AP Styleguide refusing to dump "Mormon"?

[Kenngo1969]

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.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Avatar4321 said:

But unicorns do exist. We just don't call them by that name anymore.

so are we ex-Mormons for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

I never did like the Mormon Church.

I am glad now that I am in the Church of Jesus Christ.    That has a nice ring to it.  

 

[mfbukowski]

14 hours ago, Gray said:

Since the church has come out as anti-Mormon, I suggest anti-Mormons simply start calling themselves "Mormons."

You know in some odd way, that actually makes sense.  Very odd, yes, but it is in a way true

Most are always more "Mormon" than "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" anyway- seriously!   Most of their criticisms say more about their upbringing and their cultural assumptions than the church itself.  They mostly present a caricature of the church, full of cultural stereotypes.  It's almost like a racism really where the "other" is portrayed by so many negative stereotypes that no one human being could possibly actually BE like,  unless they were deliberately acting AS the stereotype.  It's really hard to actually BE an ignorant tightwad who wants to dominate women as a total authoritarian while slavishly obeying the prophet in total blindness and ignorance, marching robotically to church to show everyone how much better he is than you are giving away your income to a greedy taskmaster church that no one actually believes in anyway.

Kind of bizarre really to think about how true it is that what anti-Mormons see is actually Mormon stereotypes that do not represent the Church of Jesus Christ at all!

That's really a pretty profound insight, I think!

Edited October 9, 2018 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

I said this on another thread, but I think it is prudent for media outlets to wait and see how things play out. The disclaimer at the bottom of the LA Times articles said that the Times and the AP were aware of the change and monitoring the situation. I don't know how you could ask the media to do more than that. Their job is not to be PR for the LDS church, but to report information to readers in a way that readers understand. Since the church tried to get rid of Mormon before in the 90s (if I remember correctly) but then went back with a huge media blitz (I Am Mormon, Meet the Mormons, etc), it would be unreasonable to ask the media to change something immediately that is just in its infancy.

"Aware and monitoring." Seems fair to me.

[YJacket]

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yet, once again,  isn't God going to be displeased if the church starts using "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" in place of the name of the church?

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??).

Edited October 9, 2018 by YJacket

[Avatar4321]

6 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I said this on another thread, but I think it is prudent for media outlets to wait and see how things play out. The disclaimer at the bottom of the LA Times articles said that the Times and the AP were aware of the change and monitoring the situation. I don't know how you could ask the media to do more than that. Their job is not to be PR for the LDS church, but to report information to readers in a way that readers understand. Since the church tried to get rid of Mormon before in the 90s (if I remember correctly) but then went back with a huge media blitz (I Am Mormon, Meet the Mormons, etc), it would be unreasonable to ask the media to change something immediately that is just in its infancy.

"Aware and monitoring." Seems fair to me.

In other words, it depends on the members.

will we accept the call to take the Lords name upon us more seriously? Or will the Lord be angry with us?

[Gray]

28 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You know in some odd way, that actually makes sense.  Very odd, yes, but it is in a way true

Most are always more "Mormon" than "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" anyway- seriously!   Most of their criticisms say more about their upbringing and their cultural assumptions than the church itself.  They mostly present a caricature of the church, full of cultural stereotypes.  It's almost like a racism really where the "other" is portrayed by so many negative stereotypes that no one human being could possibly actually BE like,  unless they were deliberately acting AS the stereotype.  It's really hard to actually BE an ignorant tightwad who wants to dominate women as a total authoritarian while slavishly obeying the prophet in total blindness and ignorance, marching robotically to church to show everyone how much better he is than you are giving away your income to a greedy taskmaster church that no one actually believes in anyway.

Kind of bizarre really to think about how true it is that what anti-Mormons see is actually Mormon stereotypes that do not represent the Church of Jesus Christ at all!

That's really a pretty profound insight, I think!

Yes, I've noticed that. The most strident exmormons are some of the most "Mormon" people I've encountered, despite them usually distancing themselves in superficial ways (dying their hair, drinking wine, tattoos/piercings, etc).

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I never did like the Mormon Church.

I am glad now that I am in the Church of Jesus Christ.    That has a nice ring to it.  

 

I don’t take issue with returning to the full use of the Church’s name but I’m struggling with how to put this into context with the past couple decades...

Was the Church offending the Lord with the I’m a Mormon campaign?

Were the apostles not consulted as the church worked to brand itself with the Mormon nickname?

