Everything
The Comey hearing: More smoke, wrong fire
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, often referred to as the LDS Church or Mormon Church, no longer wants to be called by these names. They want the full name of the church used and any references to “LDS Church” or “Mormon” are to be ignored.
LDS Church wants everyone to stop calling it the LDS Church — and drop the word ‘Mormons’
/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-sltrib.s3.amazonaws.com/public/73PTJ5G7E5A3ZDCH4OUNURWWXQ.jpg?w=200&ssl=1)
On Thursday, the church released this statement from Nelson:
“The Lord has impressed upon my mind the importance of the name he has revealed for his church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have work before us to bring ourselves in harmony with his will. In recent weeks, various church leaders and departments have initiated the necessary steps to do so. Additional information about this important matter will be made available in the coming months.”
This represents another swing of the pendulum for the church. In 2002, a similar de-emphasis on the word “Mormon” was announced. Timed to the arrival of the Winter Olympics in Utah, the church asked news outlets to refer to it by its full name.
Ironically, the statement was released through Mormon Newsroom.
My Take
The church, like nearly all of the big ones around the world, is as much of a business as it is a spiritual denomination. Today, the phrases “LDS Church” and “Mormon” are bad for business. After hitting a high note in 2012 with a major party presidential candidate, the church has taken some public relations beatings.
They want as close of an association with Jesus Christ as possible even if mainstream Christianity views their teachings as abominations. This is a rebrand, nothing more.
Mormons no more: LDS Church wants new branding
Jonathan Van Ness gives Democrats sound advice, gets demonized for it
Will Elon Musk face criminal charges over his Tweet?
Idiotic mainstream media feeds Trump the goodwill motherload
Omarosa is a victim, but not the way she paints it
Will Elon Musk face criminal charges over his Tweet?
MSNBC and the Huffington Post would like a new name for Socialism’s brutal oppression and mass murder
If anything, new sanctions on Russia are too light
Was vandalizing Trump’s star worth it, Austin Clay?
Nancy Pelosi opposes Iran sanctions. She’d oppose anything coming from the White House.
Jonathan Van Ness gives Democrats sound advice, gets demonized for it
Andrew Cuomo’s sentiment is what drives the progressive movement
Robert Wood Johnson on the failed Iran deal
Ben Shapiro on white supremacists
Donald Trump on the proposed new branch of the US armed forces
-
Culture and Religion2 days agoMan protecting daughter from alleged predator charged with murder
-
Democrats2 days agoEven a liberal women’s rights group recognizes antisemitism is on the rise among Democrats
-
Democrats1 day agoAndrew Cuomo’s sentiment is what drives the progressive movement
-
Culture and Religion17 hours agoOur List of Demands for the Conservation of Liberty – Part I
-
Culture and Religion16 hours agoThe Bible isn’t about you
-
Culture and Religion11 hours agoMormons no more: LDS Church wants new branding
-
News2 days agoWhy does Trump still give aid to the P.A. despite them paying terrorists and their families?
-
Culture and Religion1 day agoColorado seeks to deny religious liberty of Christian baker … again
Bryan Woodsmall
June 9, 2017 at 9:36 am
This is an interesting piece, and you make some good points.
However, if there is “no fire” in the Trump smoke, then why is the info about Lynch’s alleged interference, which you say had “as much ‘intent’ as that alleged in the Trump investigation” tantamount to a “flamethrower”?
The “intent” is “as much”, yet with one it is only smoke, and with the other it is a flamethrower. I don’t get that.
I enjoyed the article. It was informative and thought provoking. But elevating the revelations about Lynch as being more damning than the info about Trump seems like partisan spin to me. In fact, both are bad. Some of the info about Lynch is new. That is one difference. Also, Lynch tried to give the appearance of being above the fray, while Trump doesn’t really try to hide his dishonesty and lack of principles. But if Trump’s problems are just smoke, then so are Lynch’s.
Connor Mighell
June 9, 2017 at 9:45 am
Hi, Bryan. Thanks for your comment. The sentence about “intent” which left you so bewildered was meant as a joke. When Comey announced that he wasn’t going to recommend charges against Clinton in the email scandal. Comey justified his actions by saying he found no evidence Clinton intended to do anything illegal. However, the crime Clinton allegedly committed does not require proof of intent to establish guilt. My statement about Lynch’s intent was meant as a joke about Comey’s ability to treat intent as consequential in cases when it isn’t. Once again, thanks for reading.
Bryan Woodsmall
June 9, 2017 at 11:38 am
Ok, I see that I missed the joke, and I missed the word “not” which I now understand as sarcasm that seems more to suggest that Lynch’s interference was perhaps worse than Trump’s, rather than suggest equivalence.
At any rate, your point was NOT to say they were of similar seriousness, so my bad.
Still, while I agree that the revelation that Lynch asked Comey to use the word “matter” instead of “investigation” is a big deal, I don’t see it as a “flamethrower” vs. just “smoke” from the Trump situation. For one thing, asking the FBI to assist with spin doesn’t constitute interference in the investigation itself. It is totally improper for sure, especially since it is the same word the Clinton administration was using, but it still doesn’t amount to actually interfering with the investigation.
Your point about Comey treating intent as consequential when it isn’t is well taken. It kind of seemed like he was trying to thread a needle with a legal and logical explanation for his decision. I don’t know the law well enough to know whether he succeeded. However, in my opinion his actions were very beneficial to the Republican candidate (I’m not saying it was intentional). Had he indicted Clinton, I think she would have been replaced as the Democratic nominee. The new nominee would have had a headwind due to not being chosen by the normal process, but probably would have been a MUCH better candidate than Hillary Clinton. By not indicting her he took away the Dems need to replace her, and by being very critical of her he helped her opponent. So it was a win-win for Trump. And then he disclosed very late in the race that more emails had come to light, and needed to be looked at. I won’t argue either way whether that tipped the election, but it was helpful to Trump in a close race.
I am not knowledgeable enough to assess Comey’s competence or lack thereof, but I think Trump supporters should be grateful for the way he handled the Clinton investigation.