Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sky

The Name of the Church

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, canard78 said:

I agree with everything you’re saying here. 

The point about the name length being a challenge is a massive issue that I don’t think the leaders and some members have come to terms with. It simply won’t stick at that length. Unless they put a lot of money behind a single short alternative name then people will simply come up with a short option of their own. The LDS acronym is the most likely outcome.

The marketing strategy agency I work for recently added the parent company to its name. It’s now 5 syllables instead of 3. It’s fast become a 3 letter acronym instead. If you look at a big ad-agency like J Walter Thompson it is almost always called JWT. Then there’s companies like: EDS, KPMG, DDB, BBH, IBM... I could go on. 

Imagine if the Catholics decided and insisted on being called The Holy Roman Catholic Church (9 syllables). The idea of all 11 syllables of the full church name being consistently used is unrealistic and a clear and single alternative is needed. 

Like you, I’ve also tried to use the requested names in conversation. There’s been a long thread on the topic with my church-member family in the last few days. Saying “the church” with them works. But that’s not an ownable phrase either and carries no equity or awareness in wider circles.  

LDS could work. So could Latter-day Saints.  But what is the point of transitioning to either of these.  It would still cost millions, mostly in rebranding and re indexing all of the references of Mormon.  But what would be the point?  It still isn’t the name of the church or mentions Christ

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/22/2018 at 6:11 PM, RevTestament said:

I can agree to that, but that article also seeks to separate the rest of God's sons as adopted, as if Yeshua is not. That is not what scripture says. 

Heb 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Sounds like adoption to me. So do you believe the Father actually told the Son that? If so what was Yeshua before that?

I think this is one of those passages that is difficult to understand and/or explain.

I saw this commentary by Adam Clarke.

Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee - These words are quoted from Psa_2:7, a psalm 
that seems to refer only to the Messiah; and they are quoted by St. Paul, Act_13:33, as 
referring to the resurrection of Christ. And this application of them is confirmed by the same 
apostle, Rom_1:4, as by his resurrection from the dead he was declared - manifestly proved, to 
be the Son of God with power; God having put forth his miraculous energy in raising that body 
from the grave which had truly died, and died a violent death, for Christ was put to death as 
a malefactor, but by his resurrection his innocence was demonstrated, as God could not work a 
miracle to raise a wicked man from the dead. As Adam was created by God, and because no natural 
generation could have any operation in this case, therefore he was called the son of God, 
Luk_3:38, and could never have seen corruption if he had not sinned, so the human nature of 
Jesus Christ, formed by the energy of the eternal Spirit in the womb of the virgin, without any 
human intervention, was for this very reason called the Son of God, Luk_1:35; and because it 
had not sinned, therefore it could not see corruption, nor was it even mortal, but through a 
miraculous display of God’s infinite love, for the purpose of making a sacrificial atonement 
for the sin of the world and God, having raised this sacrificed human nature from the dead, 
declared that same Jesus (who was, as above stated, the Son of God) to be his Son, the promised 
Messiah; and as coming by the Virgin Mary, the right heir to the throne of David, according to 
the uniform declaration of all the prophets.

The words, This day have I begotten thee, must refer either to his incarnation, when he was 
miraculously conceived in the womb of the virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit; or to his 
resurrection from the dead, when God, by this sovereign display of his almighty energy, declared 
him to be his Son, vindicated his innocence, and also the purity and innocence of the blessed 
virgin, who was the mother of this son, and who declared him to be produced in her womb by the 
power of God. The resurrection of Christ, therefore, to which the words most properly refer, 
not only gave the fullest proof that he was an innocent and righteous man, but also that he 
had accomplished the purpose for which he died, and that his conception was miraculous, and his 
mother a pure and unspotted virgin.

This is a subject of infinite importance to the Christian system, and of the last consequence 
in reference to the conviction and conversion of the Jews, for whose use this epistle was sent 
by God. Here is the rock on which they split; they deny this Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ, 
and their blasphemies against him and his virgin mother are too shocking to be transcribed. The 
certainty of the resurrection of Jesus refutes their every calumny; proves his miraculous 
conception; vindicates the blessed virgin; and, in a word, declares him to be the Son of God 
with power.

This most important use of this saying has passed unnoticed by almost every Christian writer 
which I have seen; and yet it lies here at the foundation of all the apostle’s proofs. If Jesus 
was not thus the Son of God, the whole Christian system is vain and baseless: but his resurrection 
demonstrates him to have been the Son of God; therefore every thing built on this foundation 
is more durable than the foundations of heaven, and as inexpugnable as the throne of the eternal 
King.