Were President Monson and President Hinckley not in tune with the will of the Lord as they supported all these victories for Satan?

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Yet, once again,  isn't God going to be displeased if the church starts using "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" in place of the name of the church?  I don't think that is what God asked for.  I see little resemblance to what Presiden Nelson is claiming as inspiration to call the church by the name God gave in ANY of these iterations.  It seems like a farce and disingenuous.  More like an arbitrary hair up someone's a** that has been going on for a decade.  Now he has finally been given the power.

When people need to describe what we believe, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ is accurate. Our belief is not the body of the Church of Jesus Christ, but a set of beliefs about biblical interpretation, other scriptures and ordinances. Going from Mormonism to the restored gospel of Yeshua is more of a mouthful, but is definitely workable, and I feel is more accurate. I like it actually, because it will give more opportunity to introduce what we mean by restored gospel.

I didn't hear Pres Nelson really claim any inspiration as to what to call the Church. I heard him say the Lord impressed upon his mind the importance of following his desire/commandment for the Church to be called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This implies the Church needs to change what it has been doing to better follow previous revelation. He didn't claim any new revelation that I heard about the name itself. I fail to see how that is a farce. It is to be humbled and stand corrected before the Lord. We'll see if the Church can manage that or if we will simply thumb our nose at the suggestion. If schism groups can manage to avoid being called the Mormon Church, it certainly seems we can manage such a simple thing.

[HappyJackWagon]

18 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Not surprising. We need to do it among ourselves before we can expect others to do it.

nehor, perhaps we should just use the scriptural term, anti christ

Because obviously if someone is against the Mormon church, they must be anti Jesus. Sound logic right there.

[mfbukowski]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, I've noticed that. The most strident exmormons are some of the most "Mormon" people I've encountered, despite them usually distancing themselves in superficial ways (dying their hair, drinking wine, tattoos/piercings, etc).

I joined the church and then wanted to experience "Zion" so I moved to SLC for a year, 1980.  I visited a few times before the move.

Yes I was young and stupid.  And had to leave after a year- the polarization I felt was overwhelming.  I am not saying everyone feels that or even notices it frankly.

What I immediately found was a very polarized society- as a new convert who had never been to SLC before- which seemed to be made up ONLY of neatly dressed, well-trimmed white  blonde people OR dyed hair in various strange colors, tattoos, etc white people.

It seemed that all the men looked like "bikers" to me OR missionaries.  The women looked like their counterparts- "biker chicks" or Relief Society presidents with all the stereotypes associated with both images.

It seemed that EVERYONE was in one or the other of these groups.  Now obviously even at my stupidest one could see that that was not true- yes there was a little diversity but not much.  The stereotypical people definitely overwhelmingly outnumbered the "diverse" people by a huge margin IN MY PERCEPTION at the time.

And now when I visit, Utah is more diverse than it was.

But here is still a huge difference between Utah and LA - I was looking at the youth choirs at conference - virtually 100% white and 80% blonde, every kid looked identical to me!

A random sample of LDS kids from LA would be a full mixture of humanity I think- with perhaps (I am not kidding) fewer than 10 blonde kids and a sea of darker hair and darker complexions of every variety.  Many Asians, more Black kids, Islanders, and tons of Hispanics

It was actually shocking to see the difference and perhaps at future conferences guest choirs from diverse locations might be called upon to better represent a worldwide church.

I cannot imagine how that sea of blondness is interpreted abroad!

Perhaps one could gather together an LDS choir from Ghana or Peru or Japan or even Italy, and tape a hymn or two to show as intermediate hymns to show at Conference?

I know I am rather insulting to Utahns here and I regret that actually but honestly if you could the difference in diversity it would shock anyone, I am convinced.

Honestly when I visit Utah and go to church there I feel almost uncomfortable around so many white people!!  It just feels weird!!  (Yes I am Polish and blonde myself)

But I think it would help to break down, along with the church name, the stereotypical lack of diversity that the image of a "Utah Church" brings, with the stereotypes of "Mormons" as opposed to a Universal Church of Jesus Christ.

Excuse the rant.

[blueglass]

13 hours ago, rockpond said:

Just four years ago, the Church was helping members print and “pass along” little victories for Satan:

https://lds365.com/2014/01/02/personalized-pass-along-cards-from-mormon-org/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LDSWebGuy+(LDS+Media+Talk)

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?

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don’t take issue with returning to the full use of the Church’s name but I’m struggling with how to put this into context with the past couple decades...

