DeseretNews: Focusing on the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/23/2019 at 11:53 PM, california boy said:

What is so hard for you to understand about "I was thinking the Deseret News"

That’s one publication. You said “publications” in the plural. I really was wondering if you included the Tribune in that generalization. I’ve gotten the sense it has endeavored to comply to some degree with President Nelson’s expressed desire, though I can’t be sure of that, because I don’t read it regularly or even frequently. 

That said, the Tribune is definitely not Church controlled. Hence, my comment that the very idea is laughable. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Valentinus said:

This makes me curious. When and why did the church add the subtitle to the BoM? It doesn't make sense to add it after so long a time so that having Christ's name on the book grabs the attention of nonmembers or to soothe nonmembers Christian sensibilities so as to provide a common ground. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, the article "The" was not part of the original book binding or title page. Likewise an odd addition.

You really don’t think the figure, doctrine and testimony of Christ pervades every portion of the Book of Mormon?

[Damien the Leper]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You really don’t think the figure, doctrine and testimony of Christ pervades every portion of the Book of Mormon?

It wasn't originally part of it. If the BoM is scripture then it should be a witness in and of itself without any qualifiers. If "Book of Mormon" was good enough when JS was alive then it is perfectly fine today. Is there an actual commandment concerning the subtitle or the article I referenced before? If not, then both parts are equally unnecessary.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

It wasn't originally part of it. If the BoM is scripture then it should be a witness in and of itself without any qualifiers. If "Book of Mormon" was good enough when JS was alive then it is perfectly fine today. Is there an actual commandment concerning the subtitle or the article I referenced before? If not, then both parts are equally unnecessary.

Are you bothered by the separation into chapters and by the chapter synopses? How about the footnotes, cross referenced and index? The versification? The page numbers? The double-column page format? The pronunciation key? The copyright notice and other elements on the title page? The Arnold Friberg paintings and captions? Surely these things were not present when Joseph Smith translated the record. 

[Damien the Leper]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you bothered by the separation into chapters and by the chapter synopses? How about the footnotes, cross referenced and index? The versification? The page numbers? The double-column page format? The pronunciation key? The copyright notice and other elements on the title page? The Arnold Friberg paintings and captions? Surely these things were not present when Joseph Smith translated the record. 

First, McConkie didn't do a very good job in trying to create a more reader friendly version as compared to the 1834 Kirtland Edition. 

Second, those additions do nothing to portray or maintain a theological agenda.

Can you answer in good faith why the additions I referenced were added? Why wasn't including Christ in the original title a commandment at best or just simply included at least?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Valentinus said:

First, McConkie didn't do a very good job in trying to create a more reader friendly version as compared to the 1834 Kirtland Edition. 

Second, those additions do nothing to portray or maintain a theological agenda.

Can you answer in good faith why the additions I referenced were added? Why wasn't including Christ in the original title a commandment at best or just simply included at least?

I believe the fact of the Book of Mormon being an additional witness of Jesus Christ is so self-evident as to make these questions moot. We don't need documentation of a specific commandment to add a subtitle any more than we need documentation of a commandment to compile an index.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/23/2019 at 12:38 PM, california boy said:

Aventistism.

Their name is often shortened to Adventists.  No confusion with any other church or organization.

 

On 8/23/2019 at 1:04 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t think there is such a word. 

There is a similar word you might be going for, adventism, but it is not precisely the functional equivalent of Mormonism. It refers to a historic movement in Protestantism that comprises a group of churches of which the Seventh Day Adventists are only one. 

I wonder how many people, when encountering the word adventism, immediately associate it with the Seventh Day Adventists. I'm not sure I would have before now. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/23/2019 at 12:38 PM, california boy said:

Aventistism.

Their name is often shortened to Adventists.  No confusion with any other church or organization.

 

On 8/23/2019 at 1:04 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t think there is such a word. 

There is a similar word you might be going for, adventism, but it is not precisely the functional equivalent of Mormonism. It refers to a historic movement in Protestantism that comprises a group of churches of which the Seventh Day Adventists are only one. 

