This is not an entry in the evergreen Conference Rumors or Conference Predictions contest. Not really. I mean, I realize it’s a prediction to expect to hear a considerable amount – perhaps more than is really intended – about President Nelson’s request to use the full name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or other recommended labels for the gospel or the culture. But rather than merely predicting that this will be a topic, I’ve been thinking about the questions I have, even the objections I have, in order to better recognize the answers if and when they come.

First, I will be watching to hear how speakers and announcers actually handle references to the Church. It should be easy enough to use the full name of the Church in a formal setting, especially when speaking deliberately about the Church in the sonorous, ponderous tones that are especially suited to welcomes. I also expect that any speaker directly teaching the topic will be very careful to use President Nelson’s preferred terms. But I’ll be hyper-attentive to the terms used by all speakers in more casual ways, when the name is not the subject of the talk, or when someone is folksy or nostalgic, or when the reference is so quick and casual that a speaker might not be focused on his usage. This is not to lie in wait to catch someone in an inadvertent error; it is because those casual and unconscious situations are exactly when it will be hardest to be consistent, or to find an acceptable replacement for “Mormon” or “LDS” in the fleeting moment, and I need examples to show how that can be done, and whether it sounds natural or forced.

I need President Nelson, or someone else, to give more of an explanation for the request than we now have, and I’ll be watching for that. Yes, I know that D&C 115:4 says “For thus shall my church be called …” For many Latt–, er, members of the Church, that is all the explanation necessary; they echo Adam in saying “I know not, save the Lord commanded me” (Moses 5:6). I have no quarrel with that simple obedience, but I hope for more. Going no deeper than that feels to me like a parent telling a small child “Because I said so.” The child may obey out of love or habit, but eventually needs to ask “why? why?” in order to grow and to apply a specific instruction to related, broader matters.

I know we’ve heard “this is why it matters” talks before – Elder Ballard’s 2011 conference talk goes through the name to teach the importance of each part, and speaks of our obligation to stand as witnesses of Christ, to take his name upon us, etc. This last is actually a point I love and hope to hear more about, or at least hope to hear repeated – President Nelson of course has every right to teach us of the importance of using the Savior’s name, of remembering that we are called in his name, and so on, and I like to be reminded of that.

But Elder Ballard’s talk also discusses nicknames and why, at least in 2011, it was fine to use them. I want to listen for why the thinking on that point has changed so abruptly. I want to know why it is fine to recognize, use, and love scores of synonyms for the name of Jesus Christ himself – Lord, Savior, Redeemer, the Son, our Elder Brother, Holy One of Israel, Son of Man, First Born, Anointed One, First Fruits of the Resurrection, the Babe of Bethlehem, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. – while it is not appropriate to use synonyms in reference to the Church … especially when various terms (whether for Christ or for his Church) emphasize different aspects in specialized circumstances. I do not expect to hear this point addressed directly, but I’ll be watching for clues to help resolve what is for me a sticky and important objection.

I will be watching for some attention to what is for me another problem: what amounts to a misuse of the name of the Lord. Attention to the name of the Church in recent weeks has resulted in a great deal of oral as well as written discussion, where the name of the Church is used over and over and over. At some point the words tend to lose their meaning, as when you say “motorcycle, motorcycle, motorcycle, motorcycle, motorcycle” until the word seems to lose its meaning for a moment. That should not be the case with the name of the Lord.

The overuse of the name of the Church also causes speakers – even when they aren’t mocking or being light-minded – to rush through the syllables, slurring words in our haste, until the name often sounds more like an order for pizza than a reverent, even respectful, use of the Lord’s name: The Churcha Cheesy Crust Aladderdaysaints.

There are, in the church, two priesthoods, namely, the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the Levitical Priesthood. Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high priest. Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood. (D&C 107:1-4)

This, to me, has become a very real problem in recent weeks, and I hope to hear it addressed at Conference, whether explicitly or in passing.

Almost certainly when most members of the Church speak of the Church or the gospel or the culture, it is in largely devotional terms. This is when the use of the requested names is, perhaps, most appropriate and most natural: I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches that … Some of us, however, speak and write of Church-related matters in other contexts where it seems appropriate or desirable or necessary to use a term like “Mormon” or “Mormonism” or “LDS.” There can be legitimate differences between instances of devotion – the situation of most member discussion – and the study of the doctrine, organization, people, culture, history conducted by a much smaller group of speakers and writers:

Some have already noted the necessity of a term for situations where President Nelson’s preferred terms are inappropriate. Scholars speaking not only of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with its headquarters in Salt Lake City, but also of the current and past groups that also trace descent in some fashion from Joseph Smith’s teachings, need terms that refer to the entire field and not only to its largest component. Whether they are members of the Church or outside scholars, whether they are believers or otherwise, they need to be able to speak of their subjects without an implied devotional layer. To speak of some aspect of culture and be constrained to refer to it as “The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ” is unworkable.

Because my chief – okay, my only interest is in the Church led by President Nelson, by concerns along this line arise from a different problem. Even in so informal a forum as Keepapitchinin, we very often talk of things that are relevant to us as a people, as a culture, but which are outside of – even alien to – the formal institutional Church. I need terms that don’t imply an institutional endorsement or acceptance. For example, it would be easy enough to refer to “hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” when writing about the hymns we actually sing in Church, those that are printed in the official hymn book or that will appear on official websites in years to come. It becomes questionable to use that term to refer to what we would usually call “Mormon folk music,” much of which arose among the people but outside the official sphere – how odd it would be to use a term like “music of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” when the music under discussion is the railroad-building folk song like

At the head of Great Echo there’s a railroad begun
And the Mormons are cutting and grading like fun.
They say they’ll stick to it until it’s complete,
For friends and relations they’re longing to meet.
Hooray, hurrah, the railroad’s begun!
Three cheers f’r’our contractor – his name’s Brigham Young!
Hurrah, hooray, light-hearted and gay,
Just the right kind of boys to build a railway!

While odd and inaccurate, it wouldn’t necessarily be offensive to use the name of the Church in connection with that. But I think it would be offensive to connect the name of Jesus Christ to other folk music, like:

Come, girls, come, and listen to my noise:
Don’t you marry the Mormon boys.
If you do, your fortune it will be
Johnny-cake and babies is all you’ll see.

And what of a post like A Little Taste of Lynch Law,  which reproduces late-19th-century newspaper clippings from around the United States calling for violence against missionaries? That wasn’t of, by, or for the Church, and while it would be technically possible to discuss materials like that using the formal name of the Church, it would be at best incongruous when few of those calling for violence, or reading those snippets, would even have recognized the full name of the Church.

Having to cast everything as so tightly connected to the institutional Church that its formal name makes sense would refocus our discourse to a parochial, insular solitude that would not be good for either the Church or scholarship. So while I don’t expect any Conference discussion relevant to this point, it’s a real objection for me. I need to be able to discuss something as connected to Mormonism without inappropriately linking it to the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, in a nutshell, what I will be watching for, whether addressed explicitly or through context, is why? preserving suitable reverence, and the difference between “devotion to” and “study of.” It would be a bonus if someone also addressed what I anticipate will become an increasing “weaponization” of President Nelson’s request – holier-than-thou demands by some who have not thought through the nuances but who will be emboldened to say, “You said ‘Mormon.’ Stop it!”