Comments on: Mormons and the Media

By: germit

germit — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:11:42 +0000

CLUFF: you are funny and feisty, I bet you were an extra-strength Postum baby to raise for your blessed Momma. To repeat two nugggets from Bill excellent post: “I’d like to know the genesis of the AP statement..” and “once again the Mormon church demands that others comply with their definitions”. CLUFF, you have thrown yourself headlong into that second statement. We should YOU or I tell the FLDS what they are to call themselves ?? WAs it OK with THEM to avoid using the ‘mormon’ title? Who asked them what THEY wanted ?? You can keep your definitions handy, and use them for your own education and amusement, but the point of the article, and my posts, is that these are matters that are really WAY BEYOND the control of the AP, though I don’t fault them for trying their best to make sense, order, and clarity of a muddled situation. Guaranteed, the FLDS, and the other 100 PLUS groups that ‘own JS’ DO NOT see themselves as ‘breakaway’ from their beloved 1st Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. You don’t own the title “Mormon”, act as if you do all you want, trying to make others comply only makes you look controlling and silly. Blessings on your Feisty Forty-eight yr old head. GERMIT

By: GRCluff

GRCluff — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:41:03 +0000

germit:

If FLDS can be a Mormon sect, by definition, because they broke off from the LDS church. Then Catholics can be a Christian sect, because they organized the SECOND Christian church. Lets not call them first, the Protestants had plenty to protest about.

The Protestants now didn’t break off from non-existent Christian church because it had long been obliterated by the power of state backed religion. They really can’t be a Christian sect, because no Christian church existed to break off from. That is why the have to be a Catholic sect.

That is why a resortation was needed.

Which syllable of “RESTORED” do you not understand?

By: Bill McKeever

Bill McKeever — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:56:21 +0000

Perhaps Mr. Campbell could supply us with the genesis of this AP statement. Call me suspicious, but it smacks of the LDS legal department. If so, I think it is safe to assume that they never bothered to ask for the opinions of the other groups that choose to use the title “Mormon.” Once again the Mormon Church demands that others comply with their definitions. The Mormon Church has much more in common with the FLDS than it does with what most Christians believe, yet it chooses to try and align itself with the latter. Now that is confusing.

By: DJBrown

DJBrown — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:09:34 +0000

Bias in the media is a real thing. But nobody is portrayed accurately all the time. I really do not get too worked up about it. I think the church just wants to avoid confusion as to who actually belongs to the church and what they believe- doesn’t every church? I think that is fair.

I am around people (non-LDS) who equate evangelicals with scandal because all they seem to see in the media are the stories of evangelical preachers and their misdeeds. I know better because I know evangelicals.

By: germit

germit — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:41:05 +0000

Sharon: interesting article, as usual: you don’t get thanked often enough for your hard work at Mormon Coffee (are you paying royalties for the title?, maybe you’ll get a bill someday??)
MormonMedia: and when , or if, the AP changes it’s mind about who gets to be called ‘Mormon’, are they still going to be your authority, since they are so large and all, or do they loose their status once they disagree with men in black? I’m not bagging on them, they are making the best of a Gordian knot, but your giving them some kind of ’status’ has me amused. I think this could be short lived. The obvious problem with ‘clarity’ here, is that what is clear to YOUR (LDS) satisfaction, might not be too satisfying to the FLDS or any one of several other ‘mormon’ groups. Then what: does the AP decide?? ‘Mormon sect’ seems right on target to me: these are groups that are (seemingly) just as passionate about JS as you are. Who are the AP to tell them they aren’t ‘mormon’ enough to be ‘mormon’? How would they know, anyway?? Welcome to Mormon Coffee, by the way; I’ll remember your post as a possible venue for ‘doing my homework’, Susan, are you listening??
Cluff: Which syllable of “PROTESTANT” do you not understand: ‘protesting WHAT’ the act of breaking off is built into the title, as for the Catholics, they believe that they never broke off from anyone, they suppose that they are ‘mormon’ in their going back to the original faith . We cold always call them: “the TOTAL APOSTATES THAT NEVER LEFT”, I’ll try that on my Roman Catholic family and report back. ps to Cluff: the walks and deep breaths sound like a great idea.

