DiscussMormonism.com

Marcus wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 16, 2024 3:58 pm

Moksha wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 16, 2024 12:13 pm

No way, Brigham did not leave any bite marks.

BY's crushed glass mixed in flour leaves a type of bite mark I suppose. Plus, If I recall correctly Bundy hid body parts. BY mounted the heads of victims on spikes as a warning.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ground-glass-deadly/

I saw no direct quote in your link. If a leader representing the whole religion has requested not to use the term "Mormons" to refer to Latter-day Saints, persons, news and online media proceeding to do so makes it officially a slur, like other slurs, racial or religious. In addition to the history of the word in which it was intended to be derogatory.

No need to directly compare it to a specific slur, unless you think your audience doesn't know what 'slurs' are and so you need an example... Though it seems comparable, not to the degree of offensiveness, but in the sense of an "its only okay when we say it" mindset. LOL

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 13, 2024 7:40 am

What “truly decent acts” did Brigham Young do?

Marry a lot of ugly (otherwise unmarriageable) woman. Mark Twain said so in Roughing It

bill4long wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 17, 2024 11:59 pm

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 13, 2024 7:40 am

What “truly decent acts” did Brigham Young do?

Marry a lot of ugly (otherwise unmarriageable) woman. Mark Twain said so in Roughing It

Since bringing up the subject of books, many do not have a problem with the N-word if said in a movie or reading it in a book; others do. Lots of discussion from people who are black and white for pulling Huckelberry Finn from different libraries. Some black people are for it but others want it to remain for different reasons. Some white people want it pulled from libraries while others want it to remain. Mormons don't seem to find the word Mormon on the cover of the Book of Mormon offensive. The N-word is not on the cover of Huckleberry Finn. Writer Joseph Conrad wrote books about traveling on rivers in Africa. He wrote Hearts of Darkness and also the N-word of Narcisisss. That's on the cover. Should you be walking down an aisle in the library, heads turned sideways so you can read the titles of the book and see that one may cause concern. I'd likely pull it and scan through it, and put it back, but mentioning it as I checked out with Hearts of Darkness likely wouldn't occur. It's the library boards call.

Pyreaux wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 17, 2024 6:25 pm

If a leader representing the whole religion has requested not to use the term "Mormons" to refer to Latter-day Saints, persons, news and online media proceeding to do so makes it officially a slur, like other slurs, racial or religious. In addition to the history of the word in which it was intended to be derogatory.

That same leader supported the extensive PR campaigns “I’m a Mormon” and “Meet the Mormons”. If he truly felt the term “Mormon” was a slur he’d have vetoed those campaigns or resigned from his position. Cannot be considered a slur when the origination itself has extensively promoted the term?

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 18, 2024 4:03 pm

Pyreaux wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 17, 2024 6:25 pm

If a leader representing the whole religion has requested not to use the term "Mormons" to refer to Latter-day Saints, persons, news and online media proceeding to do so makes it officially a slur, like other slurs, racial or religious. In addition to the history of the word in which it was intended to be derogatory.

That same leader supported official the extensive PR campaigns “I’m a Mormon” and “Meet the Mormons”. If he truly felt the term “Mormon” was a slur he’d have vetoed those campaigns or resigned from his position. Cannot be considered a slur when the origination itself has extensively promoted the term?

If I were still a Mormonite, I would side with ole Hinckley:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lKQrYUE3yc

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 18, 2024 4:03 pm

Pyreaux wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 17, 2024 6:25 pm

If a leader representing the whole religion has requested not to use the term "Mormons" to refer to Latter-day Saints, persons, news and online media proceeding to do so makes it officially a slur, like other slurs, racial or religious. In addition to the history of the word in which it was intended to be derogatory.

That same leader supported the extensive PR campaigns “I’m a Mormon” and “Meet the Mormons”. If he truly felt the term “Mormon” was a slur he’d have vetoed those campaigns or resigned from his position. Cannot be considered a slur when the origination itself has extensively promoted the term?

I guess the rest of the post went over your head, a bit. It's okay to waffle. Would you argue the N-word "Cannot be considered a slur when the [race] itself has extensively promoted the term" like in music? I will assume, "no". If the church feels the tone, time and landscape changed, that "Mormon" is now an insult, or some other purpose, like outing all the deceptively titled channels like "Mormon Stories", it can if it wants, times change. It's not a democracy. You have no say. I have no say. It's still a religious slur, if you know they don't want to be called something, but you proceed to call them that, in your media outlet, you are intentionally disrespecting them. Even if we use it, it's our word... Kind of like the N-word, in that sense.

Pyreaux wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 19, 2024 1:58 pm

If the church feels the tone, time and landscape changed, that "Mormon" is now an insult, or some other purpose, like outing all the deceptively titled channels like "Mormon Stories", it can if it wants. It's not a democracy. You have no say. I have no say.

It’s not a Church initiative, it’s one man’s personal opinion that he is forcing on the rest of the membership and organisation. I did not vote to sustain that person, and I do not accept his personal opinions. It’s not a doctrinal church position so members don’t have to accept it.

If it’s so offensive, why does the Church maintain the following website…
https://meetthemormons.com/#/filter-all/page-1

Does anyone really think they're going to get around to renaming everything "Mormon" before Nelson's little crusade is swept down the memory hole and the term is back in favor?

Mormon Crickets
Mormon Tea
Mormon Trail
Mormon Battalion
Manti Mormon Miracle Pageant
Old Las Vegas Mormon Fort Historic Park
Claremont Mormon Studies Program
Association for Mormon Letters
Mormon History Association

And so on...

It’s understandable that a church would want everyone to call it “the Church of Jesus Christ”. All churches that consider themselves Christian believe they are that, or part of that. For a Christian church to call itself THE Church of Jesus Christ, though, and not just a part of that body, is tantamount to naming itself “the only people who are right”.

Any group of any kind could call itself “the only right people”. Any group is entitled to think of itself that way, if it wants. No group can legitimately expect everyone else to call them “the only right people”, however.

If your self-chosen name is just a neutral label that doesn’t imply any controversial claims, then I think you can legitimately ask other people to use your preferred name rather than some name that offends you. This is not license to impose your sectarian beliefs on other people by trying to register “the only right people” as your trademark.

The current LDS effort to get the world to accept their rebranding as The Church of Jesus Christ, just because they believe they are that, is a ridiculous attempt to exploit political correctness for sectarian sophistry. It’s like legally changing your name to “Good Person”. No, Mr Person; No, my good buddy Good: your right to be mentioned in the terms of your choice does not extend to enforcing sectarian claims by writing them into your name.