Scott Lloyd Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Would "CJCLDS culture" work? Or must I say "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints culture"? Not sure how to properly speak to the culture, rather than church as an institution. How are we to coherently refer to the people or ethnicity. At least we could use "Mormon culture" in order to separate the popular culture from the official institution. What sort of substitute terminology exists? I'm chiding you largely in jest. But my understanding of the prophet's directive is that we are to avoid the use of abbreviations as well as the use of "Mormon" in reference to the Church of Jesus Christ itself. I won't split hairs over this with you. President Nelson's directive is well-documented, and you are as capable as I of analyzing it. It is what it is. If you have a problem with it, your quarrel is with him, not me. Edited January 23, 2019 by Scott Lloyd 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 30 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I think the culture of the Latter-day Saints can accurately be described as Latter-day Saint culture, and I see nothing wrong with shortening this descriptor to LDS on a message board. The Church's style guide certainly doesn't oppose it, just the use of the abbreviation 'as [a substitute] for the name of the Church, as in ... "LDS Church". My perspective is that, even when referring to the people and/or culture, it is preferred that "Latter-day Saints" be used as opposed to abbreviations such as "LDS." This is a new wrinkle that is unique to the most recently revised instruction on this matter. Link to comment
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: My perspective is that, even when referring to the people and/or culture, it is preferred that "Latter-day Saints" be used as opposed to abbreviations such as "LDS." This is a new wrinkle that is unique to the most recently revised instruction on this matter. I reread the updated style guide; I'm not seeing it. The only times the abbreviation is mentioned, it's in reference to avoiding the phrase 'LDS Church'. I'm fine with that. 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I reread the updated style guide; I'm not seeing it. The only times the abbreviation is mentioned, it's in reference to avoiding the phrase 'LDS Church'. I'm fine with that. From the style guide, pertaining to referencing members of the Church: Quote When referring to Church members, the terms "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or "Latter-day Saints" are preferred. We ask that the term "Mormons" not be used. While this portion does not appear explicitly to prohibit abbreviation, its omission from this expressed preference causes me to think that said preference is that we avoid abbreviations altogether, whether referring to the Church itself, its members or the culture appertaining thereto. Edited January 23, 2019 by Scott Lloyd Link to comment
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: While this portion does not appear explicitly to prohibit abbreviation, it's omission from this expressed preference causes me to think that said preference is that we avoid abbreviations altogether, whether referring to the Church itself, its members or the culture appertaining thereto. Happy for you to think that. 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Happy for you to think that. I believe my reasoning is sound. From my personal observation (admittedly not exhaustive), the use of the abbreviation "LDS" has been absent from Church content newly published since President Nelson's directive was issued. I see this as a model for what the Church leaders would like the rest of us to do. Link to comment
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I believe my reasoning is sound. I'm likewise happy for you to believe that. Quote I see this as a model for what the Church leaders would like the rest of us to do. I see this reasoning as parallel to those who argue that men in the Church need to model their dress and grooming on that of the General Authorities. On this point, we had an Area Seventy attend our first stake conference last year. In the adult session, he chose to chastise male returned missionaries for not maintaining the strict grooming standards of their missions. 'You need to still look like missionaries', he said emphatically. 'Look to the Brethren as you example. Do you look like them? Do you look like the Saviour?' I'm guessing an image of the Saviour passed through his mind at that very moment because he completely stopped speaking long enough that the silence got awkward. When he resumed, it was on a completely different topic. 2 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I'm chiding you largely in jest. But my understanding of the prophet's directive is that we are to avoid the use of abbreviations as well as the use of "Mormon" in reference to the Church of Jesus Christ itself. I won't split hairs over this with you. President Nelson's directive is well-documented, and you are as capable as I of analyzing it. It is what it is. If you have a problem with it, your quarrel is with him, not me. My question was a sincere one and I have no problem with Pres Nelson's directive. What I was asking was how to apply it to the culture rather than the church as an institution. Does the Prophet only want us to apply this to "the church itself," as you suggest, and leave references to the culture or ethnicity to our own creativity? Surely this is a legitimate journalistic question, as well as an academic one. So, all jesting aside, is there a way to go about this which makes sense and sounds right? I am not even sure that "LDS culture" sounds right. Sounds far too religious, and there are many non-religious aspects to what we have long termed Mormon culture. But maybe I just don't get it. 