While I fully appreciate your opinion, I disagree with the assertion that my opinion “only makes sense if” I use your approach. Accepted journalistic practice says otherwise. “Fundementalist mormons” (sic) are the exception to the rule. It is generally understood, unless otherwise stated, that “Mormon” refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

However, I personally avoid the term “Mormon” altogether (to refer to any group) as less accurate and clear than the alternatives, and my concern with the Post article has always been, as I’ve stated, clarity and accuracy.

In addition, as I’ve said before, I don’t disagree with anyone’s right to call themselves what they prefer. I’m simply addressing the issue as a communicator and editor: again, “Just because I want you to call me something doesn’t mean you should, especially if it conflicts with clarity, accuracy or written policy.”

Your last sentence sums it up: “journalists in general need to distinguish between the various types of Mormons for clarity and to avoid confusion.”

Thanks again for the lively discussion!

I really appreciate your comment and encouragement.

I also gained a significant amount of respect for the Seattle Times (and some anonymous editor there) thanks to this incident. The Washington Post editor let me down, but the Seattle Times editor really did a good job–it would have been easy to say, “Oh, it’s from the Washington Post, so we don’t need to worry about it.” Instead, they lived up to the standards of accuracy and clarity. Thank you, Seattle Post.

Good luck to you, too.

That’s a funny point about Mitt Romney. I did find it a bit out of place, but I understand the writer’s interest in the trivia. I assume the relationship isn’t very close however, since, as you say, they couldn’t clearly say how.

My disagreement is simply with the idea that the term “mormon” can only refer to the LDS Church and its members, and with any suggestion that the LeBaron sect, or the FLDS Church or the United Brethren or even the Community of Christ (aka RLDS Church) can not or should not refer to themselves as “mormon.” [Although the CoC apparently doesn't particularly like or use the term "mormon" at the moment.]

As long as your suggestion is simply that the Post article, and journalists in general need to distinguish between the various types of Mormons for clarity and to avoid confusion, I have no quarrel with you.

Thank you for returning and for your apology. I respect and appreciate your sincerity.

While we obviously have different opinions about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (I imagine that I’m more similar to my Baptist/Methodist family than to members of such splinter groups), I appreciate that you’re careful to distinguish between groups–so thank you.

As far as the specifics of how that’s done, we’ll take different approaches because our backgrounds are different and our careers our in different fields. I, too, stand by my earlier statements.

Sincerely,

David Garcia

Respectful to all parties, including the readers, through its clarity. This is what editors are for.

Perhaps I have made the mistake of reacting to Mormonism rather than responding to your post and for that I apologise. Nevertheless, having had dealings with Mormons over many years I am quite used to the meal-mouthed excuses routinely offered by that church for their being a special case who should be dealt with in a special way. I stopped “respectfully” calling Mormons LDS about the time they insisted on being called “The Church of Jesus Christ in all subsequent references” etc. with no regard to the sensibilities of Christians. It is a policy of mine ever since to refuse to play “the great game” of Mormonism in the media.

I take your point about distinguishing between groups but take issue with your suggested method which robs people who regard themselves as Mormons of that title. I still insist that Mormons whose base is SLC have no right to exclusive use of the term and do regard as audacious their special pleading. I personally make the distinction, where necessary, by referring to “Salt Lake Mormons” as opposed to “polygamous Mormons” or “The Re-Organised Mormon Church” etc. In public speaking I do make the distinction between those guys who call at your door and what they represent and those other Mormons who practice some of the more colourful and traditional practices of Mormonism but they are all Mormons in the same way as an Episcopalian and a Baptist are Christians. I also stand by my assertion that “fundamentalist Mormons” are more like SLC Mormons than any Mormon group is like Christians.

Thanks for bearing with me

Mike

“Breathtaking in its audacity?”

Since we both posted at the same time, please read my response to Kent. If you still feel the same after, please re-post with a respectful tone, and I’ll be happy to address your concerns separately.

(My discussion of this subject is centered around standards of journalism and communication. This semi-professional blog is focused on public relations, multimedia, communications and technology, not religious issues).