I wonder how many people, when encountering the word adventism, immediately associate it with the Seventh Day Adventists. I'm not sure I would have before now. 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/24/2019 at 7:00 AM, california boy said:

Thanks for posting this so I could read it.  I guess this is one way to address the problem.  The author just used the word "they" and let you figure out who the heck he is referring to.  It will be interesting to see how others deal with this problem.

Are you seriously saying a reasonably intelligent reader could not understand the antecedent of "they" in this article? How many different churches are being referred to here? I only see one.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/23/2019 at 3:32 PM, california boy said:

Adventism | Definition of Adventism by Merriam-Webster

Definition of Adventism. 1 : the doctrine that the second coming of Christ and the end of the world are near at hand. 2 : the principles and practices of Seventh-Day Adventists.

Here is a Wikipedia article indicating that the term Adventism applies not just to Seventh Day Adventists but to many other churches as well. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

46 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here is a Wikipedia article indicating that the term Adventism applies not just to Seventh Day Adventists but to many other churches as well. 

I think that is a perfect analogue to ‘Mormonism’, which likewise applies to all Restoration sects and not just The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

[california boy]

59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you seriously saying a reasonably intelligent reader could not understand the antecedent of "they" in this article? How many different churches are being referred to here? I only see one.

What I am really saying is the article is not written very well.  When you rely on "they" throughout an article talking about various people within an organization, it is frankly hard to follow.  If I was the editor, there would be red ink all over this article and sent back to be rewritten.  If you can't see what I am talking about, I would be glad to go through the article and point out all the confusing statements and ambiguity the author introduces.  Given your background, I would think that would not be necessary.

Is it confusing what Church the article is about?  No. Is it possible to use the full name of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the beginning of an article and then never mention what church the article is about after that?  Yeah it can be done.  Is that always all that is required in every article?  No.  Sometimes more clarification is needed.

None of this changes the fact that what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wants to do is awkward and I believe for most editors isn't going to work no matter how much the Church wants it to happen.  The second uses the Church has come up with are confusing and not associated exclusively with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  They don't clarify anything.  They only add to the confusion.  Heck, even most members can't get this to work.

 

Just read this quote from you from the John Gee thread.

Quote

 

Scott Lloyd

Who is that person? (By the way, I don't like the singular they/their. I find it confusing.)

 

 

Edited August 26, 2019 by california boy

[california boy]

51 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here is a Wikipedia article indicating that the term Adventism applies not just to Seventh Day Adventists but to many other churches as well. 

So what are you saying here Scott?  There is no need for a replacement of the word Mormonism?  Just how would that work?

[Damien the Leper]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe the fact of the Book of Mormon being an additional witness of Jesus Christ is so self-evident as to make these questions moot. We don't need documentation of a specific commandment to add a subtitle any more than we need documentation of a commandment to compile an index.

If it is so self evident then the subtitle was never needed and does nothing more to promote the book than when the subtitle wasn't there. This isn't very difficult. Adding the subtitle was moot and it should just be dismissed outright.

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Heck, even most members can't get this to work.

I don't find it difficult. At all. I've never really used the word Mormon to refer to either the Church or its members.

I feel confident that you could hand me pretty much any news report that does, and I could easily rewrite it according to the Church's style guide without any undue awkwardness. I did a quick Google search earlier today in Portuguese, and the first news article that came up consistently used the full or shortened name of the Church. The only exception was the phrase 'mais sabido como os Mórmons' -- 'better known as the Mormons'.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think that is a perfect analogue to ‘Mormonism’, which likewise applies to all Restoration sects and not just The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

The Community of Christ rejects the term Mormon or Mormonism for itself. I’m not sure how many of the other break-off groups, if any, embrace it. I don’t agree it’s a perfect analogue. 

For example, I’ve never heard or seen members of Warren Jeffs’ FLDS group self-identify as Mormons. I’m curious if you are aware of any in particular that do. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Valentinus said:

If it is so self evident then the subtitle was never needed and does nothing more to promote the book than when the subtitle wasn't there. This isn't very difficult. Adding the subtitle was moot and it should just be dismissed outright.

What evidence do you have that it “does nothing more to promote the book”? Why wouldn’t someone hearing about the book for the first time and not knowing anything about it gain information about it from the subtitle? 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[sjdawg]

On 8/24/2019 at 11:40 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Now, with this most recent directive, the Church President is signaling that he means business on this point, or rather, the Lord through the instrumentality of the prophet is showing that He means business. 

