Elder Ballard On The Proper Name Of The Church

[Scott Lloyd]

You think this is a commandment? 

Yes. I've already cited the applicable scriptural reference from 3 Nephi.

[Gray]

dupe

Edited April 7, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

Yes. I've already cited the applicable scriptural reference from 3 Nephi.

 

I'm aware of the one about not taking the Lord's name in vain, but I hadn't heard the one about not taking the Church's name in vain 

 

3 Nephi doesn't badger people about using the full name of the church in every reference. We've already fulfilled that scripture by putting the name "Jesus Christ" up on our signage

 

This is style guide issue stuff. Elevating it to a commandment seems rather missing the point to me - like the obsession with using the right hand to take sacrament or wearing conservative suits. 

Edited April 7, 2014 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

And yet as we've shown earlier in this thread, we do the same thing over who controls the definition of the word "Mormon" and what it actually means.  We really aren't any better when it comes to sharing terminology.

The concern is, as reflected in the Elder Ballard quote I've already provided, that there be no confusion in the public mind that we are in any way associated with schismatic groups that practice polygamy.

 

I think it's a reasonable concern.

[Bikeemikey]

You can do all of that as well as countering the notion when it crops up that Mormons are not Christian.

And one does not have to engage in protracted arguing about something that is obvious enough on its face.

I have found with most of those I know who don't think Mormons are Christian that they A) all know Mormons think they are Christian and B) many are as offended by that as Mormons are by fundamentalist polygamists wanting to be called Mormon and C) any suggestion that I am trying to persuade them Mormons are Christian puts the conversation on a combative trajectory that is very very hard to recover from.

If I say "i have felt the power of Christ in my life, see I'm Christian"... It starts a fight. If I say "i have felt the power of Christ in my life" with no ... It starts a very interesting conversation... Until I add the ... Then it goes downhill.

[JLHPROF]

The concern is, as reflected in the Elder Ballard quote I've already provided, that there be no confusion in the public mind that we are in any way associated with schismatic groups that practice polygamy.

 

I think it's a reasonable concern.

 

Are evangelicals not entitled to the same concern about us?

[Bikeemikey]

The concern is, as reflected in the Elder Ballard quote I've already provided, that there be no confusion in the public mind that we are in any way associated with schismatic groups that practice polygamy.

I think it's a reasonable concern.

Just as to traditional Christianity doesn't want to be associated with the schismatic group of Mormons.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm aware of the one about not taking the Lord's name in vain, but I hadn't heard the one about not taking the Church's name in vain 

 

3 Nephi doesn't badger people about using the full name of the church in every reference. We've already fulfilled that teaching by putting the name "Jesus Christ" up on our signage

I don't see the occasional reminder as badgering.

 

And the scripture is explicit enough to justify repeated emphasis and teaching.

 

We do that with other commandments; why not this one?

[Scott Lloyd]

Are evangelicals not entitled to the same concern about us?

The most obvious difference is that the term Christian did not originate with them. They are simply trying to appropriate it for themselves by excluding others through definition.

[BCSpace]

LDS Church is just easier to type. 

 

The Church of Jesus Christ IMO is rather presumptious.  And it is not the name if the Church anymore than Mormon Church or LDS Church is.

 

Are you then suggesting the doctrine that we are the only true Church is also presumptuous?

[Scott Lloyd]

Just as to traditional Christianity doesn't want to be associated with the schismatic group of Mormons.

 

What is "traditional Christianity"?

 

I've been reading the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers lately. I find them much closer to what i believe than I do much of today's Evangelical dogma.

[JLHPROF]

The most obvious difference is that the term Christian did not originate with them. They are simply trying to appropriate it for themselves by excluding others through definition.

 

As are we.  The term Mormon did not originate in the Church, but with the anti-Mormon factions.

We have no more right to exclusivity on the term Mormon than the Evangelicals have the right to exclude us from Christianity.

[Gray]

I don't see the occasional reminder as badgering.

 

And the scripture is explicit enough to justify repeated emphasis and teaching.

 

We do that with other commandments; why not this one?

 

I wasn't referring to the conference talk. Forgive me, I was trying to tease you but I probably didn't express myself well. In any case, I shouldn't try to tease someone I don't know personally.

 

 

And the scripture is explicit enough to justify repeated emphasis and teaching.

 

We've been following that passage for most of the Church's history. I don't think it has anything to do with style guide stuff.

 

 

We do that with other commandments; why not this one?

 

There's really nothing we can do to follow it more - the name is already right up there in black and white in front of every chapel we own. 

