No Longer the "Mormon" Church - Deceptive Ads Instead

[_JP]

Not according to your posts in this thread.

Awww. Just when you were starting to come around about me.

[_Lemmie]

Not according to your posts in this thread.

Awww. Just when you were starting to come around about me.

Awww. Just when you were mistaking politeness for lack of awareness.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

A response from the Church of Christ:

Yes we have been aware of this for a while. Thank you for bringing this up. We will remind our Church officials again of this fact,

God bless you.

Richard Lawson
General Church Correspondent

- Doc

[_JP]

Interesting. Maybe we are not reading the same threads. There have been some great sociological discussions recently on this topic that you must have missed.

More often than not, I'm seeing entire threads or at the very least large chunks of threads devoted to the type of sophomoric, Rush Limbaugh-like "let's see how clever of a nickname I can assign to the church or one of its leaders instead of making a rational point" discussions, along with back-and-forth echo chambering that drips with the type of cynicism that makes actual conversation, let alone learning, impossible.

I don't think I'm far off in saying that, on this board, the "great sociological discussions" are few and far between. Certainly not the norm.

[_Gadianton]

I don't think I'm far off in saying that, on this board, the "great sociological discussions" are few and far between. Certainly not the norm.

Were you going to explain how religious experience is deep yet the schemes of the brethren are shrewd?

It seems to me the basic possibilities are:

1) The Brethren's rebranding scheme is "shrewd" because something quite superficial like changing the name of a church will go viral with the impressionable masses.

2) The Brethren's scheme will fall flat because religious experience is so "rich" for the average person that click-bait isn't going to convert them.

Seems like you're in a fork and lose either the queen or the rook on this one. So much for the great sociological insights.

[_I have a question]

I don't think I'm far off in saying that, on this board, the "great sociological discussions" are few and far between. Certainly not the norm.

Were you going to explain how religious experience is deep yet the schemes of the brethren are shrewd?

It seems to me the basic possibilities are:

1) The Brethren's rebranding scheme is "shrewd" because something quite superficial like changing the name of a church will go viral with the impressionable masses.

2) The Brethren's scheme will fall flat because religious experience is so "rich" for the average person that click-bait isn't going to convert them.

Seems like you're in a fork and lose either the queen or the rook on this one. So much for the great sociological insights.

The reality is that the name of the Church has been a pet peeve of Nelson's for decades and decades. He was speaking out against using the term "Mormon" long before the "I'm A Mormon" and "Meet The Mormon" campaigns. In fact, I've been hard pressed to find a single incidence of Nelson supporting either one. The difference now is that Nelson doesn't have to just shut up and go along like a good little Apostle, now he is calling the shots and is free to pursue his own personal favourites. But in doing so, he's calling Monson, Eyring and Uchtdorf, emissaries of Satan for delivering the two, previously mentioned, marketing campaigns.

If JP thinks the Brethren are conducting "great sociological discussions" he needs to point to the evidence, because I can only see evidence of petty mindedness and short sighted reactions in their decision making.

As another example, take the missionary age change - Church leaders were forecasting the uptick would remain and go forward from the high point. Our own (I think) Rollo Tomasi predicted it would be a bubble which would resettle back to almost the same level it was pre announcement. Who was shown to have the best foresight - Prophets, Seers and Revelators...or Rollo Tomasi?

[_Amore]

I think it’s generally a sign of healthy moving on to be able to see things matter-of-factly. But as it is, many of us are still hurting and emotions tend to color our comments. And some - it’s just switching herd mentalities.

Anyway, I appreciate your perspective.

Thanks. I get the anger phase. I went through it as most do. I just never found it healthy to dwell there for very long.

I yearn for a forum where subjects like this can be discussed in a more pragmatic fashion. I'm no longer triggered by the Mormon church, nor am I enamored by it from a faith perspective.

But from a sociological/anthropological perspective I am absolutely fascinated by Mormonism and suppose I always will be. I have similar feelings about the post-Mo/ex-Mo community, in observing how people exit the church and the different paths they go on, and the external and internal influences that guide their decision making.

Problem is, I've found plenty of discussion on both ends of the spectrum (Book of Mormon thumping church defenders or rabid ex-mo nitpickers) but not a lot in between.

For a while, John Dehlin's content filled some of that void, but as with all things he has started to shamelessly cater to his most profitable demographic. Kishkumen's thread on mythology was a great piece of content in the vein I'm referring to (even though my attempts to participate in the discussion were less than graceful...)

Anyway I appreciate your appreciation of my point of view.

I've realized that I will never have the same sense of believing the same as others - as I did when I was TBM. Sad - but I guess that's how it's supposed to be if you're actually thinking. Most people are herd-thinkers - here and in the church.

I used to post on the old NOM forum which had some interesting discussions - but also a lot of trash talk. I sometimes wonder where the more mature and articulate posters went. Maybe they sneak in here and there. :)

[_slskipper]

1) If anybody wants a Bible, they can get one anywhere. Nobody will request that somebody brings one to their house. Hell, they can even get it on Kindle.

2) No, the things in the Bible did not really happen.

[_Meadowchik]

More often than not, I'm seeing entire threads or at the very least large chunks of threads devoted to the type of sophomoric, Rush Limbaugh-like "let's see how clever of a nickname I can assign to the church or one of its leaders instead of making a rational point" discussions, along with back-and-forth echo chambering that drips with the type of cynicism that makes actual conversation, let alone learning, impossible.

I don't think I'm far off in saying that, on this board, the "great sociological discussions" are few and far between. Certainly not the norm.

Ranting, cynicism, and even seeking validation are all elements of healthy processing. Imagine sitting at a table with a friend doing the same, and if you're a good listener and commiserator, you'll be building the trust that helps generate the great insightful discussions. And the conversations will, in my opinion, be that much more meaningful and insightful.

[_Amore]

Demand honest advertising!



Double standards...

Is the church either true or not - unless not?

Did you feel the spirit? It means our church is true. You were at your friend’s church? - Then it was a false spirit - the adversary.

Are you an honest tithe payer? (- demands dishonest tithe collectors)

Why do they leave the church [an abusive cult] but don’t leave it alone? - (said a therapist who’s gets paid for people not leaving alone trauma from abuse)

What does the 11th article of faith have to do with you being a reprehensible shameful apostate?