He shall be to me a Son? - As the Jews have ever blasphemed against the Sonship of Christ, it 
was necessary that the apostle should adduce and make strong all his proofs, and show that this 
was not a new revelation; that it was that which was chiefly intended in several scriptures of 
the Old Testament, which, without farther mentioning the places where found, he immediately 
produces. This place, which is quoted from 2Sa_7:14, shows us that the seed which God promised 
to David, and who was to sit upon his throne, and whose throne should be established for ever, 
was not Solomon, but Jesus Christ; and indeed he quotes the words so as to intimate that they 
were so understood by the Jews. See among the observations at the end of the chapter.

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, canard78 said:

Like you, I’ve also tried to use the requested names in conversation. There’s been a long thread on the topic with my church-member family in the last few days. Saying “the church” with them works. But that’s not an ownable phrase either and carries no equity or awareness in wider circles.  

In a conversation or an article in which the full name of the Church is used or implied, "the Church" or "the Church of Jesus Christ" are just fine as shortened forms. I've been using them for years on this and its predecessor board, and they are very workable.

No doubt many will resist or ignore President Nelson's directive, and such is their privilege, but that doesn't mean it is going away or that it is ill considered or ill advised.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In a conversation or an article in which the full name of the Church is used or implied, "the Church" or "the Church of Jesus Christ" are just fine as shortened forms. I've been using them for years on this and its predecessor board, and they are very workable.

No doubt many will resist or ignore President Nelson's directive, and such is their privilege, but that doesn't mean it is going away or that it is ill considered or ill advised.

 

Anytime more than one Christian church is being talked about, it becomes problematic though.

I have heard it suggested this "rebranding" may in part be a response to the negative connotation of "Mormon" (sounds like another meaning) in some Asian countries (I have heard it is a problem in at least China and Korea).

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Calm said:

Anytime more than one Christian church is being talked about, it becomes problematic though.

I still think it can easily be made clear in context.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Anytime more than one Christian church is being talked about, it becomes problematic though.

I have heard it suggested this "rebranding" may in part be a response to the negative connotation of "Mormon" (sounds like another meaning) in some Asian countries (I have heard it is a problem in at least China and Korea).

I think Smac97 suggested that on this thread, but he freely acknowledged it as speculation.

I think it far more likely that the Lord inspired President Nelson to get the Latter-day Saints to take more seriously the inspired direction that has been had already for many years in the Church and that stems from the reasoned commandment the Lord HImself gave in 3 Nephi..

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, canard78 said:

Imagine if the Catholics decided and insisted on being called The Holy Roman Catholic Church (9 syllables). The idea of all 11 syllables of the full church name being consistently used is unrealistic and a clear and single alternative is needed. 

 

The city I live in rebranded after getting sacked by the Burmese in the 18th century. The Supreme Patriarch, after consulting a number of astrological charts, declared that the new capital should be known officially as Krungthepmahanakhonamonrattanakosinmahintharaayuthayamahadilokphopnoppharatratchathaniburiromudomratchaniwetmahasathanamonpimanawatansathitsakkathattiyawitsanukamprasit.

Most people being unbelievably lazy, or simply unwilling to follow the directive of their leaders, call it Bangkok.

Edited by Rajah Manchou
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, canard78 said:

Imagine if the Catholics decided and insisted on being called The Holy Roman Catholic Church (9 syllables). The idea of all 11 syllables of the full church name being consistently used is unrealistic and a clear and single alternative is needed.   

 

Interestingly, they prefer to be called the Catholic Church - all of the other catholic churches are left to call themselves whatever they want. For example, see the Wikipedia articles on the Catholic Church

If this were really an issue of PR or branding then I think you have really good arguments. However, it seems the President of the Church was quite clear that it was about something more than PR and branding. 

I did laugh how CNN announced, after President Nelson's statement/request, was released, "Mormons don't want you calling them Mormons anymore".  This bastion of PC and respect for all appears to only be good if you are anything but a Christian and specifically a member of the Church of Jesus Christ. I love when the Left makes it so easy to identify as intolerant pigs.  What is even funnier is that CNN journalist is a black guy - which has had their own issues demanding what they should and should not be called. 

On the flip side, it is ironic when the Church makes an announcement about what it should and should not be called and we members are not nearly as understanding of groups wanting to create their own pronouns when addressing them. 

If we are going to demand a standard for others then live by the same standard. If not, it is really difficult to be serious about anything. On a completely different area - listening to ESPN folks fall all over themselves to attack OSU's coach, Urban Myer, and the university itself for not punishing him for - lying, not showing remorse, etc. Oh please, tell me not every single one of the folks - male and female alike - have not lied their butts off since they were born. Humans are such pitiful little sheep at times. Everyone seems to be lead around by the nose when the grand pub-hahs of society have determined the new golden calf. 

The funny thing is, if we are going to implement the same standard for everyone, who is going to do the news? coach any team? be a secretary in any job? be nurse or doctor? Heck, who is going to be your mechanic? work in a store - any store?  Such utter stupidity. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, theplains said:

The words, This day have I begotten thee, must refer either to his incarnation, when he was 
miraculously conceived in the womb of the virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit; or to his 
resurrection from the dead, when God, by this sovereign display of his almighty energy, declared 
him to be his Son, vindicated his innocence, and also the purity and innocence of the blessed 
virgin, who was the mother of this son, and who declared him to be produced in her womb by the 
power of God. The resurrection of Christ, therefore, to which the words most properly refer, 
not only gave the fullest proof that he was an innocent and righteous man, but also that he 
had accomplished the purpose for which he died, and that his conception was miraculous, and his 
mother a pure and unspotted virgin.

Nope. For one thing they are admitting they do not know, because they are giving two different times they believe the phrase refers to. The NT always refers to him as being the only begotten sent into the world. He therefore was already only begotten. He referred to Himself as the Son of God for the whole duration of His ministry.

Heb 5:5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.

Was Yeshua a high priest during His ministry? If so, then He was already God's "begotten Son." You see it was this oath that made Yeshua the only begotten of the Father. Before that he was a son like others. 

Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Interestingly, they prefer to be called the Catholic Church - all of the other catholic churches are left to call themselves whatever they want. For example, see the Wikipedia articles on the Catholic Church

If this were really an issue of PR or branding then I think you have really good arguments. However, it seems the President of the Church was quite clear that it was about something more than PR and branding. 

I did laugh how CNN announced, after President Nelson's statement/request, was released, "Mormons don't want you calling them Mormons anymore".  This bastion of PC and respect for all appears to only be good if you are anything but a Christian and specifically a member of the Church of Jesus Christ. I love when the Left makes it so easy to identify as intolerant pigs.  What is even funnier is that CNN journalist is a black guy - which has had their own issues demanding what they should and should not be called. 

On the flip side, it is ironic when the Church makes an announcement about what it should and should not be called and we members are not nearly as understanding of groups wanting to create their own pronouns when addressing them. 

If we are going to demand a standard for others then live by the same standard. If not, it is really difficult to be serious about anything. On a completely different area - listening to ESPN folks fall all over themselves to attack OSU's coach, Urban Myer, and the university itself for not punishing him for - lying, not showing remorse, etc. Oh please, tell me not every single one of the folks - male and female alike - have not lied their butts off since they were born. Humans are such pitiful little sheep at times. Everyone seems to be lead around by the nose when the grand pub-hahs of society have determined the new golden calf. 

The funny thing is, if we are going to implement the same standard for everyone, who is going to do the news? coach any team? be a secretary in any job? be nurse or doctor? Heck, who is going to be your mechanic? work in a store - any store?  Such utter stupidity. 

If it’s any reassurance, the bastion of the right, Fox News did exactly the same thing (see attached). 

I wouldn’t assume it’s a “leftist agenda” to ignore the request. A headline writers job is to grab attention and land a message in as short a phrase as possible. 

As to your other point about names for LGBT+... Over on the “apology” thread I was saddened to see how many members of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ were aggressively resisting doing for others as they would have done for themselves.

(Mods, ban accepted from that thread, I acknowledge I crossed a line. My daughter is LGBT+. My trans nephew (F2M) was near suicidal until he was able to be accepted as his gender identity. It’s personal and hurts to see it dismissed so flippantly. I’ll stick to issues).

