DiscussMormonism.com

My name is Mitt Drifting (It's not but you get the drift).

The first Prophet of the Church was Joseph Smith.

THe current Prophet is Thomas Monson.

Our name is our unique identifier and it consists of two or more 'Names'.

Why don't the people in the scriptures have more of a unique identifier?
Abraham _________
Nephi__________

In the olden days there were no last names.

I *think* the first last names (at least in some areas) were actually to say "Joseph, the son of Benjamin." That was how they identified people. Then, where you lived would be used. Then, your occupation...

That's kinda how it got started when there got to be a LOT of people in an area.

Why do early Mormon prophets have only two names?

Today, nobody can be GA (at any level) without middle name.

I have three given name, no middle one. I will never be prophet, seer and revelator. (I don't care, by the way...)
The real tragedy is, I will never be a translator.

I am subdued.

just me wrote:In the olden days there were no last names.

I *think* the first last names (at least in some areas) were actually to say "Joseph, the son of Benjamin." That was how they identified people. Then, where you lived would be used. Then, your occupation...

That's kinda how it got started when there got to be a LOT of people in an area.

And I believe many cultures are still like this. The first name, middle initial, last name format is a western cultural thing. Jesus's Western style name is Jesus H. Christ. But in reality he was just plain Jesus, the rest of his name is descriptive, like Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus, son of Joseph, or Jesus the Christ. I don't know why the GAs use their middle initial. It's pompous and douchey.

Some examples of New Testament last names being related to place of origin are thought to include Judas Iscariot and Mary Magdalene.

consiglieri wrote:Some examples of New Testament last names being related to place of origin are thought to include Judas Iscariot and Mary Magdalene.

I hear Iscariot is nice this time of year....

Yes wikipedia is a crutch but a useful crutch sometimes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surnames#Formation

But last names took on more importance as writing and record keeping trickled down to document the lower classes. When writing was only documenting monarchs it was easy to use a one name but eventually second names had to take on more relevance. As an example let's take a close look at ancient Rome. (Hopefully Kishkumen won't shoot me if I make a mistake).

The base Roman naming system is:

praenomen - nomen - cognomen

Gaius - Julius - Caesar

Ancient Rome had three main first names: Gaius, Marcus, and Lucius. There were other first names sure, but there were a lot of guys named Gaius and Marcus and Lucius. So eventually people began to associate with their families and use their family names. For example Gaius (first name) Julius (family name) to distinguish from all the other Gaius's.

Eventually though in Rome there got to be alot of Gaius Julius-s and so Romans developed branches of families by adding another word to the name, the cognomen further divided the families into branches. Usually the cognomen recognized a physical trait (Caesar for example meant thick or curly hair). In the Julii's case Caesar was one of the few surviving branches by the late Republic era, but other families like the Cornelius family had several active branches.

In the meantime ancient Rome was a record keeping society, and the taking of last names at the local level certainly helped with tax records and land holdings and military service records. The locals might not take three names as the noble families did, but they would take second names to differentiate between themselves.

But that's just one example and other cultures have different ways of assigning last names. Read the wiki link above for more information. As to the scriptures I wonder if giving only one name made it easier for oral stories and sermons to be understood by illiterates who were being taught the stories as parables.

More crutch...

Using order information (first name or last name) is - or can be - misleading.
What should I write into the "first name" field?

We - Hungarians - use the family name first, the given name(s) last.
This is convenient for alphabetical sorting, for example in telephone books or in records of employees or in list of the seventies...
We should not rearrange the names as "Smith, Joseph" instead of "Joseph Smith" (for example).

(The same usage as date order, we use year-month-day-dayofweek, as only logical order. I can laugh when I read the date on canned food as 10-11-12...)

DarkHelmet wrote: I don't know why the GAs use their middle initial. It's pompous and douchey.

Agreed. If I ever became a GA I would use the initial for my last name, and start a trend. Imagine: Thomas Spencer M., or Dalin Homoerotic O.

Perhaps GA's should stick with only one initial - like the British Secret Service?

Monson would be - P