Avatar4321 Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 23 minutes ago, california boy said: You are absolutely right and I sincerely apologize. Of course the church can do what it wants. However I still don’t think members should be blaming the AP for waiting until the Church figures this mess out. It has nothing to do with persecuting or slighting the Church Are we blaming the AP? even president Nelson stated we need to do it ourselves before expecting others to do it. 4 Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 2 hours ago, blueglass said: What do you think we're talking about in terms of investment? Is this $2M, $10M?, $100M. ? Priceless. 2 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 1 hour ago, california boy said: You are absolutely right and I sincerely apologize. Of course the church can do what it wants. However I still don’t think members should be blaming the AP for waiting until the Church figures this mess out. It has nothing to do with persecuting or slighting the Church Correct. Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 1 hour ago, rockpond said: You are correct: the Church is asking and urging. Not requiring I should not have used that word. To the extent that we may call them “irresponsible” for not using all of the terms we’ve requested, that is not fair. d'accord. Link to comment
california boy Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 7 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: California Boy, "Hair up his [deleted]"? What happened to "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members can do what they want. Me? I'm all about peace and love toward my fellow human beings"? For someone who, supposedly, is simply on that quest, and who supposedly harbors no ill will toward his former faith, toward its members, and its leaders, you certainly seem to be doing a terrific invitation of the inverse. Disagree? Fine. No surprise there. Of late, especially, however, your posts seem to be infected with a degree of sometimes-passive-aggressive-but-often-simply-outright-aggressive venom which betrays your true feelings and belies all of your protestations to the contrary. I agree. That came off way more disrespectful than I intended 1 Link to comment
california boy Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 6 hours ago, YJacket said: Clearly you weren't listening to President Nelson. He stated very clearly that the reason why God was displeased wasn't because the name was shorter, or because it was an abbreviation, but because the nicknames removed Jesus Christ (in some fashion) from the nominclature. It doesn't so much to do with being called by the official name as in that the nominclatures remove Christ from the Church's name. That is what he is trying to fix. "I'm a Mormon" is not the same thing as "I'm a Christian". Mormon Church is not the same thing as Christ's Church. Boy, if you are in this much of a twisted knot over a simple thing like this. What are you going to do when Oaks is President? Nelson is 94 and Oaks is 86 in good health. It could be a while before you get a President to your liking (Holland maybe??). Didn't President Nelson say that Latter-day Saints was acceptable? Where is Christ's name in that? I think you might be jumping to conclusions here. My background is in corporate branding. I have done that as a professional my entire career. Seeing how the church is handling this name change is really what I am commenting on. It seems like it is not thought out at all. The church seems to be going in multiple directions at the same time. Expecting others outside the church to figure out what is going on and how they should react is absurd. The clear direction should have already come from the church. But honestly, it seems like they are trying to figure this whole thing out on the fly. This has nothing to do with my personal issues with the church. I no longer believe that church leaders speak for God because of personal experience. It has nothing to do with who is president of the church or who may be president in the future. Link to comment
california boy Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said: Are we blaming the AP? even president Nelson stated we need to do it ourselves before expecting others to do it. Did you read the title of the thread? Did you read the comment I initially responded to that thought it was zome kind of persecution because the AP hasn't responded yet to the name change? If no one is blaming the AP, then what is the point of this thread? Edited October 9, 2018 by california boy Link to comment
Walden Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 5 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I don't think you understand the point. Yes it's exactly like that. There IS no "correct" view, nor did I say there was. I said repeatedly it was MY perception Sorry, I didn't realize your were speaking tongue-in-cheek, nor did I see where you had stated it was your perception, I just saw a lot of use in your response of the generalizing term "most", "most of them", etc. in reference to ex-Mormons, errr, ex-Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 28 minutes ago, Walden said: Sorry, I didn't realize your were speaking tongue-in-cheek, nor did I see where you had stated it was your perception, I just saw a lot of use in your response of the generalizing term "most", "most of them", etc. in reference to ex-Mormons, errr, ex-Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Those are fudge words. And clearly you need to trim your beard and get an updated face shot. You look like Thoreau for gosh sake! Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, california boy said: Did you read the title of the thread? Did you read the comment I initially responded to that thought it was zome kind of persecution because the AP hasn't responded yet to the name change? If no one is blaming the AP, then what is the point of this thread? Just to aggravate you and it is obviously working. I thought you said "zombie persecution" at first- I read it too fast. But the zombies are on our side anyway because we do their work for them and then they just get resurrected. They are always grateful so far as I have seen. I don't know why people get so upset about us not letting them stay as zombies, I guess it's the implication that there is something wrong with them. Edited October 9, 2018 by mfbukowski 1 Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted October 9, 2018 Share Posted October 9, 2018 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: d'accord. Nah I prefer d'civic. 1 Link to comment
Calm Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 11 hours ago, blueglass said: What will we do with the thousands of Mormon helping hands t-shirts? Thousands will be thrown away, burned or given to DI. By the way what is price tag for this Mormon divestiture project? I suspect the response will be similar to when people criticize the cost of temples. This part of the talk suggests it is worth it spiritually and that is what matters. Quote Brothers and sisters, there are many worldly arguments against restoring the correct name of the Church. Because of the digital world in which we live and with search ---engine--- optimization that helps all of us find information we need almost instantly—including information about the Lord’s Church—critics say that a correction at this point is unwise. Others feel that because we are known so widely as “Mormons” and as the “Mormon Church,” we should make the best of it. If this were a discussion about branding a man-made organization, those arguments might prevail. But in this crucial matter, we look to Him whose Church this is and acknowledge that the Lord’s ways are not, and never will be, man’s ways. If we will be patient and if we will do our part well, the Lord will lead us through this important task. After all, we know that the Lord helps those who seek to do His will, just as He helped Nephi accomplish the task of building a ship to cross the sea.12 2 Link to comment
Calm Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, california boy said: Didn't President Nelson say that Latter-day Saints was acceptable? Where is Christ's name in that? I think you might be jumping to conclusions here. My background is in corporate branding. I have done that as a professional my entire career. Seeing how the church is handling this name change is really what I am commenting on. It seems like it is not thought out at all. The church seems to be going in multiple directions at the same time. Expecting others outside the church to figure out what is going on and how they should react is absurd. The clear direction should have already come from the church. But honestly, it seems like they are trying to figure this whole thing out on the fly. I wonder if they decided to go ahead and announce it as is because any action taken to prepare would be at least partially leaked, so better to just make it public from the beginning so as to better control the narrative (leaks pretty much mostly portraying the Church's action in a negative light). Edited October 10, 2018 by Calm 1 Link to comment
blueglass Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 11 hours ago, Calm said: I suspect the response will be similar to when people criticize the cost of temples. This part of the talk suggests it is worth it spiritually and that is what matters. The upper floor of the Red Brick store, the stable in Bethlehem, the epiphany I had on a subway ride I took from Brooklyn to NYC in 2014 - these can all become sacred places. 1 Kings 8:27 27 But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built! We should make the best of the enormous investments in marketing mormon, mormon.org meet the mormons, mormon helping hands, etc. That's what we do with tithing investments, we make the best of them. Link to comment
YJacket Posted October 10, 2018 Share Posted October 10, 2018 On 10/9/2018 at 4:58 PM, california boy said: Didn't President Nelson say that Latter-day Saints was acceptable? Where is Christ's name in that? I think you might be jumping to conclusions here. My background is in corporate branding. I have done that as a professional my entire career. Seeing how the church is handling this name change is really what I am commenting on. It seems like it is not thought out at all. The church seems to be going in multiple directions at the same time. Expecting others outside the church to figure out what is going on and how they should react is absurd. The clear direction should have already come from the church. But honestly, it seems like they are trying to figure this whole thing out on the fly. This has nothing to do with my personal issues with the church. I no longer believe that church leaders speak for God because of personal experience. It has nothing to do with who is president of the church or who may be president in the future. You need to read scriptures more. "Saints" is a perfectly good description for members of Christ's Church. It is following the pattern laid out in the New Testament. Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 On 10/8/2018 at 12:59 PM, rockpond said: It wouldn't surprise me. There are aspects of our naming request that essentially require media outlets to assert our truth claims for us through the naming convention. I believe church leaders and members will make the change (as we have done in the past) but I don't see it being fully adopted by the media, including the AP style guide. Yep, and the best we can hope for is a positive response to a polite request by us to at least mention the official name of the Church at the beginning of an article. We simply don't have the raw power which some minority groups have to demand anything. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 (edited) On 10/8/2018 at 12:40 PM, LoudmouthMormon said: So, at the bottom of a random Yahoo news story about our name change: Can anyone confirm this? Is the AP Stylebook, which states media orgs should accommodate a transgender person's pronoun preference, thumbing their nose at us? (I'm trying to confirm, but it seems like the AP Stylebook is a pay-to-look thing. Or perhaps my Google-Fu just isn't hot today.) Is it an outright refusal or just a matter of the AP not having gotten around to considering the matter? Edited October 20, 2018 by Scott Lloyd Link to comment
MiserereNobis Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Is it an outright refusal or just a matter of the AP not having gotten around to considering the matter. Here is what it says at the bottom of an LA Times article: The Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press are monitoring the rebranding, but their stylebooks still allow for use of the word “Mormon” in articles about the faith. 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 47 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Here is what it says at the bottom of an LA Times article: The Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press are monitoring the rebranding, but their stylebooks still allow for use of the word “Mormon” in articles about the faith. My experience with the AP Stylebook is that the wheels of change grind slowly. Good to know they’re considering it, though. Link to comment
SeekingUnderstanding Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: My experience with the AP Stylebook is that the wheels of change grind slowly. Good to know they’re considering it, though. It seems to me that the AP should respect the desire to avoid the use of the word “Mormon”. Some of the rest of the guidelines are too much, but this basic one should be met. That said I would expect that the church will have to show it’s serious by getting rid of Mormon from all its material first (Mormon.org, Mormon Newsroom, all the I’m a Mormon pages, etc). 3 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted October 14, 2018 Share Posted October 14, 2018 47 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: It seems to me that the AP should respect the desire to avoid the use of the word “Mormon”. Some of the rest of the guidelines are too much, but this basic one should be met. That said I would expect that the church will have to show it’s serious by getting rid of Mormon from all its material first (Mormon.org, Mormon Newsroom, all the I’m a Mormon pages, etc). Yes, that goes without saying. There has already been movement in this regard with the changing of the name to Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square. Link to comment
Gray Posted October 15, 2018 Share Posted October 15, 2018 Looks like Mother Jones is following the requested nomenclature very closely: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/10/one-of-the-countrys-reddest-states-is-about-to-pass-a-landmark-medical-marijuana-bill-utah-proposition-2-utah-patients-coalition/ 1 Link to comment
MiserereNobis Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 On 10/15/2018 at 1:44 PM, Gray said: Looks like Mother Jones is following the requested nomenclature very closely: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/10/one-of-the-countrys-reddest-states-is-about-to-pass-a-landmark-medical-marijuana-bill-utah-proposition-2-utah-patients-coalition/ Here's an interesting quote: Quote The Church of Jesus Christ in Colorado, he says, was accepting of his son’s cannabis treatment. It almost sounds like another denomination. There's the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the Church of Jesus Christ in Colorado. 1 Link to comment
Yirgacheffe Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 On 10/9/2018 at 1:27 PM, Analytics said: Getting non-members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to refer to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as "members of the Church of Jesus Christ" and to refer to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints itself as "the Church of Jesus Christ" is going to be tough. It's going to be a problem because there is already another church whose name is "The Church of Jesus Christ", so how does that work when one church asks to be called by a nickname that is the official name of another church? Link to comment
Yirgacheffe Posted October 17, 2018 Share Posted October 17, 2018 On 10/14/2018 at 5:02 PM, Scott Lloyd said: Yes, that goes without saying. There has already been movement in this regard with the changing of the name to Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square. Will the church rename the movie Meet the Mormons? Link to comment
Recommended Posts