in Big Love) is just accidentally similar to “Rulon”.
The Principle isn’t just polygamy* as in “polygamy is OK”. Polygamy isn’t just allowed, it’s required in order to fulfil God’s plan (or whatever). Maybe “required” isn’t exactly the right word, but it’s definitely more than just “allowed”. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on the subject can flesh out the concept better.
*Strictly speaking it’s polygyny, of course, since polyandry is not allowed. And they seem to call it plural marriage, although I don’t know if there is a difference.
Speaking of polyandry, did you ever read the novel Deseret by Eric Alter? There was one funny scene in it where a Women’s Liberation spokeswoman causes quite a ruckus at a rally by saying she’d have no problem with men having many wives if women are allowed to have many husbands.
Another one: The Associated Press Stylebook is not set in stone. They issue a revision every year and they occasionally change their minds on style points, particularly ones that have to do with social labels whose use is affected by public perception.
There is no need for me to cast aspersions on your honesty, as you seem to be doing a perfectly good job of that on your own. First you take issue with a Doper’s use of the term “Mormon”, then you claim that it’s exclusively an issue of how the press uses the word, and now you say that your objection applies to anyone and everyone.
Anyway, if this he-said–she-said non-issue is the only fault you can find in the many legitimate arguments, scholarly references, and popular citations given by myself and others in this thread, then we can consider this matter to be closed. If you really are a linguist, as someone else in this thread mentioned, then I’m certainly glad that you don’t work in my research group.