bluebell Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: What mistake was made? Church leaders for years have tried to get us to refer to the Church properly. Maybe he's referring to the church's use of mormon.org, Meet the Mormons, the Mormon Channel, and I am a Mormon campaign. It's hard to say that 'for the years the church has been trying to get us to stop using the term Mormon" when for years they have themselves been using the term Mormon in official capacities and as part of their branding. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, bluebell said: Maybe he's referring to the church's use of mormon.org, Meet the Mormons, the Mormon Channel, and I am a Mormon campaign. It's hard to say that 'for the years the church has been trying to get us to stop using the term Mormon" when for years they have themselves been using the term Mormon in official capacities and as part of their branding. I didn’t say they’ve been trying to get us to stop using the term, only to stop calling the Church by that name. That instruction has been in place for a long time. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 28 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Church leaders have officially endorsed: Mormon Newsroom twitter handle I'm a Mormon campain mormon.org Meet the Mormons movie Mormon Tabernacle Choir It appears that President Nelson views all of these as errors or mistakes. That much is new with the recent directive, I agree.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 34 minutes ago, ALarson said: Not really. Or there would have already been a change made, IMO. Or do you believe that past Prophets were guided to continually call the church by the name that was an "error"? For at least the past two decades, calling it “the Mormon Church” or “the LDS Church” has been officially frowned upon. 1
JulieM Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: For at least the past two decades, calling it “the Mormon Church” or “the LDS Church” has been officially frowned upon. So is that a “yes”? Or just that past leaders didn’t feel as strong about this as Pres. Nelson, so they allowed the error to continue without correcting it? I think we all just need to acknowledge the fallability involved with our leaders and the human aspect too. There is nothing wrong with admitting to past mistakes made and then correcting them (which is what is taking place here, imo). Edited August 19, 2018 by JulieM 2
SouthernMo Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: What mistake was made? Church leaders for years have tried to get us to refer to the Church properly. The “I’m a Mormon” campaign stands in direct contradiction to your claim here. They spent millions encouraging us to call ourselves Mormons on social media. 3
Rain Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Your point is well taken. But a journalist could simply say “the church” as a shortened form in second and subsequent references. That would be consistent with the updated style guide, and it’s not an unreasonable request. Thinking about all of this the toughest part would be the headline right? It seems that in the body of the news it wouldn't normally (unless length was especially tight) be a problem to state the whole name and then use "the church" for the rest of it, but how does a headline give you an idea of what church it is and still do well with space constraints? Would editors be happy with "Church" without any qualifiers? 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: For at least the past two decades, calling it “the Mormon Church” or “the LDS Church” has been officially frowned upon. I think where the difference of opinion comes is how precise you are with langauge. It is true that "the Mormon Church" has been officially frowned upon and for good reason. You seem to think that is different than the "I am a Mormon" campaign and technically I understand why. For the most part though I don't think that most people are that precise. They may see or perhaps feel that the church officially putting out the "I am a Mormon" campaign falls in the same category as saying you are from the "LDS" or "Mormon church" which ties the 2 together in their minds as official. I am probably not explaining that well. Just that you see a distinction that others don't FEEL. (I know the capitalization is wrong there, but I felt the italics were not visully strong enough to notice). Edited August 19, 2018 by Rain 1
Exiled Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 1 hour ago, SouthernMo said: The “I’m a Mormon” campaign stands in direct contradiction to your claim here. They spent millions encouraging us to call ourselves Mormons on social media. It is always so until it isn't and then it is always how the new view of history is until that isn't. 1
Rain Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 1 hour ago, SouthernMo said: The “I’m a Mormon” campaign stands in direct contradiction to your claim here. They spent millions encouraging us to call ourselves Mormons on social media. It depends on how you look at it. Scott is saying the NAME of the church has never officially been "The Mormon Church" and for a couple of decades that has been discouraged. I think Scott's point (and I could be wrong) is that the campaign was about people being called Mormon and not the church being called Mormon. That may not mean much to you or I, but in this particular instance this is important to Scott. Scott, let me know if I am anywhere close. 2
SouthernMo Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 8 minutes ago, Rain said: It depends on how you look at it. Scott is saying the NAME of the church has never officially been "The Mormon Church" and for a couple of decades that has been discouraged. I think Scott's point (and I could be wrong) is that the campaign was about people being called Mormon and not the church being called Mormon. That may not mean much to you or I, but in this particular instance this is important to Scott. Scott, let me know if I am anywhere close. Got it. So you see that we can still call ourselves Mormons as a part of the "I'm a Mormon" campaign, we just don't want to be called Mormons because that's not the name of the church?
