Views on Name Correction vs. Wrong Name Continuance

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, sjdawg said:

I guess we remember differently

 

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-ads-new-york-city

 

I already addressed this by saying this doesn’t strike me as marketing the Church so much as conveying a positive public image of its members (see Richard Hinckley’s quoted comments in your link). To me, “marketing” connotes overt selling of the doctrines and beliefs, recruitment, etc. 

I recognize we can have differing understanding and interpretations about the meaning of the term “marketing,” but apparently some here will not tolerate such honest disagreement. 

Edited April 9, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[sjdawg]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I already addressed this by saying this doesn’t strike me as marketing the Church so much as conveying a positive public image of its members (see Richard Hinckley’s quoted comments in your link). To me, “marketing” connotes overt selling of the doctrines and beliefs, recruitment, etc. 

I recognize we can have differing understanding and interpretations about the meaning of the term “marketing,” but apparently some here will not tolerate such honest disagreement. 

Fair enough.  

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

Fair enough.  

Thank you. That’s refreshing. 

[sjdawg]

59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thank you. That’s refreshing. 

I did go back and re-read the article I posted.  It did mention the campaign was more about demonstrating the diversity that exists among membership and less about promoting specific doctrine.  I do still find it strange that the word "mormon" featured so prominently in an advertising campaign now that the church seems to be distancing itself from the term but your viewpoint doesn't seem unreasonable.  We can disagree but I think I understand where you are coming from.

Edited April 9, 2019 by sjdawg

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, sjdawg said:

I did go back and re-read the article I posted.  It did mention the campaign was more about demonstrating the diversity that exists among membership and less about promoting specific doctrine.  I do still find it strange that the word "mormon" featured so prominently in an advertising campaign now that the church seems to be distancing itself from the term but your viewpoint doesn't seem unreasonable.  We can disagree but I think I understand where you are coming from.

It does seem remarkable in hindsight, given President Nelson’s recent directives.  But contrary to what some here have stated or implied, I don’t believe the Church was intent on promoting the use of the name “Mormon” so much as taking advantage of it as an identifier as it was already in general use among the public. It would have made the campaign far more difficult had an identifier been used that was not so easily recognized by the public. 

Edited to add: It would be like Democratic politicians using the term “Obamacare,” not because they desire to promote the use of that name, but rather, out of understanding that the majority of the public is more apt to recognize it by that colloquial title than they are by the formal title Affordable Care Act. 

Edited April 10, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Anijen]

On 3/30/2019 at 8:52 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

irelevent

I just chose a random message of yours to say email or message me please (i can't message you for some reason). I might have some options for you to consider considering law licence to practice

[pogi]

On 3/29/2019 at 11:28 AM, hope_for_things said:

The idea of a God that cares about labels and names more than other seemingly much more important priorities, like poverty, slavery, abuse, is concerning to me theologically speaking.  

Prophets have spoken and worked towards preventing and alleviating poverty and abuse forever, and will continue to do so.  How does one talk about the name of the church tell you that God cares more about this issue than the other ones?

Edited April 17, 2019 by pogi

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, Anijen said:

I just chose a random message of yours to say email or message me please (i can't message you for some reason). I might have some options for you to consider considering law licence to practice

I have the same problem you describe above.  I can be reached at Ken(dot)Gourdin(at)gmail.com.

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I have the same problem you describe above.  I can be reached at Ken(dot)Gourdin(at)gmail.com.

Thanks, check your email

[Anonymous Mormon]

On 4/3/2019 at 9:11 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

I personally doubt that. But we have evidence from the D&C that 'try it and see what happens' is not an uncommon response from a loving Father who is more interested in inducting His children into the family business than He is in satisfying those who need prophets to be robots and God to be an intergalactic vending machine.

Hamba - I 100% agree with what you are saying. I am curious what evidence from D&C you are referring to that backs up this assumption that 'try it and see what happens' is a common respond from Heavenly Father? What about New Testament?

