Head-scratching headline?

[Scott Lloyd]

On 4/8/2022 at 10:02 AM, rongo said:

What was approved (but with bad logic, in my opinion) was "Latter-day Saints" to refer to members. As some have explained it, this is because it is part of the full name of the Church, while Mormon isn't part of the name at all. But, the rationale behind this has never been explained by Church leaders. "LDS" is anathema.

I think it's clear that President Nelson's intent is to stamp out use of Mormon over time, to stamp out negative associations people have with that. 

Isn’t the reasoning intuitive? It’s too easy for the initialism to be used as a nickname that supplants the name of Jesus Christ in the name of the Church — which was always the problem with “Mormon.”

I don’t recall that “negative associations” with “Mormon” was ever given as the reason for the course correction. It has been clearly and repeatedly explained, however, that using “Mormon” in place of the revealed name of the Church is what the Church leaders want to alleviate. 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

When I saw it, it was “How the Latter-day Saint church….”  It was changed shortly after.  
 

I am thinking there are two, maybe three possibilities, that Rongo saw it with a capital C and someone temporarily changed it to lowercase thinking that might be acceptable, then “church” was removed to make it consistent with the approved style.  Or Rongo saw it with the little “c” and his brain switched it to uppercase as we usually write the Church.

Perhaps Happy Jack clicked on the link and looked as well, which means imo it was likely “C” first if his quote was a response to the headline and not Rongo’s post.  I double-checked given it wasn’t approved style and it may have been a capital C first and a lowercase c the second time, but the lower c was unusual and I paused and really looked, so I am positive it was “c”.  But there is a third possibility that I missaw it since I have been getting very little sleep this week.  But that is unlikely in my view.

Maybe Robert remembers what it was when he saw it.

I am thinking the link Rongo shows may have been the original title missing a few words.  Isn’t that typical?  But that doesn’t show capitalization.

I agree it was awkward as it was before; I’m glad the change was made. I wonder if somebody there reads this board. 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree it was awkward as it was before; I’m glad the change was made. I wonder if somebody there reads this board. 

Surely anyone at DN knows the approved style and could catch the error and get it corrected.  If they read this board, then they would be changing the ward congregation too most likely (assuming they checked to see if we noticed the change).

Edited April 8, 2022 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

Surely anyone at DN knows the approved style and could catch the error and get it corrected.  If they read this board, then they would be changing the ward congregation too most likely (assuming they checked to see if we noticed the change).

Well, obviously not everybody there knows, or it wouldn’t have appeared in the first place. And I don’t know that it’s an error per se so much as awkward wording. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, obviously not everybody there knows, or it wouldn’t have appeared in the first place. And I don’t know that it’s an error per se so much as awkward wording. 

I know the requested way of writing it, but I often forget when in a hurry. The writer of the headline could have been in a hurry and thinking more of what was next on the list of their to dos. 
 

You don’t think it was an error to write “the Latter-day Saint Church/church”?

[strappinglad]

Too bad someone a long time ago didn't patent/ TM the names ' Church of Christ ' and ' Church of Jesus Christ ' as well as COJCOLDS .

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Too bad someone a long time ago didn't patent/ TM the names ' Church of Christ ' and ' Church of Jesus Christ ' as well as COJCOLDS .

I don’t think “COJCOLDS” is approved. It’s an initialism that, like LDS, is apt to be used as a nickname that supplants the name of Christ in the name of the Church. 

[strappinglad]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t think “COJCOLDS” is approved.

Ya, I know . Notice it wasn't in quotes. I just was too lazy to write out the entire name . 👿

[rpn]

On 4/8/2022 at 1:24 PM, caspianrex said:

 isn't the readership of Deseret News mostly Utahns?

Once upon a time it was that way (with just the church news ending up in lds homes around the English-speaking world.

But I read numbers within the last couple of years that made Utahns less than a quarter of the total readership (if I'm recalling it accurately), which is why Deseret News decided long ago (well, before pandemic at least) to go wholly digital.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Ya, I know . Notice it wasn't in quotes. I just was too lazy to write out the entire name . 👿

Oh, so you meant for it to be understood as having been written out. Got it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, rpn said:

Once upon a time it was that way (with just the church news ending up in lds homes around the English-speaking world.

But I read numbers within the last couple of years that made Utahns less than a quarter of the total readership (if I'm recalling it accurately), which is why Deseret News decided long ago (well, before pandemic at least) to go wholly digital.

Not wholly digital. There’s a weekly print edition (with the Church News bundled in it) and a monthly magazine in printed format. But even these are available by subscription globally. 
 

The elimination of the daily print edition was in 2020, not too long ago. 
 

Added later: For about a decade prior to that, the printed Deseret News National Edition (with the Church News bundled in) was available by mail through subscription and not just to Latter-day Saint subscribers. 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 4/8/2022 at 7:53 PM, Calm said:

You don’t think it was an error to write “the Latter-day Saint Church/church”?

I suppose so. It’s too much like “Church of the Latter-day Saints” which has been explicitly frowned upon. 

[Tacenda]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I suppose so. It’s too much like “Church of the Latter-day Saints” which has been explicitly frowned upon. 

I wonder why the church was called this at one time vs. with Jesus Christ in the name. Do you know, just curious not wanting a debate. 

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I wonder why the church was called this at one time vs. with Jesus Christ in the name. Do you know, just curious not wanting a debate. 

Prior to that, it was called the Church of Christ. For a relatively brief period in those early years, the leaders and members were still learning regarding this matter. Finally, settled revelation was given and those two names were in effect combined into one, each element conveying an important truth about the restored Church.
 

Revelation often comes line upon line and precept upon precept as people study, ponder and ask. 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

On 4/8/2022 at 7:53 PM, Calm said:

I know the requested way of writing it, but I often forget when in a hurry. The writer of the headline could have been in a hurry and thinking more of what was next on the list of their to dos. 
 

You don’t think it was an error to write “the Latter-day Saint Church/church”?

One thing to bear in mind is that membership in the Church is not prerequisite for employment at the Deseret News. Quite a number of non-members and even lapsed members have worked there over the years. 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

One thing to bear in mind is that membership in the Church is not prerequisite for employment at the Deseret News. Quite a few non-members and even lapsed members have worked there over the years. 

So there is no training on recommended ways of writing the Church’s name and ways to refer to members, etc?

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, Calm said:

So there is no training on recommended ways of writing the Church’s name and ways to refer to members, etc?

Oh yes, adherence to “style,” including on such things as the name of the Church, is mandated. I’m just saying it’s possible that such errors might creep in from writers who, by personal background, might not have as clear an understanding on Church terminology.