BFF36EDF-08C9-414F-AADF-173C35C62EE9.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, california boy said:

LDS could work. So could Latter-day Saints.  But what is the point of transitioning to either of these.  It would still cost millions, mostly in rebranding and re indexing all of the references of Mormon.  But what would be the point?  It still isn’t the name of the church or mentions Christ

If the church puts its weight being Latter-day Saints as a short form, I don’t see how an abbreviation is avoidable. Abbreviation is a proper form of writing, particularly if one references the acronym in the first use, like: Latter-day Saints (LDS) and then LDS is then used for the remainder of the piece. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The city I live in rebranded after getting sacked by the Burmese in the 18th century. The Supreme Patriarch, after consulting a number of astrological charts, declared that the new capital should be known officially as Krungthepmahanakhonamonrattanakosinmahintharaayuthayamahadilokphopnoppharatratchathaniburiromudomratchaniwetmahasathanamonpimanawatansathitsakkathattiyawitsanukamprasit.

Most people being unbelievably lazy, or simply unwilling to follow the directive of their leaders, call it Bangkok.

Reminds me of the town in Wales. Frustrated at the trains not stopping at the station, the local minister wanted a way of getting the train drivers’ attention so put up a new town name on the platform:

Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyndrobwyllllantisiliogogogoch... having written it out, Bangkok’s full name has it beat by a country mile. 

Locals just call it “Llanfairpwll” 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In a conversation or an article in which the full name of the Church is used or implied, "the Church" or "the Church of Jesus Christ" are just fine as shortened forms. I've been using them for years on this and its predecessor board, and they are very workable.

No doubt many will resist or ignore President Nelson's directive, and such is their privilege, but that doesn't mean it is going away or that it is ill considered or ill advised.

“The Church” is easy on this board. When referring to the church itself, that’s probably the way I’ve always referenced it on here too. I might have used “the LDS church” a few times too, which I’ll likely drop in this context.

In wider circles, such as when my former membership of the church comes up in conversation (such as when I tell people why I’ve only been drinking alcohol for a few years), I’ll almost certainly refer to it as “the Mormon church” / “Mormon” / “Mormonism.” Not because of any spite or even indifference towards Pres. Nelson or the church members, but because communication is about sending and receiving information. “Mormon” does that among non-church members (especially outside USA, or perhaps even Utah).

In marketing and rebranding, it’s the organisation’s job, not the public’s, to raise awareness and meaning for a new name and label. 

At the moment, the style guide is suggesting that when I want to talk with non-members about “Mormonism” I should talk about “the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.” You and I both work (or worked?) in media and communication. As a label, the 99.9% of the world population who are not active church members are highly unlikely to replace “mormonism” with that phrase. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, canard78 said:

“The Church” is easy on this board. When referring to the church itself, that’s probably the way I’ve always referenced it on here too. I might have used “the LDS church” a few times too, which I’ll likely drop in this context.

In wider circles, such as when my former membership of the church comes up in conversation (such as when I tell people why I’ve only been drinking alcohol for a few years), I’ll almost certainly refer to it as “the Mormon church” / “Mormon” / “Mormonism.” Not because of any spite or even indifference towards Pres. Nelson or the church members, but because communication is about sending and receiving information. “Mormon” does that among non-church members (especially outside USA, or perhaps even Utah).

In marketing and rebranding, it’s the organisation’s job, not the public’s, to raise awareness and meaning for a new name and label. 

At the moment, the style guide is suggesting that when I want to talk with non-members about “Mormonism” I should talk about “the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.” You and I both work (or worked?) in media and communication. As a label, the 99.9% of the world population who are not active church members are highly unlikely to replace “mormonism” with that phrase. 

At the end of the day, outsiders are going to do what they will. All we can do is politely and patiently make requests of them as it pertains to referring to the Church of Jesus Christ. I recognize that. But it does not alter my obligation under the covenants I have made to receive the words of Jesus Christ from His anointed servant as though coming from HIs own mouth (see Doctrine and Covenants 21:5) and to apply them as best I can "in all patience and faith."

Further, as one who does "work in media and communication," you of all people ought to know that any writer or speaker worth his salt should be able to find a way to make himself understood while using the full and proper name of the Church of Jesus Christ and/or any shortened forms thereof that comply with the updated style guide.
 

Quote

 

At the moment, the style guide is suggesting that when I want to talk with non-members about “Mormonism” I should talk about “the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.” You and I both work (or worked?) in media and communication. As a label, the 99.9% of the world population who are not active church members are highly unlikely to replace “mormonism” with that phrase. 

 

 

 

You don't have to use that phrase if it gives you heartburn. You could phrase it as "the doctrine" or "the teachings" or "the culture/lifestyle of the Latter-day Saints" or "of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and be well within the parameters of the updated style guide. You ought to be able to do that much without compromising your integrity as an unbeliever. I could easily and comfortably do something comparable when discussing a church or religion or faith group to which I do not adhere.

Or, you could go on saying "Mormon" or "Mormonism," if you must. I predict that no one is going to visit destruction upon you or even think ill of you for doing so. But I don't have to let your behavior or inclination influence what I do as a believing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, canard78 said:

If it’s any reassurance, the bastion of the right, Fox News did exactly the same thing (see attached). 

I wouldn’t assume it’s a “leftist agenda” to ignore the request. A headline writers job is to grab attention and land a message in as short a phrase as possible. 

As to your other point about names for LGBT+... Over on the “apology” thread I was saddened to see how many members of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ were aggressively resisting doing for others as they would have done for themselves.

(Mods, ban accepted from that thread, I acknowledge I crossed a line. My daughter is LGBT+. My trans nephew (F2M) was near suicidal until he was able to be accepted as his gender identity. It’s personal and hurts to see it dismissed so flippantly. I’ll stick to issues).

BFF36EDF-08C9-414F-AADF-173C35C62EE9.jpeg

I'm glad to see the request by President Nelson is being widely covered by many of the outside media. Perhaps the worst they could do, given the subject matter, is ignore it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, canard78 said:

Reminds me of the town in Wales. Frustrated at the trains not stopping at the station, the local minister wanted a way of getting the train drivers’ attention so put up a new town name on the platform:

Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyndrobwyllllantisiliogogogoch... having written it out, Bangkok’s full name has it beat by a country mile. 

Locals just call it “Llanfairpwll” 

This story resonates with me as a Lloyd with Welsh ancestry.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, canard78 said:

If the church puts its weight being Latter-day Saints as a short form, I don’t see how an abbreviation is avoidable. Abbreviation is a proper form of writing, particularly if one references the acronym in the first use, like: Latter-day Saints (LDS) and then LDS is then used for the remainder of the piece. 

Apparently, President Nelson, under divine inspiration, feels that the alphabet soup for too long has overshadowed the full, proper and divinely directed name of the Church, hence his desire that we spell out or write out the name Latter-day Saints rather than abbreviating it, even as a shortened form.

And I would add that if, as you seem to be at pains to point out, "marketing" and "branding" are a substantive consideration, why not have them serve what is arguably the Church's paramount mission and aim, which is to convey to everyone that this is the Church that Christ Himself founded and restored in latter days?

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, california boy said:

LDS could work. So could Latter-day Saints.  But what is the point of transitioning to either of these.  It would still cost millions, mostly in rebranding and re indexing all of the references of Mormon.  But what would be the point?  It still isn’t the name of the church or mentions Christ

Latter-day Saints refers only to members of the Church, though it alludes to the full name of the Church. The name of Jesus Christ is still emphasized in referring to the Church itself.

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Latter-day Saints refers only to members of the Church, though it alludes to the full name of the Church. The name of Jesus Christ is still emphasized in referring to the Church itself.

 

Yeah. I think the church is asking a lot to have others figure that out.  I would think most people would feel it was giving permission to call the church by that name. And in all likelihood it would become known as the LDS Church. 

Just going by my professional experience in these things.  I used to call it the alphabet soup syndrome. It has nothing to do with the church.  It is just human nature

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

At the end of the day, outsiders are going to do what they will. All we can do is politely and patiently make requests of them as it pertains to referring to the Church of Jesus Christ. I recognize that. But it does not alter my obligation under the covenants I have made to receive the words of Jesus Christ from His anointed servant as though coming from HIs own mouth (see Doctrine and Covenants 21:5) and to apply them as best I can "in all patience and faith."

Further, as one who does "work in media and communication," you of all people ought to know that any writer or speaker worth his salt should be able to find a way to make himself understood while using the full and proper name of the Church of Jesus Christ and/or any shortened forms thereof that comply with the updated style guide.
 

You don't have to use that phrase if it gives you heartburn. You could phrase it as "the doctrine" or "the teachings" or "the culture/lifestyle of the Latter-day Saints" or "of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and be well within the parameters of the updated style guide. You ought to be able to do that much without compromising your integrity as an unbeliever. I could easily and comfortably do something comparable when discussing a church or religion or faith group to which I do not adhere.