[Tacenda]

I am a fan somewhat with Al Fox Carraway, the tattooed mormon girl. I started watching her YouTube or blogs. I noticed on her blog that she said she belongs to the church of Jesus Christ. And left out "of Latter Day Saints". Do members see this much? I'm all for leaving out "latter day saints". Because most don't live up to that description. Here's a link to Al's blog post that I'm speaking if.

https://alcarraway.com/about-me/

[Raingirl]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I am a fan somewhat with Al Fox Carraway, the tattooed mormon girl. I started watching her YouTube or blogs. I noticed on her blog that she said she belongs to the church of Jesus Christ. And left out "of Latter Day Saints". Do members see this much? I'm all for leaving out "latter day saints". Because most don't live up to that description. Here's a link to Al's blog post that I'm speaking if.

https://alcarraway.com/about-me/

So you’ve actually met “most” members of the Church? And observed their lives on an intimate,   daily basis? Because that is the only way you could make that statement with any degree of legitimacy.

If you have such a low opinion of the members of the Church, it’s rather bizarre that you spend years interacting with them on the internet.

 

[Joshua Valentine]

On 4/9/2019 at 11:53 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

It does seem remarkable in hindsight, given President Nelson’s recent directives.  But contrary to what some here have stated or implied, I don’t believe the Church was intent on promoting the use of the name “Mormon” so much as taking advantage of it as an identifier as it was already in general use among the public. It would have made the campaign far more difficult had an identifier been used that was not so easily recognized by the public. 

Edited to add: It would be like Democratic politicians using the term “Obamacare,” not because they desire to promote the use of that name, but rather, out of understanding that the majority of the public is more apt to recognize it by that colloquial title than they are by the formal title Affordable Care Act. 

I think it would be good to review what is at stake in this particular line of this discussion.  If we lose sight of the claimed significance of this evidence, then it can´t help but deteriorate into simple semantics.

I wonder if it might be helpful to consider the following: if Scott Lloyd is correct about the use of ¨Mormon¨ in the I´m a Mormon campaign, then would the Leadership be consistent if they proceeded to do this campaign after releasing the same revelation as Nelson has? We seem to be discussing it in series, while some are trying to explore whether they are consistent. Scott Lloyd seems to be diagnosing the campaign itself as not relevant. So what if this revelation was declared first and by the same set of leadership and then that leadership proceeded to do the campaign.  Would there be no issue?

[sheilauk]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm all for leaving out "latter day saints". Because most don't live up to that description. Here's a link to Al's blog post that I'm 

All believers in Christ live up to that name.   These are the latter days as opposed to the days of the bible and book of Mormon.  And saints is merely another word for Christian or follower of Christ.   To be a saint is to believe in Him and be trying to follow Him.  It doesn't mean saintly, perfect, devout, working miracles, virtuous etc.  The secular meaning is not the same as the biblical meaning which is the meaning inherent in the Church's name.  If we were all saints in the way you are thinking of the term, we probably wouldn't need the Church.  ☺

If I remember correctly,  the name use suggestion said using just the Church of Jesus Christ was acceptable. 

Al is a terrific lady.   

[Joshua Valentine]

16 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

So you’ve actually met “most” members of the Church? And observed their lives on an intimate,   daily basis? Because that is the only way you could make that statement with any degree of legitimacy.

If you have such a low opinion of the members of the Church, it’s rather bizarre that you spend years interacting with them on the internet.

 

Whoa. While you have a point Raingirl. I´m not sure its necessary to come down so hard on Tacenda.

From constant claims of the people not being perfect, humans being humans, etc. - and given a high definition of a ¨Saint¨- one could easily conclude that most members do not claim to fulfill such a high title.

But then there is the issue of what qualifies as a Saint; how high of a definition are we going to use for it? One could argue since LDS have been deemed Saints from Joseph Smith up to today, then the definition is pretty high yet members fulfill it or that the definition is pretty inclusive and so members generally fulfill it. Perhaps it would be better to explore what Tacenda means by Saint so that we can better know what she is denying most members?