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 30 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I'm likewise happy for you to believe that. I see this reasoning as parallel to those who argue that men in the Church need to model their dress and grooming on that of the General Authorities. I perceive that President Nelson's instruction on the matter of the proper way to refer to the Church has been rather more emphatic and urgent than that. Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) 37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: My question was a sincere one and I have no problem with Pres Nelson's directive. What I was asking was how to apply it to the culture rather than the church as an institution. Does the Prophet only want us to apply this to "the church itself," as you suggest, and leave references to the culture or ethnicity to our own creativity? Surely this is a legitimate journalistic question, as well as an academic one. So, all jesting aside, is there a way to go about this which makes sense and sounds right? I am not even sure that "LDS culture" sounds right. Sounds far too religious, and there are many non-religious aspects to what we have long termed Mormon culture. But maybe I just don't get it. I long ago got over being worried about sounding "too religious" when referring to the Savior's Church. As for culture, it may be that my view of what constitutes the culture of the Latter-day Saints is narrower than yours. Not that I'm inclined to get in a discussion about it at the moment and thereby derail this thread.* *Edited to add: I just remembered what the topic of this thread is and realized that I don't feel all that reverential toward it that I'm worried about it being derailed. 😉😁 Edited January 23, 2019 by Scott Lloyd Link to comment
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I perceive that President Nelson's instruction on the matter of the proper way to refer to the Church has been rather more emphatic and urgent than that. I 100 per cent agree. And clearer, too! But you're extrapolating from 'the proper way to refer to the Church' into areas that neither Pres Nelson nor the Church Newsroom has addressed. I'm always inclined to identify and resist such 'doctrinal creep' in the Church. Edited January 23, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan 1 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I 100 per cent agree. And clearer, too! But you're extrapolating from 'the proper way to refer to the Church' into areas that neither Pres Nelson nor the Church Newsroom has addressed. I'm always inclined to identify and resist such 'doctrinal creep' in the Church. I've explained my reasoning, and I don't accept the charge of having perpetrated "doctrinal creep." I see it as more a matter of endeavoring to comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the instruction. But I do think this a matter on which reasonable minds can disagree. Edited January 23, 2019 by Scott Lloyd Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) 18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I long ago got over being worried about sounding "too religious" when referring to the Savior's Church. As for culture, it may be that my view of what constitutes the culture of the Latter-day Saints is narrower than yours. Not that I'm inclined to get in a discussion about it at the moment and thereby derail this thread.* *Edited to add: I just remembered what the topic of this thread is and realized that I don't feel all that reverential toward it that I'm worried about it being derailed. 😉😁 Well, then, if derailment isn't such a problem, why not offer some advice on how to go about referring to the broader culture of the M-people? The culture is certainly not the same thing as the church as an institution. The culture is measured by sociological, political, psychological, and anthropological analyses -- which includes a lot of different types of people, say Jack-Mormons and other less than active M-people. I recall, for example, an analysis of the general opinions of M-people in Utah compared with the opinions of M-people in California. Not only were the opinions not the same in a broad range of categories, but the M-people of Utah even had more in common with their non-M intermountain West neighbors than they did with California M-people. That suggests that certain aspects of the culture may be local/regional rather than worldwide. Moreover, it seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that Pres Nelson was not referring exclusively to the church as an institution. He did not appear to be happy with references to the M-people in general, but I may have misunderstood. However, if that is true, then how can the church be differentiated from M-culture in a journalistic context? In an academic one? Is that even possible? Edited January 24, 2019 by Robert F. Smith 2 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I think the culture of the Latter-day Saints can accurately be described as Latter-day Saint culture, and I see nothing wrong with shortening this descriptor to LDS on a message board. The Church's style guide certainly doesn't oppose it, just the use of the abbreviation 'as [a substitute] for the name of the Church, as in ... "LDS Church". The Style Guide says: "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." I just don't see that as fulfilling journalistic or academic needs in referring to M-people. I am looking for a reasonable way to refer to the people, not the church as an institution. That is easily done with Jews, for example. One can study them in various categories, or generally as the Jewish people, and no one objects. We can single out Orthodox Jews, or Reform Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, etc. Makes conversation and academic study fluid and meaningful. The same when referring to Italian Catholics, or American Catholics. One is not expected to use the official name of the Holy Roman Catholic Church in discussing the regional culture. Italian Catholics, for example, do not agree with some demands made by the Pope and the official church. How can one even discuss that without using different terminology for people and church? Edited January 23, 2019 by Robert F. Smith 1 Link to comment