Was the Church offending the Lord with the I’m a Mormon campaign?

Were the apostles not consulted as the church worked to brand itself with the Mormon nickname?

Were President Monson and President Hinckley not in tune with the will of the Lord as they supported all these victories for Satan?

Quite honestly I find it hard to think in these categories, as if one could know the will of the Lord to such a degree with certainty.  I can know how I FEEL with absolute certainty and I think that Alma 32 defines "TRUTH" as the "way you feel about religious matters".  When the Word(s) grow in your heart and feel "sweet" to you then you know the principle is "true".

I think Alma 32 is the basis for all the truths of scripture and everything LDS - it's not about objectively observing how the Lord thinks which is impossible- but about how we FEEL about what beliefs work for us in our lives.

I see only paradigms that work better than others.  I like the IDEA that the Lord appreciates the change and I think it is a good compromise to make us more "Christian" and yet not Evangelical because we are taking upon us THE Name of Christ.

We are branding ourselves as THE church of Christ in the world today- which IS highly doctrinal and yet makes us "Christian" and yet sets us apart in our wonderful exceptionalism  as THE church of Christ while others are not.

It's a great paradigm that I can readily imagine pleases the Lord and feels "sweet" to me.

So it's strictly Alma 32.  Experimenting on how it feels, it is sweet to me.

I think that is the best we can do with knowing the "Will of God".  At least according to Moroni, Alma, DC 93, James 1, et al. 

They all point to a pragmatic approach to truth.

In short it is what we call "testimony" 

 

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes 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?

It's an investment in our future.

It could be a major PR coup if we allow it to be, and not worry about T-Shirts we can stencil over if you are really worried about it.

Heck I will buy them for 50 cents each and do that myself- sounds like a nice business model to me!

Dye them all black and sell them for 5 bucks each or keep them as museum pieces - whatever.

Edited October 9, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Walden]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You know in some odd way, that actually makes sense.  Very odd, yes, but it is in a way true

Most are always more "Mormon" than "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" anyway- seriously!   Most of their criticisms say more about their upbringing and their cultural assumptions than the church itself.  They mostly present a caricature of the church, full of cultural stereotypes.  It's almost like a racism really where the "other" is portrayed by so many negative stereotypes that no one human being could possibly actually BE like,  unless they were deliberately acting AS the stereotype.  It's really hard to actually BE an ignorant tightwad who wants to dominate women as a total authoritarian while slavishly obeying the prophet in total blindness and ignorance, marching robotically to church to show everyone how much better he is than you are giving away your income to a greedy taskmaster church that no one actually believes in anyway.

Kind of bizarre really to think about how true it is that what anti-Mormons see is actually Mormon stereotypes that do not represent the Church of Jesus Christ at all!

That's really a pretty profound insight, I think!

You mean kind of like the TBM caricature of ex-Mormons, errr, ex-Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint's as being bitter, hate-filled, selfish trouble makers who only left the LDS church because they didn't have the internal fortitude or were too weak to be faithful members, who don't have the intellectual capacity to possibly comprehend the truths spoken by the prophets, who didn't want to do all that service work or spend their Sunday's in church instead of home watching NFL games and who spent their whole life in the LDS church looking for a loophole to exit so that they could go about fornicating and drinking excessively and listening to the devil's music and watching R-rated movies without guilt.

Kind of like that caricature?

[revelstoked]

On a related tangent, AP doesn't always use PPPs outside of he/him/his and she/her/hers (Personal Preferred Pronouns).  The singular they was a major issue, and ze is right out.  From their twitter:

Quote

They/them/there is OK in limited cases as a singular and/or gender-neutral pronoun; do not use other neutral pronouns like ze. 

Quote

What is the correct third person singular pronoun to use when someone's gender is unknown or ambiguous? What about gender-neutral contexts?

 

So I don't feel they are grinding a religious ax against us, but just being conservative in the way their reporting reflects common usage.  They follow the curve, not lead the curve.  If ze/zir/zis becomes common usage then the style would be updated, similary Latter-day Saints becoming the new Mormon.  If anything that is a call on the saints to be sure they use the preferred terms to make it mainstream.

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

It's an investment in our future.

It could be a major PR coup if we allow it to be, and not worry about T-Shirts we can stencil over if you are really worried about it.

Heck I will buy them for 50 cents each and do that myself- sounds like a nice business model to me!

Dye them all black and sell them for 5 bucks each or keep them as museum pieces - whatever.