Lastly, is it automatically ¨such a low opinion of members of the Church¨ to deny them the title of Saint? Can Tacenda not consider them good people, even good members, while still claiming they are not quite ¨Saints¨? This is even less clear without the specification of the definition/standard first. But you seem to be offering an extreme opposition.

Such an extreme dichotomy - either Saint or ¨so low¨ - I could respond to your implication here, Raingirl, and assert ¨If you have such a low opinion of non-members of the Church, it´s rather bizarre that you spend years interacting with them in the world.¨

But, I know you are defending your people here, Raingirl.  So, I understand the vigor.

[Tacenda]

52 minutes ago, Raingirl said:

So you’ve actually met “most” members of the Church? And observed their lives on an intimate,   daily basis? Because that is the only way you could make that statement with any degree of legitimacy.

If you have such a low opinion of the members of the Church, it’s rather bizarre that you spend years interacting with them on the internet.

 

Welcome to the world of a person that suffered a crisis of faith in their specific belief system.

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I am a fan somewhat with Al Fox Carraway, the tattooed mormon girl. I started watching her YouTube or blogs. I noticed on her blog that she said she belongs to the church of Jesus Christ. And left out "of Latter Day Saints". Do members see this much? I'm all for leaving out "latter day saints". Because most don't live up to that description. Here's a link to Al's blog post that I'm speaking if.

https://alcarraway.com/about-me/

My late wife liked "Church of Jesus Christ" as a shortened way of naming the Church.  I don't think it's all that common, however, among Latter-day Saints.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Joshua Valentine said:

I think it would be good to review what is at stake in this particular line of this discussion.  If we lose sight of the claimed significance of this evidence, then it can´t help but deteriorate into simple semantics.

I wonder if it might be helpful to consider the following: if Scott Lloyd is correct about the use of ¨Mormon¨ in the I´m a Mormon campaign, then would the Leadership be consistent if they proceeded to do this campaign after releasing the same revelation as Nelson has? We seem to be discussing it in series, while some are trying to explore whether they are consistent. Scott Lloyd seems to be diagnosing the campaign itself as not relevant. So what if this revelation was declared first and by the same set of leadership and then that leadership proceeded to do the campaign.  Would there be no issue?

Excellent point.  Let’s bring back the campaign!  Get the ads running again.  Billboards, subway signage, Times Square... let’s cover them with I’m a Mormon again!

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I am a fan somewhat with Al Fox Carraway, the tattooed mormon girl. I started watching her YouTube or blogs. I noticed on her blog that she said she belongs to the church of Jesus Christ. And left out "of Latter Day Saints". Do members see this much? I'm all for leaving out "latter day saints". Because most don't live up to that description. Here's a link to Al's blog post that I'm speaking if.

https://alcarraway.com/about-me/

Umm, "saint" isn't chosen to suggest that members of the church are better in some way than other people.  There's baggage associated with the name that originates with the Catholic Church giving enhanced holiness points to those whom it chose to elevate, post mortem, to the level of a special kind of intercessor.  But the word "saint" was used in the early church to designate members of the church.

The Apostle Paul began his letter to the Ephesians thusly:

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

You can find similar usage in other NT verses.  The members of the church at Ephesus were not in a special holy state. They were members of the Church of Jesus Christ.  

And more:

• 2 Corinthians 1:1 - Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:
• Romans 15:25-26, 31 - But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem... That I may be delivered from them that do not believe in Judæa; and that my service which I have for Jerusalem may be accepted of the saints;
• Acts 9:13 - Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem:
• Philippians 4:21 - Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren which are with me greet you.

The way I see it, usage of the word saint, from the Latin word sanctus, meaning holy, is a goal, or something that is being striven for but possibly seldom reached in this life. But it designates the common members of the church, whether they are currently particularly holy at a given moment or not.

I think it is needlessly contentious to deny the appellation to people you've never met, just because there are a few you've had negative experiences with.  Especially since you are a saint in the same way as all other 16 million members of the church.  Are your actions always saintly?  I know mine are not.  But I hope we both aspire to becoming more saintly. 🙂 As should the rest of them, to varying degrees of success, of course.