Popular Post Thinking Posted January 23, 2019 Author Popular Post Share Posted January 23, 2019 I think it's funny that this topic has morphed from posters being critical about me splitting hairs about bednar's math to posters splitting hairs about the semantics involving the name of the LDS Church. 6 Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Well, then, if derailment isn't such a problem, why not offer some advice on how to go about referring to the broader culture of the M-people? The culture is certainly not the same thing as the church as an institution. The culture is measured by sociological, political, psychological, and anthropological analyses -- which includes a lot of different types of people, say Jack-Mormons and other less than active M-people. I recall, for example, an analysis of the general opinions of M-people in Utah compared with the opinions of M-people in California. Not only were the opinions not the same in a broad range of categories, but the M-people of Utah even had more in common with their non-M intermountain West neighbors than they did with California M-people. That suggests that certain aspects of the culture may be local/regional rather than worldwide. Moreover, it seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that Pres Nelson was not referring exclusively to the church as an institution. He did not appear to be happy with references to the M-people in general, but I may have misunderstood. However, it that is true, then how can the church be differentiated from M-culture in a journalistic context? In an academic one? Is that even possible? You appear to be laboring under the mistaken belief that I am a spokesman for President Nelson. That is in so sense true, although as a Latter-day Saint, I do support him and intend as best I can to abide by his admonition appertaining to referencing the Church. So far, I have not found it too difficult or troublesome. Edited January 23, 2019 by Scott Lloyd Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Thinking said: I think it's funny that this topic has morphed from posters being critical about me splitting hairs about bednar's math to posters splitting hairs about the semantics involving the name of the LDS Church. Sorry for whatever part I may have played in that. I made a light-hearted rejoinder to Bob’s ersatz commentary in which he referred to the Church by the name “Mormon” and then did a strike-through over the name and then referred to the Church with initials. Bob apparently wants to turn this into a protracted and aggressive discussion, which I have tried to back away from a couple of times. I’m making one more attempt, this time in earnest. Edited January 23, 2019 by Scott Lloyd 1 Link to comment
ttribe Posted January 23, 2019 Share Posted January 23, 2019 Discussion of Elder Bednar's math? Pedantic. Piggy-back discussion of "LDS"? Pedantic on steroids. 3 Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: You appear to be laboring under the mistaken belief that I am a spokesman for President Nelson. That is in so sense true, although as a Latter-day Saint, I do support him and intend as best I can to abide by his admonition appertaining to referencing the Church. So far, I have not found it too difficult or troublesome. No, I did not think that you were a spokesperson for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or for any of the Brethren. I only sought your journalistic expertise. You have obviously given this some thought. I am really at a loss as to know how to wend my way through the new stylistic maze. Not even sure that it is possible. Edited January 24, 2019 by Robert F. Smith Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 6 hours ago, Thinking said: I think it's funny that this topic has morphed from posters being critical about me splitting hairs about bednar's math to posters splitting hairs about the semantics involving the name of the LDS Church. So true. Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 2 hours ago, ttribe said: Discussion of Elder Bednar's math? Pedantic. Piggy-back discussion of "LDS"? Pedantic on steroids. My humble apologies, ttribe. Link to comment
ttribe Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said: My humble apologies, ttribe. Are you kidding?! I was thoroughly entertained! Link to comment
Robert F. Smith Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 1 hour ago, ttribe said: Are you kidding?! I was thoroughly entertained! You like pedantry on steroids? Link to comment
ttribe Posted January 24, 2019 Share Posted January 24, 2019 (edited) 11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: You like pedantry on steroids? It was funny watching pedants argue...that's just message boards sometimes, though. ETA: For the record, I am an accountant; I know how to elevate the pedantry level in a room in no 2.2 seconds...faster than a McLaren 720S to 60! Edited January 24, 2019 by ttribe 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts