Church name and "too frequent repetition" of his name

[Duncan]

We've been instructed to use the proper name of the Church instead of saying, Mormon or LDS or something but how do we  balance that with Section 107:4 “But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood."

How do we balance using the proper name of the Church but avoiding the too frequent repetition of his name? I doubt the Lord wants us to say it less but where’s the line between the two?

 

[Ahab]

i don't think we need to avoid saying it often just because they didn't want to say it often.  I think we should go in the opposite direction, actually.  I think we should say it a LOT!  Just not in vain, though, saying it when there is no good reason to say it... like a curse word, which it isn't.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Ahab

[Thinking]

7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Just not in van, though

Whew! I have a truck.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

22 minutes ago, Duncan said:

We've been instructed to use the proper name of the Church instead of saying, Mormon or LDS or something but how do we  balance that with Section 107:4 “But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood."

How do we balance using the proper name of the Church but avoiding the too frequent repetition of his name? I doubt the Lord wants us to say it less but where’s the line between the two?

 

Stellar question? 👌

[ksfisher]

20 minutes ago, Duncan said:

We've been instructed to use the proper name of the Church instead of saying, Mormon or LDS or something but how do we  balance that with Section 107:4 “But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood."

How do we balance using the proper name of the Church but avoiding the too frequent repetition of his name? I doubt the Lord wants us to say it less but where’s the line between the two?

 

D&C 107:4 reports what the ancient saints felt they were inspired to do for their time and culture.  Modern day prophets have not indicated, beyond not taking the Lord's name in vain, that anything more is necessary at this time.

Counsel and commandments are often given to help a particular people at a particular time.  We shouldn't see everything in scripture as being binding in perpetuity.

[Ahab]

15 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Whew! I have a truck.

thank you.  corrected.

[Thinking]

25 minutes ago, Ahab said:

thank you.  corrected.

Sometimes spelling mistakes deliver some much needed humor.

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Sometimes spelling mistakes deliver some much needed humor.

Ah! Light laughter hey?  👹

Pretty soon we'll be evil speaking the Lord's anointed!!

 

😜

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Duncan said:

We've been instructed to use the proper name of the Church instead of saying, Mormon or LDS or something but how do we  balance that with Section 107:4 “But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood."

How do we balance using the proper name of the Church but avoiding the too frequent repetition of his name? I doubt the Lord wants us to say it less but where’s the line between the two?

 

I've wondered this, but which name were they wanting to avoid repeating too frequently?

Quote

3 Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. 4 But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood.

 

Edited November 7, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[stemelbow]

Through further light and knowledge we have learned in our latter-day that past people of the OT era were wrong.  It was merely their opinion that caused them to conclude that using God's name is disrespectful and irreverent.  It was actually the devil who tricked them to use something other than his name, as in nicknames for their naming things.  Satan got a good chuckle out of that stuff and was full of glee, while God stewed in offenses taken, each time they failed to reference His name and replaced it with something else.  

[MustardSeed]

It must be hard for people without prophets to know which scriptures are important and which are not. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, MustardSeed said:

It must be hard for people without prophets to know which scriptures are important and which are not. 

Without living prophets, people can concoct almost anything they wish out of scriptures.

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

It must be hard for people without prophets to know which scriptures are important and which are not. 

It's way easy.  Just don't put stock in the prophets at all.  THey are just people spouting off on things.  THey may or may not have something relevant to say.  Just decide all on your own.  No need to force bad ideas, teachings, or claims into your world.  Just throw them out and find true meaning and purpose.  

Edited November 6, 2019 by stemelbow

[MustardSeed]

Just now, stemelbow said:

It's way easy.  Just don't put stalk in the prophets at all.  THey are just people spouting off on things.  THey may or may not have something relevant to say.  Just decide all on your own.  No need to force bad ideas, teachings, or claims into your world.  Just throw them out and find true meaning and purpose.  

At that point, why have scriptures at all then, I wonder?

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Without living prophets, people can concoct almost anything they wish out of scriptures.

With prophets they can.  I can't name all the goofy things Mormons have told me over the years as they concocted what they wished out of the scriptures.  As it is, after all, today we have people denying the teachings of our modern day prophets as further light and knowledge told us they were wrong, or rather as the world told us.  Ah well...

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

At that point, why have scriptures at all then, I wonder?