By: GRCluff

GRCluff — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 04:32:41 +0000

Great article Sharon — for me it leads to some interesting conclusions.

1. The Catholic (universal) church should be calling themselves a “Christian sect”. It is really not that universal anymore.

2. Since Protestants broke off from Catholic, they should call themselves “Catholic sects”.

falcon:
“Do Mormons believe in anything traditional Christianity believes in? I can’t think of anything right off the top of my head.”

Exactly what IS in the top of your head?

Put this inside for a couple minutes:
Mormons believe that a man called Jesus Christ is the creator and savior of the world.

Are you saying that traditional Christianity has stopped believing that? I know they have strayed but that is a bit far!

I think a more fair approach should be qualified Christianity:

1. Universal (Catholic) Christianity

2. Protestant Christianity(could make the Catholics happy)

3. Restored Christianity.(Mormons of course)

FLDS and LDS both believe in Restored Christianity, so they can be loosely connected, like Methodists and Lutherians.

By: JessicaJoy

JessicaJoy — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:56:16 +0000

From what I understand the FLDS believe they are the only true Mormons since they are following the BoM literally regarding polygamy. From what I understand, they view the mainstream LDS as apostates and I have seen comparisons where Warren Jeffs more closely resembles Joseph Smith than the living prophet of the mainstream LDS church.

By: falcon

falcon — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:14:01 +0000

Just a thought but what set of beliefs does a group have to have to be called Mormon? I wouldn’t call myself a Mormon, but Mormons want to be called Christian. Would they object to me calling myself a Mormon? I don’t believe in anything the Mormon church believes in. Do Mormons believe in anything traditional Christianity believes in? I can’t think of anything right off the top of my head. Do the FLDS and the UtahLDS have anything in common? So for Mormons to call themselves Christian or for me to call myself Mormon isn’t accurate and is in fact totally misleading. Just list a basic set of core beliefs and do the old checkoff. Can I call myself a vegetarian because I eat vegetables? Can I call myself prochoice if a don’t believe in abortion. Words/terms/labels need definitions.

By: germit

germit — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:45:18 +0000

To all: I’ll burn the 3rd post and go farther with Jeff’s thot: I’ll fight tooth and nail (hopefully with charity to individuals) anyone claiming to be LDS and christian, to me those are mutually exclusive sets, BUT I DEFEND THEIR RIGHT TO MAKE THAT CLAIM: THIS IS NOT, THANK GOD, A THEOCRACY (YET). JS, in his Napoleonic tights, brandishing a sword, head of the Nauvoo Legion is a pathetic sight, but an error that has been often seen throughout history: we live in a plurocracy, and Mormons have a right to say “we are the real christianity” , just as I have the right and privelege, to stand up and refute that claim as best I can. This can be done civilly, and with dignity, on all sides, that does not mean that it will always look like Mr.Rogers in his button down sweater singing ‘Will You Be My Neighbor”. LDS can claim this or that all they want, it’s a great country we have that allows that kind of freedom, I wouldn’t have it any other way. I’m for freedom of all kinds of speech, their’s included. GERMIT

By: MormonMediaObserver

MormonMediaObserver — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:31:13 +0000

Thanks for reading my blog. I also happen to have a another kind of dictionary on my desk that is also on the desk of most journalists around the world. It’s called the Associated Press Stylebook:

In the 2006 version of the AP Stylebook on page 48, in the entry “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” under the heading “splinter groups” it reads: “The term Mormon is not properly applied to other Latter Day Saints churches that resulted after (Joseph) Smith’s death.” To use the term “Mormon Church” is also a violation of AP style. The AP says to write “Mormon church” to indicate it is not a formal name and encourages journalists to cite the full name of the church in articles about church activities.

Even if you want to fight about semantics, using the term “Mormon” causes confusion. If journalists are doing their job they should seek to clarify rather than confuse.

It sounds like you have a quibble with the world’s largest newsgathering organization.
Joel Campbell