Scott Lloyd Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 2 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said: Will the church rename the movie Meet the Mormons? Why are you asking me? I don't control what the Church does.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 2 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said: 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? Why should that be a problem?
HappyJackWagon Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Why should that be a problem? You don't see a problem with that? Okay. I guess it's not too different than an evangelical church referring to themselves as part of the catholic church: lower "c" catholic meaning "universal", not to be confused with the Catholic church.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: You don't see a problem with that? Okay. I guess it's not too different than an evangelical church referring to themselves as part of the catholic church: lower "c" catholic meaning "universal", not to be confused with the Catholic church. I don’t know of any successful attempts to copyright or trademark the name “Jesus Christ.” As I’ve said before, it ordinarily will be clear from context what church is being referred to when “Church of Jesus Christ” is used as a shortened form for “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 1
rockpond Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 I understand that the Church is suggesting one shorten the name to "The Church of Jesus Christ" only after using the full name early in an article (so it should be clear). But, just for fun, I searched Wikipedia with the term "The Church of Jesus Christ" And, when I did a google search: First result is Mormon.org. Second result is LDS.org. Third result is thechurchofjesuschrist.org which is, apparently, a denomination that believes in the Book of Mormon but I can't find much more to figure out which branch. But, they do have a significant number of locations. Fourth result is The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). Fifth result if the wikipedia page above. Then the sixth result is the MormonNewsroom.org post about the name of the church.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 19, 2018 Posted October 19, 2018 On 10/17/2018 at 4:24 PM, rockpond said: I understand that the Church is suggesting one shorten the name to "The Church of Jesus Christ" only after using the full name early in an article (so it should be clear). But, just for fun, I searched Wikipedia with the term "The Church of Jesus Christ" And, when I did a google search: First result is Mormon.org. Second result is LDS.org. Third result is thechurchofjesuschrist.org which is, apparently, a denomination that believes in the Book of Mormon but I can't find much more to figure out which branch. But, they do have a significant number of locations. Fourth result is The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). Fifth result if the wikipedia page above. Then the sixth result is the MormonNewsroom.org post about the name of the church. So apparently the only churches that go by that name, other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are schismatic break-offs thereof. And we’re expected to believe (according to Yirgacheffe) that said break-offs are entitiled to exclusive ownership of the name?
rockpond Posted October 19, 2018 Posted October 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: So apparently the only churches that go by that name, other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are schismatic break-offs thereof. And we’re expected to believe (according to Yirgacheffe) that said break-offs are entitiled to exclusive ownership of the name? There were a few that weren’t branches of TCOJCOLDS. I didn’t see where Yirgacheffe said that they were “entitled to exclusive ownership of the name”. He just asked how it would work for us to start asking to be called by the official name of another church.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 19, 2018 Posted October 19, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, rockpond said: There were a few that weren’t branches of TCOJCOLDS. I didn’t see where Yirgacheffe said that they were “entitled to exclusive ownership of the name”. He just asked how it would work for us to start asking to be called by the official name of another church. His insinuation seems clear enough. And please don’t refer to apostate groups that broke away from the restored Church of Jesus Christ as “branches” thereof. It is misleading at best. Edited to add: “TCOFJCOLDS” seems hardly better than “LDS Church.” Are you determined to ignore the spirit, if not the letter, of President Nelson’s instruction? Edited October 19, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted October 19, 2018 Posted October 19, 2018 7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: His insinuation seems clear enough. And please don’t refer to apostate groups that broke away from the restored Church of Jesus Christ as “branches” thereof. It is misleading at best. I don’t think that was his insinuation at all. And branches is a perfectly serviceable word to describe them. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 20, 2018 Posted October 20, 2018 (edited) On 10/19/2018 at 6:39 AM, rockpond said: I don’t think that was his insinuation at all. And branches is a perfectly serviceable word to describe them. The reason use of the term “branches” in this context is misleading and disingenuous is that it suggests or connotes an organizational or institutional affiliation which, of course, is false. It would be like calling the United States government a “branch” of the British monarchy. Edited October 20, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 1
Avatar4321 Posted October 20, 2018 Posted October 20, 2018 On 10/17/2018 at 5:24 PM, rockpond said: I understand that the Church is suggesting one shorten the name to "The Church of Jesus Christ" only after using the full name early in an article (so it should be clear). But, just for fun, I searched Wikipedia with the term "The Church of Jesus Christ" And, when I did a google search: First result is Mormon.org. Second result is LDS.org. Third result is thechurchofjesuschrist.org which is, apparently, a denomination that believes in the Book of Mormon but I can't find much more to figure out which branch. But, they do have a significant number of locations. Fourth result is The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite). Fifth result if the wikipedia page above. Then the sixth result is the MormonNewsroom.org post about the name of the church. Looks like Google already knows the true name of the Church
rockpond Posted October 20, 2018 Posted October 20, 2018 4 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: Looks like Google already knows the true name of the Church We never abandoned it. And I doubt the Church ever stopped paying for SEO related to the full name of the Church... even/especially during the I'm a Mormon campaign years.