I believe that with this most recent directive the Church President is signaling that he is addressing a personal pet peeve of his

[let’s roll]

29 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

I believe that with this most recent directive the Church President is signaling that he is addressing a personal pet peeve of his

Or inviting members of Christ’s church  to better understand and keep the covenants they made at baptism and that they renew each week when they partake of the sacrament.

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, sjdawg said:

I believe that with this most recent directive the Church President is signaling that he is addressing a personal pet peeve of his

He said the Lord had impressed it upon his mind. If it’s a “pet peeve,” that’s undoubtedly the reason. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, let’s roll said:

Or inviting members of Christ’s church  to better understand and keep the covenants they made at baptism and that they renew each week when they partake of the sacrament.

And to follow the clear admonition from Christ Himself in 3 Nephi. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

What I am really saying is the article is not written very well.  When you rely on "they" throughout an article talking about various people within an organization, it is frankly hard to follow.  If I was the editor, there would be red ink all over this article and sent back to be rewritten.  If you can't see what I am talking about, I would be glad to go through the article and point out all the confusing statements and ambiguity the author introduces.  Given your background, I would think that would not be necessary.

 

I have a university education and nearly 40 years of experience in writing and editing news stories professionally. This one is well done. I say you don’t like it because it doesn’t sustain the narrative you are trying to push. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[6EQUJ5]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And to follow the clear admonition from Christ Himself in 3 Nephi. 

Here is a mind tickle for today:

Who is showing more loyalty and devotion to the Savior: 

1.  A Christ-like gay man who shows kindness and love but still refers to the improper name of the Church ... or

2. A modern-day pharisee who looks for every opportunity to divide the Saints and show his/her own superior piety?

[california boy]

29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have a university education and nearly 40 years of experience in writing and editing news stories professionally. This one is well done. I say you don’t like it because it doesn’t sustain the narrative you are trying to push. 

A ridiculous accusation.  I couldn't care less if this article uses the full name of the church or not when commenting on how poorly the article is written.  I actually thanked Duncan for posting it because I wanted to read how an article may be written.  It doesn't mean the article isn't poorly written.  

Without going through the entire article, let me show you a few paragraphs to illustrate what I mean.

Quote

 

"They determine the location based on membership (who is they the article refers to? Local leaders? Church leaders in SLC?  the local members?) and geographical distance to a temple. Currently, the members in Winnipeg need to travel to Regina if they (does this "they" refer to local members or leaders?  Is it different from the "they in the sentence right before this one?  where did we make a transition to what group this refers to?)  want to attend a temple because that’s their nearest temple. They (Now who is "they" refer to? Are we still talking about local members? Did we switch to local leaders?  Or is this "they" refer to Church leaders in SLC) look at how their membership has to sacrifice and travel," she said.

"Since Manitobans need to go to another province, that was one of the factors that determined the temple being built here. They (who is this "they"?  Members? Local leaders?  Church leaders?) want the temple to be used by the membership, so they (Is this the same "they" as the beginning of the sentence?  Are all of these "they" referring to the same group?) want the blessings of the temple to be more accessible to all people so they don’t have to incur all of the travel and the time and the cost."

Baronins' husband, Richard, is a regional church leader who joined the church at 20. (Why was this sentence thrown in?  What does it have to do with any of the rest of the article?  What is Richards relevance to the temple being built?  Why are we suppose to care what job Baronins' husband does.  What position is a regional church leader? Does he have a title?  And why do we need to know what age he was when he joined the Church?  Is this relevant to the building of the temple?))  

 

Well written?  These are just a couple of paragraphs.  You serously don't have very high standards.

Edited August 26, 2019 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

A ridiculous accusation.  I couldn't care less if this article uses the full name of the church or not when commenting on how poorly the article is written.  I actually thanked Duncan for posting it because I wanted to read how an article may be written.  It doesn't mean the article isn't poorly written.  

Without going through the entire article, let me show you a few paragraphs to illustrate what I mean.

Well written?  These are just a couple of paragraphs.  You serously don't have very high standards.

 I’m not having the trouble comprehending the article that you claim to be having. I doubt a typical reader would.