Scott Lloyd Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Rain said: Thinking about all of this the toughest part would be the headline right? It seems that in the body of the news it wouldn't normally (unless length was especially tight) be a problem to state the whole name and then use "the church" for the rest of it, but how does a headline give you an idea of what church it is and still do well with space constraints? Would editors be happy with "Church" without any qualifiers? I think where the difference of opinion comes is how precise you are with langauge. It is true that "the Mormon Church" has been officially frowned upon and for good reason. You seem to think that is different than the "I am a Mormon" campaign and technically I understand why. For the most part though I don't think that most people are that precise. They may see or perhaps feel that the church officially putting out the "I am a Mormon" campaign falls in the same category as saying you are from the "LDS" or "Mormon church" which ties the 2 together in their minds as official. I am probably not explaining that well. Just that you see a distinction that others don't FEEL. (I know the capitalization is wrong there, but I felt the italics were not visully strong enough to notice). I don’t concede that it is necessary for a headline to convey each and every element of a story (indeed such a thing would be impossible). Nor do I read the updated style guide as directing that a headline must contain the full and formal name of the Church. That assumption is absurd, and I don’t know where it came from. And is it really that difficult to see a distinction between calling the Church of Jesus Christ “the Mormon Church” and calling a member of the Church a Mormon? Edited August 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Rain said: It depends on how you look at it. Scott is saying the NAME of the church has never officially been "The Mormon Church" and for a couple of decades that has been discouraged. I think Scott's point (and I could be wrong) is that the campaign was about people being called Mormon and not the church being called Mormon. That may not mean much to you or I, but in this particular instance this is important to Scott. Scott, let me know if I am anywhere close. Yes you are. And I would add that the Church leaders up to now have not disapproved of members being called Mormons, but they have disapproved of the Church itself being incorrectly called “the Mormon Church”. Hence the “I am a Mormon” campaign would not have been inconsistent with the former style guide, the one that is now out of date as of last week. Edited August 20, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 1
SouthernMo Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: And is it really that difficuly to see a distinction between calling thr Church of Jesus Christ “the Mormon Church” and calling a member of the Church a Mormon? Not sure I see your point here. Doesn't the style guide also ask that people no longer call members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Mormons? (Bullet Point 4)
SouthernMo Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Yes you are. And I would add the the Church leaders up to now have not disapproved of members being called Mormons, but they have disapproved of the Church itself being incorrectly called “the Mormon Church”. Hence the “I am a Mormon” campaign would not have been inconsistent with the former style guide, the one that is now out of date as of last week. Right, but it's inconsistent now, but you've told us that members have been asked for a long time NOT to refer to ourselves as Mormons. This is just false. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide Edited August 19, 2018 by SouthernMo Read the post too fast
Scott Lloyd Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: Right, but it's inconsistent now, but you've told us that members have been asked for a long time NOT to refer to ourselves as Mormons. This is just false. https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide No, I have never said that. You have misunderstood me, if that’s what you think. Apparently, Rain did understand me.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: Not sure I see your point here. Doesn't the style guide also ask that people no longer call members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Mormons? (Bullet Point 4) I’m talking about the style guide the way it was until it was superceded last week by the official statement from President Nelson.
SouthernMo Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: No, I have never said that. You have misunderstood me, if that’s what you think. Apparently, Rain did understand me. So your position is that for years, the church has tried to get us to refer to the church properly. No change there. But, that there is a change in that in the past, we have been encouraged to call members Mormons, but that is now changing? Seems like a slim difference, but I want to make sure I understand your belief/understanding correctly.
CV75 Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 6 hours ago, rockpond said: I just happened to re-read the newly published style guide. I think this bullet is going to be particularly problematic for those outside the Church: "The term "Mormonism" is inaccurate and should not be used. When describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the term "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" is accurate and preferred." It's one thing to ask a journalist to use a certain name for your church. It's another to ask them to describe you in a way that is more than a name but a validation of your authoritative claim. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that if a journalist is going to be required to refer to Mormonism as "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" they'll likely put something like "alleged" or "so-called" in front of it to avoid the appearance of making a factual claim about the Church. I take it as an invitation to resist the tendency to portray the Church (and any combination of her unique doctrine, culture ans lifestyle) as an ideology (which the suffix, "ism" conveys), which favors a political or economic paradigm rather than a religious or spiritual paradigm. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 (edited) 35 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: So your position is that for years, the church has tried to get us to refer to the church properly. No change there. But, that there is a change in that in the past, we have been encouraged to call members Mormons, but that is now changing? Seems like a slim difference, but I want to make sure I understand your belief/understanding correctly. I wouldn’t say it has been “emcouraged” that members be called Mormons, but it has been allowed. That part has now changed, and the change took me by surprise as much as anyone else, though I think I do see the wisdom of it. As for the name of the Church, those who have read my posts over the years may have noticed that I never, ever say “Mormon church” and I seldom say LDS Church. As shortened forms, I use “the Church of Jesus Christ” or simply “the Church.” The point of the “I Am a Mormon” campaign was not to promote the use of the name “Mormon.” It was to improve the public image of those whom outsiders already refer to as Mormons. Can you not see that? Edited August 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, SouthernMo said: The “I’m a Mormon” campaign stands in direct contradiction to your claim here. They spent millions encouraging us to call ourselves Mormons on social media. I hope by now, with the latest posts from Rain and from me, you understand me more clearly. The point of the “I Am a Mormon” campaign was not to promote the use of the name “Mormon.” It was to improve the public image of those whom outsiders already refer to as Mormons. Can you not see that? Edited August 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 1
JulieM Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I hope by now, with latest posts from Rain and from me, you understand me more clearly. So you’re ok with someone saying “I’m a Mormon”, just not “I’m a member of the Mormon Church”? Edited August 19, 2018 by JulieM
Scott Lloyd Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 5 minutes ago, JulieM said: So you’re ok with someone saying “I’m a Mormon”, just not “I’m a member of the Mormon Church”? Until last week, that was my attitude. I now desire to support President Nelson and the Church leaders in the new directive.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 4 hours ago, bluebell said: Maybe he's referring to the church's use of mormon.org, Meet the Mormons, the Mormon Channel, and I am a Mormon campaign. It's hard to say that 'for the years the church has been trying to get us to stop using the term Mormon" when for years they have themselves been using the term Mormon in official capacities and as part of their branding. I think the Church in the past has tried to make the best of existing conditions in which Church members were already widely known as Mormons. As I see it, President Nelson is now saying it’s time to go a different direction and try to discourage the use of that name as an appellation for Church members and instead, use Latter-day Saints, which is more in line with the name of the Church as given in revelation. 1
CV75 Posted August 19, 2018 Posted August 19, 2018 22 hours ago, Jeanne said: Aren't you getting a little personal on that? 😍 There are dozens of Biblical references about God knowing our names, individually, etc. He knows and loves you too! Now the Book of Mormon is interesting in that Mosiah 5 says: "And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ ...therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ ...And it shall come to pass that whosoever doeth this shall ...know the name by which he is called; for he shall be called by the name of Christ. ...And I would that ye should remember also, that this is the name that I said I should give unto you ...I say unto you, I would that ye should remember to retain the name written always in your hearts..."
Recommended Posts