New Symbol to Identify the Church

[teddyaware]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think using the "natural man" metaphor is an excuse to act badly with some people. I don't care for the idea at all. 

Please explain further because I don’t at all understand what you’re meaning to say? 

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

You're just misreading these guys, I hope not intentionally.  There is no such thing as "the" logo.  The question is whether Moroni is "a" logo of the Church.   Logos may be copyrighted, or not.  If not copyrighted they may still be subject to trade dress protection under the Lanham Act.  For instance, the Golden Arches are trade dress.  But McDonald's has other copyrighted items.  

The Church claims an interest in the Moroni figure as it sits atop temples.  I don't know if it claims an interest if other Moroni symbols.  That doesn't mean the Church doesn't have other logos registered or otherwise protected.  The Church, for instance, claims a copyright in our modern version of the Book of Mormon (circa 1979?).  That doesn't mean it doesn't have other copyrights. 

So, you can argue all you want about the Christus coupled with the wording of the church being "the" logo.  It isn't.  It is "a" logo and likely copyrighted, along with hundreds of other copyrights owned by the Church. 

I think <you’re> misreading <me.>
 

I haven’t denied the Church has claimed Moroni as an iconic symbol or representation for certain purposes. It will go on doing so. I wouldn’t want it otherwise. 
 

I’m saying there are certain purposes for which, rather than Moroni, the Church would have probably used the standard symbol I’ve described, i.e. the full name of the Church in distinctive typeface and formatting. These purposes might include stationery; branding on manuals, pamphlets, books, certain websites, films, broadcasts, etc. The new symbol that President Nelson unveiled now replaces that old logo. 

And regardless of who is “misreading” whom, “gaslighting” is an ugly accusation, unwarranted in this instance. They need to stand down from that. 

Edited April 10, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Please explain further because I don’t at all understand what you’re meaning to say? 

I don't like it if someone uses the "natural man" philosophy saying they couldn't help it if they did something wrong, or sin and attribute it to being a natural man. For instance, listening to a recent interview with police officers of the MTC president Joseph Bishop say it was his "natural man" coming out, not in those words.

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for sharing this, it seems odd to me that they would call out this one denomination and give blanket approval for all others.  I wonder if there are other exceptions for other traditions as well.  

It's not just LDS. Here's a handy list. The denominations which are considered invalid are on the second page.

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's not just LDS. Here's a handy list. The denominations which are considered invalid are on the second page.

Really interesting, thanks.  I didn't see the Community of Christ on this list, I wonder if they would be considered valid or not based on how their theology has evolved in recent years.   

[Stargazer]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I don't like it if someone uses the "natural man" philosophy saying they couldn't help it if they did something wrong, or sin and attribute it to being a natural man. For instance, listening to a recent interview with police officers of the MTC president Joseph Bishop say it was his "natural man" coming out, not in those words.

Kind of like "The devil made me do it!"?

The "natural man" in this connection does not refer to humans of the male sex. It refers to all humans everywhere.  All humans are prone to disobey God's laws, and it is their task to learn to overcome the tendency.  It is not a "Get out of jail free" card.  Even if there might be some idiots running out there using it as such.

When the Lord says in DC 121:39: "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion" He is not excusing the behavior. He is describing and condemning it.  And don't think that just because it is "men" being mentioned here, that male humans are the only ones who can exercise unrighteous dominion. Female humans, being humans as well, as likewise prone to the behavior. As well as acting as the "natural man".

I'd like to see someone try to use "it's just my nature to misuse authority" as an excuse for being a petty tyrant.  I'm sure there may be some out there. But it still doesn't justify them.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Stargazer

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Kind of like "The devil made me do it!"?

The "natural man" in this connection does not refer to humans of the male sex. It refers to all humans everywhere.  All humans are prone to disobey God's laws, and it is their task to learn to overcome the tendency.  It is not a "Get out of jail free" card.  Even if there might be some idiots running out there using it as such.

When the Lord says in DC 121:39: "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion" He is not excusing the behavior. He is describing and condemning it.  And don't think that just because it is "men" being mentioned here, that male humans are the only ones who can exercise unrighteous dominion. Female humans, being humans as well, as likewise prone to the behavior. As well as acting as the "natural man".

I'd like to see someone try to use "it's just my nature to misuse authority" as an excuse for being a petty tyrant.  I'm sure there may be some out there. But it still doesn't justify them.

I don’t think petty tyrants would put it in those terms, as it wouldn’t be a good look for them. They would be more apt to say something like, “I have a very hands-on management style” or “I’m very discriminating in my expectations” or “I have no tolerance for incompetence.” 
 

And you’re right, by the way, that “nature and disposition of almost all men” to “exercise unrighteous dominion” applies just as much to women. I could give you an example that comes to mind, but it would be too political for this board, so I won’t. 

[Stargazer]

26 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

And you’re right, by the way, that “nature and disposition of almost all men” to “exercise unrighteous dominion” applies just as much to women. I could give you an example that comes to mind, but it would be too political for this board, so I won’t. 

I'm sure most of us very opinionated members of the board could come up with an example of one sex or the other that would be too political.

I tried to PM you to ask for your example (just curious) but it said you cannot receive messages.  So if you can message me...  

Edited April 10, 2020 by Stargazer

[Tacenda]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t think petty tyrants would put it in those terms, as it wouldn’t be a good look for them. They would be more apt to say something like, “I have a very hands-on management style” or “I’m very discriminating in my expectations” or “I have no tolerance for incompetence.” 
 

And you’re right, by the way, that “nature and disposition of almost all men” to “exercise unrighteous dominion” applies just as much to women. I could give you an example that comes to mind, but it would be too political for this board, so I won’t. 

I know the phrase "natural man", isn't just men. Just like a lot of scriptures only list the usage of "men". And I didn't mean for it to come across as those who have power, being able to use it either, I mean everyone. I believe God created us to have a moral compass, and our natural beings are good, not bad.

Edited April 10, 2020 by Tacenda

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not wrong. I demonstrated with a Wikipedia quote that “logo” is in fact an abbreviation for “logotype,” contrary to your unsubstantiated assertion, and that the word logo, in normative usage, can refer to words, images or both. 
 

And let’s be clear: Though Moroni has long been used commonly as a symbol in the Church (no one here is disputing that), it has not been employed as the official Church logo in uses for which the new symbol is being used today. For that the logo was used that I have described, i.e. full name of the Church in distinctive typeface and formatting with the name Jesus Christ being prominent. 

I have worked in the advertising industry for over 40 years.  I owned my own advertising agency for most of those years.  I have designed hundreds of logos during that time including some fortune 500 companies.  I thought you and others might be interested in the nuances between what. logo is and what a logotype is.  Evidently it is more important to you to be right.

 

From Merriam-Webster dictionary

Definition of logotype

1: a single piece of type or a single plate faced with a term (such as the name of a newspaper or a trademark)

2: LOGO sense 2

Definition of logo

1: LOGOTYPE sense 1

2: an identifying symbol (as for use in advertising)

3: an identifying statement : MOTTO

 

Lets be clear, You accused Fair Dinkum of perpetuating a falsehood, when in FACT, Moroni IS a logo of the Church. 

 

Lets also be clear.  I never said that logo was not an abbreviation for logotype.  I was trying to shed some light on the difference between the two terms. I just thought you and others might be interested in knowing the difference since both types of logos were being discussed.   I know this might surprise you, but not every post is an attack on you.

Edited April 10, 2020 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I'm sure most of us very opinionated members of the board could come up with an example of one sex or the other that would be too political.

I tried to PM you to ask for your example (just curious) but it said you cannot receive messages.  So if you can message me...  

I’m lax about keeping my messages cleaned out. I’m always at my limit, it seems, and people get frustrated when trying to message me. Sorry. 
 

Perhaps I can get away with saying in passing that my example pertains to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings in 2018 on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh for SCOTUS and the behavior of certain senators in the course of those hearings, one in particular who became a candidate for POTUS but (blessedly) did not prevail in her campaign leading up to the primaries. 
 

And I’ll say no more about it. 

Edited April 10, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Fair Dinkum]

On 4/10/2020 at 11:48 AM, california boy said:

I have worked in the advertising industry for over 40 years.  I owned my own advertising agency for most of those years.  I have designed hundreds of logos during that time including some fortune 500 companies.  I thought you and others might be interested in the nuances between what. logo is and what a logotype is.  Evidently it is more important to you to be right.

 

From Merriam-Webster dictionary

Definition of logotype

1: a single piece of type or a single plate faced with a term (such as the name of a newspaper or a trademark)

2: LOGO sense 2

Definition of logo

1: LOGOTYPE sense 1

2: an identifying symbol (as for use in advertising)

3: an identifying statement : MOTTO

 

Lets be clear, You accused Fair Dinkum of perpetuating a falsehood, when in FACT, Moroni IS a logo of the Church. 

 

Lets also be clear.  I never said that logo was not an abbreviation for logotype.  I was trying to shed some light on the difference between the two terms. I just thought you and others might be interested in knowing the difference since both types of logos were being discussed.   I know this might surprise you, but not every post is an attack on you.

I'm kind of new here but I'm getting the sense that Bro. Lloyd doesn't admit to being wrong very often, if ever.  That's ok, I don't require an apology nor an admission of being wrong.  It all stated out as a joke and somehow has completely spun out of control.  I have great respect for Bro. Lloyd.  Anyone who has made over 10,000 posts on this board deserves our respect.

Thank you for trying to get the hang of the board. We do not allow insults and moderators don't take the time to figure out if it is supposed to be a joke. Welcome to the board.

[Stargazer]

4 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I'm kind of new here but I'm getting the sense that Bro. Lloyd doesn't admit to being wrong very often, if ever.  That's ok, I don't require an apology nor an admission of being wrong.  It all stated out as a joke and somehow has completely spun out of control.  I have great respect for Bro. Lloyd.  Anyone who has made over 10,000 posts on this board deserves our respect.

Well, that's because Scott's usually right!   

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

I have worked in the advertising industry for over 40 years.  I owned my own advertising agency for most of those years.  I have designed hundreds of logos during that time including some fortune 500 companies.  I thought you and others might be interested in the nuances between what. logo is and what a logotype is.  Evidently it is more important to you to be right.

 

From Merriam-Webster dictionary

Definition of logotype

1: a single piece of type or a single plate faced with a term (such as the name of a newspaper or a trademark)

2: LOGO sense 2

Definition of logo

1: LOGOTYPE sense 1

2: an identifying symbol (as for use in advertising)

3: an identifying statement : MOTTO

 

Lets be clear, You accused Fair Dinkum of perpetuating a falsehood, when in FACT, Moroni IS a logo of the Church. 

 

Lets also be clear.  I never said that logo was not an abbreviation for logotype.  I was trying to shed some light on the difference between the two terms. I just thought you and others might be interested in knowing the difference since both types of logos were being discussed.   I know this might surprise you, but not every post is an attack on you.

The falsehood is the “goodbye Moroni” nonsense, and it’s not just Fair Dinkum. It’s others as well. Moroni is not going away as a symbol in the Church, and no one has credibly shown otherwise. All that has happened is that one logo (the one unveiled by President Nelson) has replaced another one (the full name of the Church in distinctive type and formatting. 
 

And when I’m accused of “gaslighting” it IS an attack on me. There’s no other way to read it. 

Edited April 10, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I don't like it if someone uses the "natural man" philosophy saying they couldn't help it if they did something wrong, or sin and attribute it to being a natural man. For instance, listening to a recent interview with police officers of the MTC president Joseph Bishop say it was his "natural man" coming out, not in those words.

Do you find “born that way” equally problematic?

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I'm kind of new here but I'm getting the sense that Bro. Lloyd doesn't admit to being wrong very often, if ever.  That's ok, I don't require an apology nor an admission of being wrong.  It all stated out as a joke and somehow has completely spun out of control.  I have great respect for Bro. Lloyd.  Anyone who has made over 10,000 posts on this board deserves our respect.

Thank you for that expression, but 10,000+  posts only means that I’ve been pretty good over time at not getting banned. I don’t know how puffed up I should be about that. Radio Free Mormon (consigliere) seems to wear as a badge of honor that he has been banned from this place three times. 

[Fair Dinkum]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The falsehood is the “goodbye Moroni” nonsense, and it’s not just Fair Dinkum. It’s others as well. Moroni is not going away as a symbol in the Church, and no one has credibly shown otherwise. All that has happened is that one logo (the one unveiled by President Nelson) has replaced another one (the full name of the Church in distinctive type and formatting. 
 

And when I’m accused of “gaslighting” it IS an attack on me. There’s no other way to read it. 

Being new,  I'm still trying to get the lay of the land, but obviously cracking a joke or attempting humor is not taken well by some.  Everything seems to be taken far too seriously and at face value.  To be clear, Bro. Lloyd, no where in my poor attempt at humor did I ever say that Moroni was being retired or was "going away" nor did I suggest Moroni was being relegated to the rubbish bin as a symbol for the church just that one of his most prominent roles was being taken over by Jesus.  You created a straw man and then attacked me with an argument I never made.   In fact I chose my words very carefully to make the point of my joke clear.

Read my original post:

22 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I feel bad for Moroni, he obviously wasn't meeting the boss's expectations.  Imagine how you would feel if the boss came in and took over one of your most important responsibilities for himself.   Ouch. 

 

With respect to my Gaslighting charge, I stand by that accusation.

Edit to Add:

On second thought.  I believe that I am being too harsh.  I'm going to give Bro. Lloyd the benefit of the doubt that he was not Gaslighting us when he said

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why are you perpetuating the falsehood that Moroni was the Church’s logo? You and hft need to get off this kick. 

To be clear, I never asserted that Moroni was THE church logo , my joke only suggested that his image was one of his many responsibilities.  After reviewing this thread I believe Bro Lloyd was making the point that Moroni was never the "Main Official Letter Head Logo" for the church particularity in light of the recent updated "symbol" announcement.  I think we are can both agree that Moroni has and is a symbol used within and out of the church as a identifier of both the church and its members.