What do you think we're talking about in terms of investment?  Is this $2M, $10M?, $100M. ? 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Didn’t President Nelson, in his address this weekend, say that “responsible” media outlets cease to use the nickname?

The style guide suggest using “the restored gospel of Jesus Christ” in place of Mormonism. That is asking media outlets to assert a truth claim for us. 

And now we have our President saying that if it irresponsible to do otherwise?

I can agree with you, but asking and urging is not the same thing as "requiring," which is what you were falsely suggesting Nelson had done.  Non-Mormon media outlets are certainly not going to carry water for the Mormons.  That is a completely unrealistic notion.  I am quite comfortable with whatever terms of reference seem good to "responsible' media companies.  I have no doubt that they will continue to use short-forms and nicknames, which is the most efficient form of reference.  I see no reason for prolixity in writing and reporting the news.  Professionals need to be short and to the point.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

I know the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints loves and cherishes its long tradition of feeling persecuted.  But perhaps there is a more simple reason.  The Church has not to my knowledge given the AP any kind of style sheet that is actually workable.  For example:

What word does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints want the AP to use instead of Mormonism?

What word does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints use for a follower of Mormonism?

If there is an article on the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square, how many nonmember readers would know what the heck the article was even about? 

What link should the AP use if they want to direct their readers to any of the Church web sites?

There is a myriad of these types of issues that need to be worked out.  So far, the Church has done IMO, a horrible job of figuring things out.  The new choir name completely wipes out all recognition of an institution that has been around for over 100 years.  Not only that but if the value of the Choir was to be ambassadors for the Church then that is completely gone.  Now they are ambassadors for Temple Square, wherever that is.  

Until the Church works out how things should be handled, the AP should continue the style sheet that has been in place.  It is not the job of the AP to figure that out for the Church.

What I also don't get, is if the Church is under condemnation for not using the name that God gave the Church then why is any variation on that name acceptable to God?  God didn't tell Joseph Smith the name of the church is the Latter-day Saints church, nor the LDS church nor the Church of Jesus Christ.  Isn't the church just swapping out one nickname for another?  If God wants His Church to use the name He gave it, then don't you lose the moral argument if you start offering alternatives to that official name?  This whole thing is a huge mess.  Anyone who thinks it is workable needs to explain to the AP just how this is all going to work before they go off half-cocked guessing at how the church wants things done.  

Persecution? Conspiracy by Satan?  Maybe a little self-reflection is in order.

Some aspects of this new order seem to be unworkable and unnecessary, but I am going to observe the phenomenon with interest.

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Yet, once again,  isn't God going to be displeased if the church starts using "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" in place of the name of the church?  I don't think that is what God asked for.  I see little resemblance to what Presiden Nelson is claiming as inspiration to call the church by the name God gave in ANY of these iterations.  It seems like a farce and disingenuous.  More like an arbitrary hair up someone's a** that has been going on for a decade.  Now he has finally been given the power.

That was uncalled for, Caliboy.   You need to repent.

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, Walden said:

You mean kind of like the TBM caricature of ex-Mormons, errr, ex-Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint's as being bitter, hate-filled, selfish trouble makers who only left the LDS church because they didn't have the internal fortitude or were too weak to be faithful members, who don't have the intellectual capacity to possibly comprehend the truths spoken by the prophets, who didn't want to do all that service work or spend their Sunday's in church instead of home watching NFL games and who spent their whole life in the LDS church looking for a loophole to exit so that they could go about fornicating and drinking excessively and listening to the devil's music and watching R-rated movies without guilt.

Kind of like that caricature?

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

 

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by mfbukowski

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Quite honestly I find it hard to think in these categories, as if one could know the will of the Lord to such a degree with certainty.  I can know how I FEEL with absolute certainty and I think that Alma 32 defines "TRUTH" as the "way you feel about religious matters".  When the Word(s) grow in your heart and feel "sweet" to you then you know the principle is "true".

I think Alma 32 is the basis for all the truths of scripture and everything LDS - it's not about objectively observing how the Lord thinks which is impossible- but about how we FEEL about what beliefs work for us in our lives.

I see only paradigms that work better than others.  I like the IDEA that the Lord appreciates the change and I think it is a good compromise to make us more "Christian" and yet not Evangelical because we are taking upon us THE Name of Christ.

We are branding ourselves as THE church of Christ in the world today- which IS highly doctrinal and yet makes us "Christian" and yet sets us apart in our wonderful exceptionalism  as THE church of Christ while others are not.