rockpond Posted October 20, 2018 Posted October 20, 2018 7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: The reason use of the term “branches” in this context is misleading and disingenuous is that it suggests or connotes an organizational or institutional affiliation which, of course, is false. It would be like calling the United States government a “branch” of the British monarchy. They all trace their roots back to Joseph Smith. That's the connection.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2018 Posted October 21, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, rockpond said: They all trace their roots back to Joseph Smith. That's the connection. But they are not institutionally affiliated with one another, contrary to what is connoted in the term “branches.” You could argue that North America, India and South Africa are “connected” in that each at one time was colonized by Great Britain. Yet it would be absurd to claim they are affiliated with one another or they are “branches” of the same entity. Edited October 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted October 21, 2018 Posted October 21, 2018 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: But they are not institutionally affiliated with one another, contrary to what is connoted in the term “branches.” You could argue that North America, India and South Africa are “connected” in that each at one time was colonized by Great Britain. Yet it would be absurd to claim they are affiliated with one another or they are “branches” of the same entity. Your country analogy is very different. Looking at the definition of branches, it seems like the right word for me to have used. If you present a better term, I’ll consider it.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 21, 2018 Posted October 21, 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, rockpond said: Your country analogy is very different. Looking at the definition of branches, it seems like the right word for me to have used. If you present a better term, I’ll consider it. The term I used is quite good enough: schismatic break-offs. Another apt term might be off-shoot. Neither of them inaccurately implies institutional affiliation or association as does “branch.” The groups of which you speak broke away from the Church of Jesus Christ many years ago when they apostatized therefrom. They bear no association or affiliation with the Church. They are apostate groups, and the Church will excommunicate any of its own members who join with them. They are not “branches” of the Church. Edited October 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Popular Post Calm Posted October 21, 2018 Popular Post Posted October 21, 2018 (edited) Google has as a definition for off shoot "branch" ("a side shoot or branch on a plant"), so while you (Scott) might feel it is off in connotation, it comes across as a more subjective choice than standard for me, especially after looking at the Wikipedia article on Christian denomination and how they used "branches" (though I think some of the information itself is inaccurate): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination add-on: "Lamanites" are at times described as a branch of the House of Israel, though when they are a political entity opposing those who are followers of the Gospel in the Book of Mormon , etc., they are surely an apostate group unaffiliated with the then Saints. Edited October 22, 2018 by Calm 5
rockpond Posted October 22, 2018 Posted October 22, 2018 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: The term I used is quite good enough: schismatic break-offs. Another apt term might be off-shoot. Neither of them inaccurately implies institutional affiliation or association as does “branch.” The groups of which you speak broke away from the Church of Jesus Christ many years ago when they apostatized therefrom. They bear no association or affiliation with the Church. They are apostate groups, and the Church will excommunicate any of its own members who join with them. They are not “branches” of the Church. Technically, nearly all of the organizations on that list, including the one we are members of, are branches of the restoration begun by Joseph Smith. Which ones apostatized is a subjective call based on the beliefs of the individual making the statement. As Calm notes, off-shoot is essentially the same definition as branch. Schismatic off-shoot is a bit tedious and would also have to apply the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I doubt you’d want to refer to us as such. I think I’ll stick with branch. It fits and seems easy to fairly apply. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted October 22, 2018 Posted October 22, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, rockpond said: Technically, nearly all of the organizations on that list, including the one we are members of, are branches of the restoration begun by Joseph Smith. Which ones apostatized is a subjective call based on the beliefs of the individual making the statement. As Calm notes, off-shoot is essentially the same definition as branch. Schismatic off-shoot is a bit tedious and would also have to apply the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I doubt you’d want to refer to us as such. I think I’ll stick with branch. It fits and seems easy to fairly apply. If you believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is only a “branch” of the church that Christ restored through the prophet Joseph Smith, then you and I differ fundamentally in our respective beliefs and understanding about said Church and, I’m afraid, are hopelessly at loggerheads in this matter. I don’t see much point in continuing the conversation. Edited October 22, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted October 22, 2018 Posted October 22, 2018 10 hours ago, Calm said: Google has as a definition for off shoot "branch" ("a side shoot or branch on a plant"), so while you (Scott) might feel it is off in connotation, it comes across as a more subjective choice than standard for me, especially after looking at the Wikipedia article on Christian denomination and how they used "branches" (though I think some of the information itself is inaccurate): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_denomination add-on: "Lamanites" are at times described as a branch of the House of Israel, though when they are a political entity opposing those who are followers of the Gospel in the Book of Mormon , etc., they are surely an apostate group unaffiliated with the then Saints. A normative definition of “branch” is “a part of something larger.” I don’t see The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Warren Jeffs group as being two parts of a single entity. I see them as separate and distinct.
rockpond Posted October 22, 2018 Posted October 22, 2018 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: If you believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is only a “branch” of the church that Christ restored through the prophet Joseph Smith, then you and I differ fundamentally in our respective beliefs and understanding about said Church and, I’m afraid, are hopelessly at loggerheads in this matter. I don’t see much point in continuing the conversation. I guess that’s where we differed... I was under the impression that we were discussing objective terminology, not terms that would reinforce our personal testimonies. 1
rockpond Posted October 22, 2018 Posted October 22, 2018 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: A normative definition of “branch” is “a part of something larger.” I don’t see The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Warren Jeffs group as being two parts of a single entity. I see them as separate and distinct. To pretend that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has nothing to do with and had no part in creating the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is short-sighted and irresponsible. 1
Gray Posted October 22, 2018 Posted October 22, 2018 (edited) Maybe it's best to say that all LDS-related religious groups are branches of the Latter-day Saint movement, whose oldest surviving branches are the Community of Christ and the COJCOLDS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latter_Day_Saint_movement Edited October 22, 2018 by Gray
rockpond Posted October 22, 2018 Posted October 22, 2018 50 minutes ago, Gray said: Maybe it's best to say that all LDS-related religious groups are branches of the Latter-day Saint movement, whose oldest surviving branches are the Community of Christ and the COJCOLDS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latter_Day_Saint_movement Accurate. But... SO many things in there that Scott’s gonna disagree with. 1
Recommended Posts