Or, you could go on saying "Mormon" or "Mormonism," if you must. I predict that no one is going to visit destruction upon you or even think ill of you for doing so. But I don't have to let your behavior or inclination influence what I do as a believing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

After thinking about this for a week, I don't think this pertains to the average member at all. I think it is instruction to the institutional church, and to the media.

But does the style guide really pertain to the average member having a personal conversation, either verbal or written? Isn't the style guide meant to be direction for the media to follow? That's all that's really happening, right? Members haven't been told to only refer to things in one way, the media has, through the style guide. In addition to the focus on the media, it seems the other directive is to the institutional church to refer to itself properly.

Edited by HappyJackWagon
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apparently, President Nelson, under divine inspiration, feels that the alphabet soup for too long has overshadowed the full, proper and divinely directed name of the Church, hence his desire that we spell out or write out the name Latter-day Saints rather than abbreviating it, even as a shortened form.

And I would add that if, as you seem to be at pains to point out, "marketing" and "branding" are a substantive consideration, why not have them serve what is arguably the Church's paramount mission and aim, which is to convey to everyone that this is the Church that Christ Himself founded and restored in latter days?

If the aim is to bring the name of Jesus Christ into more prominence and to be a greater focus to its members then it seems odd to make “latter-day saints” the only legitimate short-form option for describing its members. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

After thinking about this for a week, I don't think this pertains to the average member at all. I think it is instruction to the institutional church, and to the media.

But does the style guide really pertain to the average member having a personal conversation, either verbal or written? Isn't the style guide meant to be direction for the media to follow? That's all that's really happening, right? Members haven't been told to only refer to things in one way, the media has, through the style guide. In addition to the focus on the media, it seems the other directive is to the institutional church to refer to itself properly.

It’s likely that the same message will be delivers in October at General Conference. 

I agree though that a newsroom style guide is aimed at the media and publishers and not the general membership. 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

At the end of the day, outsiders are going to do what they will. All we can do is politely and patiently make requests of them as it pertains to referring to the Church of Jesus Christ. I recognize that. But it does not alter my obligation under the covenants I have made to receive the words of Jesus Christ from His anointed servant as though coming from HIs own mouth (see Doctrine and Covenants 21:5) and to apply them as best I can "in all patience and faith."

Further, as one who does "work in media and communication," you of all people ought to know that any writer or speaker worth his salt should be able to find a way to make himself understood while using the full and proper name of the Church of Jesus Christ and/or any shortened forms thereof that comply with the updated style guide.
 

You don't have to use that phrase if it gives you heartburn. You could phrase it as "the doctrine" or "the teachings" or "the culture/lifestyle of the Latter-day Saints" or "of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and be well within the parameters of the updated style guide. You ought to be able to do that much without compromising your integrity as an unbeliever. I could easily and comfortably do something comparable when discussing a church or religion or faith group to which I do not adhere.

Or, you could go on saying "Mormon" or "Mormonism," if you must. I predict that no one is going to visit destruction upon you or even think ill of you for doing so. But I don't have to let your behavior or inclination influence what I do as a believing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

The announcement was a media focused delivery (press conference and newsroom publication) rather than membership focused. 

This is primarily a media request. They’ve made a request of the media to do something that is impractical.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, canard78 said:

The announcement was a media focused delivery (press conference and newsroom publication) rather than membership focused. 

This is primarily a media request. They’ve made a request of the media to do something that is impractical.

I don't recall a press conference associated with this. When did that occur?

And it wasn't a "press release" as some here have mislabeled it. It was an "official statement," implying it was directed to everybody. Furthermore, a link to the official statement has been the most prominent element on the home page of lds.org for many days now. The primary consumers of the Church web site are Church members.

I don't see how you could conclude it was "media focused ... rather than membership focused" (emphasis mine).

The "Newsroom" style guide is arguably media focused. But that has been there for many years. It was merely updated consistent with this new statement.

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, canard78 said:

If the aim is to bring the name of Jesus Christ into more prominence and to be a greater focus to its members then it seems odd to make “latter-day saints” the only legitimate short-form option for describing its members. 

It's not the only legitimate short form. They could be called members of the Church of Jesus Christ or members of the Church.

And, as part of the full and proper name of the Church, Latter-day Saints, alludes to that name, which does contain the name of Christ.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...