[Scott Lloyd]

As are we.  The term Mormon did not originate in the Church, but with the anti-Mormon factions.

We have no more right to exclusivity on the term Mormon than the Evangelicals have the right to exclude us from Christianity.

We have the right to request that others, especially those involved in the mass media, be clear in their reporting and not foster confusion in the public mind.

[Bikeemikey]

The most obvious difference is that the term Christian did not originate with them. They are simply trying to appropriate it for themselves by excluding others through definition.

The debate about who's Christian is about power and control... It is an un-winnable debate.

The debate about what I believe is clear and simple and can not be disputed. Why debate if I'm Christian when I can prove instead that I believe in Christ - what ever that means for my Christianity.

[Scott Lloyd]

I wasn't referring to the conference talk. Forgive me, I was trying to tease you but I probably didn't express myself well. In any case, I shouldn't try to tease someone I don't know personally.

 

If  you're acquainted with the conference talk you ought to know of the clear and explicit direction given by Jesus Christ in 3 Nephi on this matter.

 

We've been following that passage for most of the Church's history. I don't think it has anything to do with style guide stuff.

 

 

 

It has to do with following the direction of Jesus Christ regarding how His Church should be known. Dismissing it as "style guide stuff" does not change the verity of that direction.

 

 

There's really nothing we can do to follow it more - the name is already right up there in black and white in front of every chapel we own.

 

Names on meetinghouses is the least we can do. There is a lot more that can be done -- including, as Elder Ballard suggests, being careful in our own conversation and discourse about how we refer to the Lord's church.

[Scott Lloyd]

The debate about who's Christian is about power and control... It is an un-winnable debate.

 

 

This strikes me as overwrought rhetoric. Calmly laying claim to a term that denotes those who follow Christ is not exercising control over anyone.

 

 

The debate about what I believe is clear and simple and can not be disputed. Why debate if I'm Christian when I can prove instead that I believe in Christ - what ever that means for my Christianity.

 

You can calmly assert it. You don't have to debate it. That's your own choice.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

If  you're acquainted with the conference talk you ought to know of the clear and explicit direction given by Jesus Christ in 3 Nephi on this matter.

 

It has to do with following the direction of Jesus Christ regarding how His Church should be known. Dismissing it as "style guide stuff" does not change the verity of that direction.

 

 

Names on meetinghouses is the least we can do. There is a lot more that can be done -- including, as Elder Ballard suggests, being careful in our own conversation and discourse about how we refer to the Lord's church.

 

That's nice, but none of those things are taught in 3 Nephi. All it says is use Christ's name in your church name.

 

If these things are true for you, that's fine. From my perspective it's not really a spiritual topic. 

Edited April 7, 2014 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

That's nice, but none of those things are taught in 3 Nephi. All it says is use Christ's name in your church name.

 

If these things are true for you, that's fine. From my perspective it's not really a spiritual topic. 

I've quoted this passage before on this thread.

 

It was cited in the above quotes I have provided from Elder Ballard.

 

I'll quote it again:

 

 

7 Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake.

 8 And how be it ^amy ^bchurch save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.

 9 Verily I say unto you, that ye are built upon my gospel; therefore ye shall call whatsoever things ye do call, in my name; therefore if ye call upon the Father, for the church, if it be in my name the Father will hear you;

 

[Gray]

I've quoted this passage before on this thread.

 

It was cited in the above quotes I have provided from Elder Ballard.

 

I'll quote it again:

 

 

 

My takeaway: use Christ's name in your church, do everything in His name. Which we already do. 

 

I understand you see it differently. 

[Teancum]

Are you then suggesting the doctrine that we are the only true Church is also presumptuous?

 

I do not think there is a One True Church.  And yes it does seem presumptuous by any Church that so claims.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Teancum

[Scott Lloyd]

My takeaway: use Christ's name in your church, do everything in His name. Which we already do. 

 

I understand you see it differently. 

I see it as the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve see it.

Edited April 7, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

Why did it take 8 years for the Lord to give the appropriate name for the church?

 

D&C 115:4

 

When the church was organized, it was called the Church of Christ, then it was changed to the Church of the Latter Day Saints.

[Bikeemikey]

This strikes meas overwrought rhetoric. Calmly laying claim to a term that denotes those who follow Christ is not exercising control over anyone.

You can calmly assert it. You don't have to debate it. That's your own choice.

Obviously for us it is not our desire for definitional inclusion that is the controlling party, it is the otherwise that takes offense when we try to exert our right to inclusion.

As I have already stated in a couple of previous posts - to assert it in any fashion almost always produces a combative conversation with those who object to to our inclusion. As such I limit my conversations to my beliefs, not what group they make me belong to.