Good question. To learn about the past a little bit?  I suppose that's as good a reason as any.  Scriptures are both morally deficient and morally ok.  You just have to keep reading when you run into the morally deficient, at some point they'll tell you to love your neighbor, some way or another.  

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

We've been instructed to use the proper name of the Church instead of saying, Mormon or LDS or something but how do we  balance that with Section 107:4 “But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood."

How do we balance using the proper name of the Church but avoiding the too frequent repetition of his name? I doubt the Lord wants us to say it less but where’s the line between the two?

 

It's a good reminder that God is okay with nicknames.  The full name of the priesthood is pretty long and includes the Lord's sacred name.  The same can be said of the full name of the Church.

I understand President Nelson's desire to emphasize our Christianity by using the full name of the church.  But I also see a need for nicknames at times.  I'm doing my best to find the balance that feels right to me.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

It must be hard for people without prophets to know which scriptures are important and which are not. 

In some ways I'm sure it is actually the much easier route, because each person get's to be a god unto themselves, and each person is their own highest authority.  Of course, I don't believe that God has fashioned this world in a way where easiest equals best, and that's where the easiest route becomes the hardest one, in the long run.  

[2BizE]

This is a great question Duncan.  In the last week or so there has been a video of a guy talking about his faith crisis and coming back to the church.  In that video he used the full name of the church like 15 times.  It was rather annoying.  I still haven’t stopped saying Mormon, and since the style guide seemed to be recently updated to say Mormon was acceptable to use again, I figure I will keep using Mormon.

[Avatar4321]

I don't think it's vain repetition if the Lord tells us to use it

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Thank you for this question, but the “name” that God did not want repeated was much longer. Having said that in Jewish Law, or tradition, the name, “Elohim” is not supposed to be used too often. Also, we are and always have been commanded not the take the “name of God”, (or deity) in vain”. We are also told to “avoid vain repetition”. So again, stellar question!  

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

We've been instructed to use the proper name of the Church instead of saying, Mormon or LDS or something but how do we  balance that with Section 107:4 “But out of respect or reverence to the name of the Supreme Being, to avoid the too frequent repetition of his name, they, the church, in ancient days, called that priesthood after Melchizedek, or the Melchizedek Priesthood."

How do we balance using the proper name of the Church but avoiding the too frequent repetition of his name? I doubt the Lord wants us to say it less but where’s the line between the two?

 

I have a hunch that the term "Son of God" used in D&C 107:3 is not His actual name, and not the phrase that was not to be taken in frequent repetition.

How many times a day do we pray and perform ordinances in the name of Jesus Christ? I suppose that is not the name D&C 107:3 refers to, either.

[CV75]

Could it also be that His name is: "the Holy Priesthood [or Power of God], after the Order [Divine Family Council] of the Son of God" and that this phrase is itself a substituted translation of what His name is and fully means, which is also a phrase that constitutes the key word that entails one's calling and election and is to be used only in the temple?

Today, we take His name upon us (as we understand it), and that might be enough blasphemy to tolerate in His grace

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Thank you for this question, but the “name” that God did not want repeated was much longer. Having said that in Jewish Law, or tradition, the name, “Elohim” is not supposed to be used too often. Also, we are and always have been commanded not the take the “name of God”, (or deity) in vain”. We are also told to “avoid vain repetition”. So again, stellar question!  

 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I have a hunch that the term "Son of God" used in D&C 107:3 is not His actual name, and not the phrase that was not to be taken in frequent repetition.

How many times a day do we pray and perform ordinances in the name of Jesus Christ? I suppose that is not the name D&C 107:3 refers to, either.

You are each half way there:  Orthodox Jews have long had a policy of not saying the name of the LORD in Hebrew (Yahweh/Jehovah), but instead saying Adonai "My-Lord" when reading Holy Writ or reciting the Prayer Book liturgy.  "Son of God" is Hebrew Ben Elohim, and the Orthodox also substitute another term -- Elokim, or G-d (in print).  So Melchizedek was really a substitute for the Hebrew phrase, not the English translation, which is really rather generic and innocuous.

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

It must be hard for people without prophets to know which scriptures are important and which are not. 

Good thing us Catholics have the magisterium: the Pope and the bishops united with him. Under the protection of the Holy Spirit, they guide the Church according to the will of God. 
 

I only bring it up to show that the leaders of the LDS church and the Catholic Church act in practically the same manner. It’s just the semantics that differ. You say modern day prophets, we say magisterium. We both claim to be led by God. 
 

It’s the Protestants who have the problem 😁