1) I was thinking about these terms and suddenly remembered that the BYU Studies special “Mormons and Film” issue makes a very conscious distinction between “LDS cinema” and “Mormon cinema.” To quote:

“In this history, as is conventional in academic studies, I have used ‘Latter-day Saint’ or ‘LDS’ to refer specifically to the Church or its members, while reserving ‘Mormon’ to refer more broadly to the culture; hence the preference for the term ‘Mormon cinema,’ even though most Latter-day Saints refer to the movement as ‘LDS cinema’.” (Randy Astle with Gideon O. Burton, “A History of Mormon Cinema,” BYU Studies, 2007, vol. 46, No. 2, p. 15)

2) I did a google search on “Mormon culture” vs. “LDS culture,” and “Mormon culture” (unsurprisingly) got thousands of more hits than did “LDS culture.” The “LDS culture” search brought up several news articles. I’m wondering what the distinction between the terms is. Or even what the terms “LDS” and “Mormon” mean on their own. I get the sense that “LDS” can be used to directly reference the institution of the LDS Church, whereas “Mormon” can’t–and that “LDS” can be used to mean “Mormon,” but “Mormon” can’t be used to mean “LDS.” But that might just be within the Church. Outside of the Church, “Mormon” can probably be used to reference the institution of the Church.

I know you weren’t.

The new logo caught me off guard when it was first announced back in ‘96(±1)—I had always liked the funky font of the old one. But once I thought about it for a few minutes, I liked it immensely. I still do.

I’m not making that argument. I’m just saying that it caused a stir among some people I knew. I think particularly some of other faiths misinterpreted the change.

I remember hearing lots of talk when the Church changed its logo to emphasize “Jesus Christ.” Some said that it was an attempt at seeming more like mainstream Christians.

When the First Presidency approached the designers of the new logo, they told them that the Lord was not pleased with the way his name was being treated re:the old logo.

And really, who can argue that Jesus is not more important that what year the saints live in?

To say that Eugene’s book is LDS fiction raises a cacophony of consumers go, “Nuh uhhhh, not it is NOT!” because they expected something other than what they got, based upon the fact that Eugene’s LDS and it has LDS characters and Mormon culture (notice which term I used for which descriptive). They felt betrayed.

It’s been my argument all along that since the consumers have defined it, it exists as its own genre. They have certain expectations to be met and are angry/disappointed/frustrated when those expectations are NOT met.

Brenda Novak and Christine Feehan are Mormons. One writes graphic romantic suspense without LDS characters and the other writes paranormal romance. Does this make what they write LDS fiction? No and I can’t see anybody making the case that they do.

Of course, how much DB/Seagull/Covenant’s editorial decisions have had to do with defining “LDS fiction/literature” so much so that the consumer defines it the same way probably could go without saying.