It's a great paradigm that I can readily imagine pleases the Lord and feels "sweet" to me.

So it's strictly Alma 32.  Experimenting on how it feels, it is sweet to me.

I think that is the best we can do with knowing the "Will of God".  At least according to Moroni, Alma, DC 93, James 1, et al. 

They all point to a pragmatic approach to truth.

In short it is what we call "testimony" 

 

I think that is a good paradigm. 

But, I don’t think that’s quite how Pres Nelson came across this weekend when he explained that the Lord is offended and Satan is having victories. 

[Analytics]

It reminds me of the musician John Mellencamp. When he was originally signed by a record label, they changed his name to John Cougar, because the marketers didn't think they could sell anybody on listening to somebody with the last name "Mellencamp." After he became successful and famous and was able to take control of his own career, he transitioned his stage name to "John Cougar Mellencamp," and then a few years later to his actual name, John Mellencamp."

I bring that up because it illustrates a successful name transition--there was a pathway that went from associating his music with "John Cougar" to associating his music with "John Mellencamp."

But is there a pathway that can successfully transition the nickname of the Church to what the Church wants it to be?

With the name of the church, the name of the religion, and the adjectives that describe them, "Mormon" is heavily ingrained in everybody's mind, and journalists are going to want to use it to be clear to their readers what it is they are talking about. Nicknames like "Latter-day Saints," LDS, and LDS Church are sufficiently distinct, descriptive, and generally known. Latter-day Saints in the military still have "LDS" on their dog tags, right?

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. First, that nickname isn't very distinctive, and it will take an incredible amount of PR to get people to internalize the reference and say something like, "the pioneers who settled Utah? They were members of the Church of Jesus Christ, or course." Secondly, people are going to resist calling it "the Church of Jesus Christ" because that name is loaded; people who don't believe it is literally Jesus Christ's one-and-only Church don't want to call it a freshly-minted nickname that implies that it is.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I can agree with you, but asking and urging is not the same thing as "requiring," which is what you were falsely suggesting Nelson had done.  Non-Mormon media outlets are certainly not going to carry water for the Mormons.  That is a completely unrealistic notion.  I am quite comfortable with whatever terms of reference seem good to "responsible' media companies.  I have no doubt that they will continue to use short-forms and nicknames, which is the most efficient form of reference.  I see no reason for prolixity in writing and reporting the news.  Professionals need to be short and to the point.

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. 

Edited October 9, 2018 by rockpond

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Some aspects of this new order seem to be unworkable and unnecessary, but I am going to observe the phenomenon with interest.

That was uncalled for, Caliboy.   You need to repent.

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 

[Avatar4321]

31 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It reminds me of the musician John Mellencamp. When he was originally signed by a record label, they changed his name to John Cougar, because the marketers didn't think they could sell anybody on listening to somebody with the last name "Mellencamp." After he became successful and famous and was able to take control of his own career, he transitioned his stage name to "John Cougar Mellencamp," and then a few years later to his actual name, John Mellencamp."

I bring that up because it illustrates a successful name transition--there was a pathway that went from associating his music with "John Cougar" to associating his music with "John Mellencamp."

But is there a pathway that can successfully transition the nickname of the Church to what the Church wants it to be?

With the name of the church, the name of the religion, and the adjectives that describe them, "Mormon" is heavily ingrained in everybody's mind, and journalists are going to want to use it to be clear to their readers what it is they are talking about. Nicknames like "Latter-day Saints," LDS, and LDS Church are sufficiently distinct, descriptive, and generally known. Latter-day Saints in the military still have "LDS" on their dog tags, right?

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. First, that nickname isn't very distinctive, and it will take an incredible amount of PR to get people to internalize the reference and say something like, "the pioneers who settled Utah? They were members of the Church of Jesus Christ, or course." Secondly, people are going to resist calling it "the Church of Jesus Christ" because that name is loaded; people who don't believe it is literally Jesus Christ's one-and-only Church don't want to call it a freshly-minted nickname that implies that it is.

And yet it is the Church of Jesus Christ and is precisely why the Church needs to be called by its proper name.

but that’s also one the reasons we can’t just transition that direction. The adversary will resist all efforts in calling the church properly.

we should all pray seek the Lords will as individuals on how we can personally follow the Prophets counsel.

taking upon ourselves the name of Christ is one of the key parts of our baptism covenant. This needs to be a priority for saints in the Church