Jump to content

Scott Lloyd

Contributor
  • Content Count

    28,457
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18,101 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

20,157 profile views
  1. What outside persons and groups do is up to them, but I would expect professing members of the Church to follow the direction from the president of the Church on this matter. I think it is a question of loyalty and integrity. I haven’t seen an updated edition of the Associated Press Style Book, so I don’t know what the current practice of the AP is with respect to identifying the Church. I do know that the AP typically follows the expressed preference of a news making group with regard to what it is called and that it would be irregular for the AP to ignore such preference. And its member news organizations tend to follow the AP guidelines in style and usage. I say that from some 40 years of professional experience. If, as you imply here, the AP has been compliant up to now, that belies your contention that the expressed preferences are not workable.
  2. Undoubtedly there is a bond of sociality and affection that develops between bishoprics and those who work closely with them, but there is an ecclesiastical distinction that I believe important we not lose sight of. Years ago, when I was an executive secretary in a prior ward, the ward clerk spoke in one of the meetings, perhaps it was fast and testimony meeting, about this being his first experience being in a bishopric. I raised my eyebrows and thought privately, “You’re not in a bishopric even now, brother, any more than I am.” Some years later, Mitch Mayne wrote on his blog about being made executive secretary and how this was a landmark event because he was the first gay man to be “in a bishopric” and how this put him in a position to counsel the bishop and educate Church members and how far the Church has come and so on and so forth. It made news and got some attention in the blogosphere. I commented on this board at the time that being an executive secretary does not make him a bishopric member. I got some pushback, which indicated to me this misconception has taken root somewhat among our people. Thus I’ve made a point from time to time to clear up this misconception when I can.
  3. My sense is that most members of the Church do understand that the executive secretary and clerk are not bishopric members. I wonder about those who don’t.
  4. Of course, I never said one should neglect to establish the context by explicitly identifying the church by full and formal name at least once and early on in the conversation. You misunderstood me if that’s what you thought.
  5. Even in Utah, I would not do that if the conversation were with a stranger. By the way, I never say “Mormon church.”
  6. I would never expect anyone not to explicitly give the full name of the Church at least once in such a circumstance. But I’m sure you agree it would probably not be necessary to do it with each subsequent reference in the conversation. That’s what I meant.
  7. I’m sure you’re right about that. And yet we have somehow gotten by without a shorthand way of expressing ourselves when we refer to the set of all things pertaining to the Seventh Day Adventists.
  8. I thought it went without saying that it would be clear in the context of the conversation what Church was meant. Of course you would explicitly give the full title of the Church early on in the conversation, but thereafter you can get by with saying just “the Church” or “the Church of Jesus Christ” in subsequent references. I’m sorry this wasn’t clear to you.
  9. Are you Italian? I ask, because Swedish is my second language, and I can’t imagine typical Swedes being confused by the above. And I don’t know what living in Utah has to do with it, unless you believe those who live outside of the state are less bright than Utahns. I don’t believe that.
  10. Oh, we may hear it from non-members and the less active. But they get things wrong all the time. The faithful will come to hearken to the prophet, even if some are slow to do it at the moment.
  11. I never said their jobs are not important. I said they are not members of the bishopric. They have ancillary duties that support the bishopric, but they are not members of the bishopric. The elders quorum president has an important calling, but he is not in the bishopric. Likewise with the Relief Society president. How much of this thread have you read? I’ve already addressed the point about the online listing. That is merely a list of contact information. The executive secretary and clerks appear in the “Bishopric” section because of the ancillary role they have, not because they are bishopric members. Did you see The Nehor’s quotation from the Church Handbook 1 that explicitly states the executive secretary and clerk are not members of the bishopric? As members of the ward council, the executive secretary and the clerk can give counsel to the bishop when he desires it. But the same can be said of the elders quorum president and the auxiliary presidents, female and male. Nobody regards them as being “in the bishopric.” If you keep saying that the executive secretary and clerks are “in the bishopric” you risk confusing people into believing they hold leadership positions over the ward members, which, of course, they do not.
  12. No. “Ministering” works much better than “ward teacher” which lacked precision in its connotation. Even “home teacher” is inadequate to convey the required meaning. There will come a time when the nicknames and abbreviations will seem just as archaic as “ward teacher.”
  13. I used this convention for the 33 years I wrote for a Church publication, and it served me just fine. Once it’s clear from context what church you’re referring to, you need only say “the Church” or “the Church of Jesus Christ.” A lot of this habitual behavior has to do with ear training. I am at the point now where “the Mormon church” sounds dissonant to me. It’s an irritant — like fingernails on a chalkboard. Really, it takes some degree of forbearance for me not to correct the speaker or writer when I encounter it.
  14. Obviously, the reason He is offended is that the nickname is being used to supplant the name of Christ in the name of the Church, not because there is anything inherently wrong with the name Mormon. It’s comparable to the analogy the resurrected Lord used when He spoke to the Nephites: If it be called after the name of Moses, it would be Moses’s church. But it is not Moses’s church, it is Christ’s church. Likewise, it is not Mormon’s church (or “the Mormon Church”), it is Christ’s church. By the way, don’t put words in my mouth. When I say “impressed upon [his] mind” is as good as saying there was revelation, I mean it is the functional equivalent thereof. I am the world’s foremost expert on what I mean by the phrasing that I use.
  15. By your logic, we would still be using the term “ward teaching,” even though the name has been changed twice now since the mid-‘60s.
×
×
  • Create New...