@2bitsright now LDS.org is the domain name but there's a bunch of
others that redirect there. If they're going to change it they could make a
longer name the domain and have lds.org redirect there.
Pragmatically speaking, if your name has nine words in it, it's on you to
concede to common usage. Not vice versa.
I wonder if the church will get rid of lds dot org and mormon dot org.
It's a lot easier for people to find.I know the church's
real name, but I don't use it all the time. So many people know us as
Mormon's now days.The contraction that bugs me a little, which
I hear outsiders us a lot is... "The Church of Later Day Saints". That
one bugs me because it leaves out the only important part of the church's
name.If you read the scripture where the Lord revealed what he
wanted the church to be called... you understand why keeping that part in there
is super-important.He said, "How be it my church save it be
called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses' name then it be
Moses' church, or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the
church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so
be that they are built upon my gospel" (3 Ne. 27:8)...By
implication, leaving the "Jesus Christ" out of our name... is a serious
slight.That's why members of the church prefer the name that
properly underscores their relationship to Christ.Just so people
understand why it's quite important to us to not leave the "Jesus
Christ" part out.
It's good policy to address people by their preferred name. It's
particularly annoying when people deliberately use dog whistle terms like
"democrat voter" instead of "democratic voter"!
The church created the problem and the church needs to fix it. Blaming the
media or even individual members is wrong. It is the church that created the
'Mormon' Tabernacle Choir, and 'Mormon.org' and a hundred
other 'Mormon' institutional references, including the 'Book of
Mormon' where it all began. Maybe after another 190 years of referring to
'Christ' instead of 'Mormon' and dumping some of their
peculiar, esoteric founding beliefs (which they are now trying to distance
themselves from) the Church will be seen as much more 'Christian' than
'Mormon'. In my opinion, this is a must if the Church is to survive,
and I believe the brethren have caught on. Members can help, but what message
does it send if you ask them to comply and then release a full length feature
film, sponsored by the church entitled "Meet the MORMONS"?
Generally speaking, it is polite and respectful to refer to someone or a group
by the name they prefer.That said, the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints (apologies if I bungled the name) has a long history of *not*
doing so when it comes to certain people. Using birth-names for trans-folk,
calling gay people "same-sex attracted" against our wishes, refusing to
acknowledge the married-names of gay folk that got married, etc. and so-on.So while I fully plan on doing my best to refer to the church and
it's adherents as they prefer, I think they've earned some ill-will on
this topic, and won't harshly judge anyone that rebukes them.
This is a losing battle because the full formal name of the Church is such a
I figure there are a lot of people that have the name Jesus. I might want to
learn about the Jesus of the Bible.
what is the 'correct" reference for white south africans, e.g., boers,
afrikaans,??? and if they have immigrated to the U.S and become citizens, do thy
qulify s 'african americans.' born in africa??
Suppose that a controversial "religious" organization, such as "The
People's Temple", issued a press guide that insisted they call
themselves by a different name, in order to cover up their history and
disassociate the new leadership with their controversial past?Does
"the media" have any obligation NOT to assist in such a cover-up? Where
does the media's commitment to truth and ethics conflict with their
"obligation" (if any) to respect and honor the request of the
organization?Being called "Mormons" is an unavoidable truth
that is part of the Church's history, whether you like it or not.
Isn't insisting that nobody call you by that name essentially of the same
spirit as tearing down statues of Confederate generals in the South? Isn't
it an attempt to gloss over and/or rewrite history?
Why does a random Church member need to be publishing a FB page called "LDS
Standing United"? Seems like that property should be run by the Church, not
a random member.
I like to be called by my official name even though some people know me by
certain abbreviations especially in the electron media
The media refers to the Democrats as the Democratic Party, even though we all
know that the use of Superdelegates and stealing the primaries from Sanders is
anything but democratic. They refer to a person by whatever sex they prefer in
defiance to all logic and tradition. They refer to the Boy Scouts as "Scouts
BSA" and that was an actual name change. This should be a no-brainer.