I'm ready to move on...I intended no offense and do apologize if my choice of words offended you.

 

 

Edited April 10, 2020 by Fair Dinkum

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think <you’re> misreading <me.>

I am not.  You are fairly clear to read.

[california boy]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The falsehood is the “goodbye Moroni” nonsense, and it’s not just Fair Dinkum. It’s others as well. Moroni is not going away as a symbol in the Church, and no one has credibly shown otherwise. All that has happened is that one logo (the one unveiled by President Nelson) has replaced another one (the full name of the Church in distinctive type and formatting. 
 

And when I’m accused of “gaslighting” it IS an attack on me. There’s no other way to read it. 

But you didn't accuse him of a falsehood to saying "goodbye Moroni".  You accused him of a falsehood of claiming that Moroni was a logo.

Once again, here is the post where you accused him of lying.

Quote

Why are you perpetuating the falsehood that Moroni was the Church’s logo? You and hft need to get off this kick.

 

Now you are claiming that you accused him of lying about  saying "goodbye Moroni" and not about lying that Moroni is a logo.  That never was what you actually said.  What do you call it when you now claim what the accusation  is when that was never the actual accusation?

In any event, I got into this whole discussion to try and shed some light on the nuance between logo and logotype.  I thought maybe you would apologize for calling someone who is actually new here a liar when he didn't deserve that accusation.  Guess not.

 Anyway, I have said my piece, and more than I ever intended to say.  I was just trying to clarify that 1) Angel Moroni is indeed a logo.  2). There is a nuance difference between logo and logotype.  Welcome to the board Fair Dinkum.  Love your name.  Hope you aren't put off by all of this cobber.

 

 

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't like it if someone uses the "natural man" philosophy saying they couldn't help it if they did something wrong, or sin and attribute it to being a natural man. For instance, listening to a recent interview with police officers of the MTC president Joseph Bishop say it was his "natural man" coming out, not in those words.

The natural man isn’t a philosophy, it’s a reality. And just because some emotionally immature people point to their fallen nature as a lame excuse for committing sin - as if they have no choice - doesn’t mean God is going accept their excuses. After all, the gospel of Jesus Christ is all about overcoming the natural man and becoming spiritually reborn to holiness through Christ; it’s not about making excuses for sin because we exist in a fallen state.

Edited April 10, 2020 by teddyaware

[poptart]

On 4/8/2020 at 10:34 PM, MiserereNobis said:

For a baptism to be valid for Catholicism, it has to have (like every sacrament/ordinance): proper intent, proper form, proper matter. For baptism, this means water (matter), form (in the name of the Trinity), and intent (remission of original sin and initiation into Christianity). Thus, protestant baptisms have always been valid. There is no priesthood necessary for a valid baptism.

I had a conditional baptism, for whatever reason they weren't sure about the Lutheran one I had as an infant.  Ohhh boy people at that parish hated Martin Luther....

Found out later from another priest that I was probably good, but who knows.  Can say that either way when I'm dead if/when I see saint Peter I was without a doubt properly baptised, only had to do it twice.

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

I confess to only having a vague understanding of what you are saying, but I will assert this:

Congratulations

That whole thing was verbal mush as far as I can tell.

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Actually, no, after researching the question the Vatican determined that LDS baptisms are not valid because of form and intent. While the words are the same (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), the meaning behind the words is too different to be valid (not just non-Trinitarian, but physical bodies, etc). Also, the lack of intent to remove original sin makes the baptism invalid.

Click here for the official document from the Vatican.

So there you have it

We are all going to hell.

 

[MiserereNobis]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So there you have it

We are all going to hell.

 

Not you, you've been baptized  Just say that act of contrition on your death bed and you and I will meet up in purgatory  

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Actually, no, after researching the question the Vatican determined that LDS baptisms are not valid because of form and intent. While the words are the same (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), the meaning behind the words is too different to be valid (not just non-Trinitarian, but physical bodies, etc). Also, the lack of intent to remove original sin makes the baptism invalid.

Click here for the official document from the Vatican.

And so, you have it here again, "substance" which can mean anything and nothing vs "function" which is perfectly definable, linked to teleology, and may I add the core of Pragmatic philosophy, and why the "Trinity" makes no sense to me.

Quote from the site you quoted above:

"The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI, Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372). The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552). "

No "substance" indeed, thank God!!

Our Godhead is not one in substance, but in function, purpose, and love.

"God is love" makes perfect sense.

The unity of the three persons is one of purpose and love, that unity makes them One God, and  so yes, "God" IS love!

"God is substance"?

Show me that one in the scriptures.!

That trumps the Nicene Creed "consubstantiality "any day.

And that goes just as well for Protestants as Catholics, and any group who defines the Trinity through substance.

Edited April 10, 2020 by mfbukowski