The media can call the church whatever it wants. That's why its called the
This article in my mind comes extremely late. This is the article that should
have been run on that very first day of the announcement.The
"style-guide" was clearly meant to be used by journalists (not the
public); yet the journalists on this website and sister site of KSL; ran
articles as if the Prophet was re-naming/re-branding the church, in
"Breaking News" headlines, and then tons of articles on the same topic.
Now weeks later; they finally admit that "style-guides" are used by most
organizations when dealing with the press, and this should have been no
different.Finally they are admitting that the headlines was about
them; and not about the public.Now, whether or not Pres. Nelson
includes members in his admonition to remember Christ as the head of the church,
may still be seen, and I expect he will (mo so in General Conference). But a
"style-guide" is expressly for the press to understand correct usage in
@Hutterite. In a sense you are right. Journalists don’t have any
obligation to a corporation that is not their owner. But they do
have an obligation to readers and viewers to accurately and professionally
report. If they don’t, especially in our free society, people eventually
stop reading, watching and listening. Professionalism also demands
some deference to the names individuals and organizations choose to use. Chosen
names should be respected by journalists as long as there is no attempt to
confuse or conceal important factual information.
Jesus Christ, who's church it is, has made it known to his prophet that the
name of his church be used in its proper form as recorded in the Doctrine &
Covenants. Reverence and dignity should guide ones willingness to
honor the request.
In recent days there has been a huge calling from overzealous
“Saints” for Facebook pages, Websites and Twitter accounts to change
their names to reflect the Prophets statement. They have added in the
church’s media style guide to back their claims. They neglect this part of
the style guide:“Mormon” is CORRECTLY used in proper names
such as the Book of Mormon or when used as an adjective in such historical
expressions as “Mormon Trail.”Would this not cover the
proper names of these pages, accounts and websites?I run a Facebook
page called “LDS Standing United” (we have almost 200,000 followers
and I have been inundated with requests to “follow the Prophet.” The
problem is, Facebook pages with more than 100K likes cannot change their names.
This includes the majority of the official Church pages with the names
"Mormon" and "LDS" in them.Until things are clarified I
will continue to publish as “LDS Standing United.” All I can do is
wait and see what the “Church” does with it’s Facebook
pages.In the meantime
Stop attacking me like I’m some
sort of apostate!This crazy “Mormon” mob mentality is
making me feel like a statue in the south during the history purge of 2015.
No one, except maybe church members, are required to show any deference to what
the Mormon church wants to be called. Any media source can reference
the Mormon church the way it wants to.
I think the media should use the requested name of any organization, but the
media should not be expected to make any claim of certainty in doing so.
What is media's role when a church asks to be referred to by its name?Nothing. None. The media doesn't owe deference to any
corporate entity. Including churches.
As a former newspaper journalist and editor, I was always aware of the
church's request in media releases about the name for the church. Even
though the standard was clear in news style guides, I often saw bungled
variations and shuddered at some of them. It will likely take time to have
people come around to using it appropriately.
You should be telling us the role journalists will be taking. It appears your
staff lacks clarity on this issue. At least you admit it.
In areas of the world where the church is just becoming established, or just
beginning to show significant growth, the name "Mormon" may not have the
level of recognition that it would have in the US, Canada, or Mexico. (Think of
areas like India, SE Asia, Africa, or Eastern Europe). In those regions, it may
be less problematic to just use the church's official name consistently
and stick with it.
I fail to see why the article doesn't just talk about the Church, but why
the Deseret News feels the need to bring in the side issues of the
African-American/Black, Islamic and LGBT communities. Do you think we cannot
"get it" without having those other parameters explained to us?
Certainly perhaps AP or the New York Times readers might find them helpful, but
I think Deseret News readers do not need the peripheral examples. And I'm
not against understanding how "style issues" may or may not make writing
about those groups more or less difficult, but that is a separate issue, at
least in my mind. Once I was told that a person sitting in a dark rook can be
enlightened when a window blind is opened, but if every window blind if opened
the result can be more glare than enlightenment. That might be something to