[Scott Lloyd]

Why did it take 8 years for the Lord to give the appropriate name for the church?

 

D&C 115:4

 

When the church was organized, it was called the Church of Christ, then it was changed to the Church of the Latter Day Saints.

I posted the following in March of 2013, which was actually a repeat of something I posted the previous October:

This has been discussed before here on the board.

For example, I posted the following on a thread of last October:

 

Quote

Regarding establishment of the name of the Church in this dispensation, this article by Richard Lloyd Anderson provides some good perspective. It is from the January 1979 Ensign magazine. It points out that the name from the beginning had the name of Christ in it, and that even during the brief period when it was called "the Church of the Latter-day Saints," the members did not believe they were de-emphasizing the name of Christ.

As for the question posed earlier in the thread to the effect of "why did it take the Lord so long to reveal the name of the Church?" I would respond that the revelation was already there as contained in 3 Nephi 27:8, though it took the early Church members in this dispensation a while to understand and implement it properly.

Quote

What changes have been made in the name of the Church? Its full designation does not appear in the revelations until 1838. (D&C 115:4)

Richard Lloyd Anderson, professor of religion and history, Brigham Young University A concise answer to this question is found by comparing the name of the Church on the title pages of the first three printings of the revelations: “The Church of Christ” (Book of Commandments, 1833), “The Church of the Latter Day Saints” (Doctrine and Covenants, 1835), and “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” (Doctrine and Covenants, 1844).

The Savior told the Nephites that his church should be called in his name. (See 3 Ne. 27:8.) As a result, the restored Church’s official title from 1830 to 1834 was “The Church of Christ.” That title is found in the revelation on the organization and government of the Church (D&C 20:1) and in early minute books. During this period, however, members of the Church regularly called themselves “saints”; the word saint is used approximately three dozen times in the D&C before 1834.

On 3 May 1834, official action modified the name of the Church. In a priesthood conference presided over by Joseph Smith, a motion passed “by unanimous voice” that the Church be known as “The Church of the Latter Day Saints.” (See The Evening and the Morning Star, May 1834, 2:160.) This alteration was not seen as a de-emphasis of Christ; on the contrary, it was done in hopes that the name of the Church would more clearly reflect the fact that Christ was at its head.

In the same issue of the Kirtland newspaper in which the announcement appeared, an editorial explained that the change stemmed from a misleading nickname: the “Mormonite” church. The new name also had these advantages: (1) Since American Christians, including Congregationalists and reformers, frequently designated themselves as “The Church of Christ,” that title did not distinguish the restored gospel from a host of Protestant sects. (2) Since Paul and Peter used the Greek word saint (“a holy person”) to refer to believers in Christ, the term Latter-day Saints implied that Church members were modern followers of Christ. Thus it also asserted the claim of restoration.

Just as the term saint flourished when the official name was “The Church of Christ,” the name of Christ regularly supplemented the official name of “The Church of the Latter Day Saints.” For example, in 1835, the church was referred to as “the church of Christ” and the Twelve apostles were commissioned as “special witnesses of the name of Christ.” (D&C 107:59, 23) The Saints certainly did not feel that the Church was leaving out the name of Christ.

Sometimes during this period the first and second titles would be combined—“the church of Christ of Latter Day saints”—as they were in priesthood minutes (Messenger and Advocate, Feb. 1836, 2:266) and in the publication of the first high council minutes (see headnote, D&C 5, 1835 edition).

A vivid illustration of the way members then understood the official name of the Church is found in a letter from John Smith, the Prophet’s uncle, to his son Elias before the latter was converted. Writing 19 Oct. 1834, Uncle John answers the question of why the name could be changed:

“The Church of Christ is the Church of Saints and always was. This is the reason why the apostle directed letters sometimes to the Church of God, others to the Church, and again to the Brethren, sometimes to the Saints, always meaning the Church of Christ.” (Archives, University of Utah)

Thus, the final version of the Church’s name was no radical shift from the previous practice of using both “Christ” and “Saints” in designating the restored Church and its members. Revealed on 26 April 1838 (D&C 115:4), the full title, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” is striking by comparison to the names of the scores of churches that obscure their Christianity under the label of their founders or of some characteristic belief or aspect of church organization. It is a highly effective name, for while it is distinctive, it indicates that Jesus is at its head. It is also descriptive of divine restoration. And it is more than a name—it is a public commitment to a holy life through the Savior’s power.

 

Regarding your parting dig:

 

Quote

... which it would seem from this was God's last choice....

I would respond that the Lord's pattern seems to be one of patience in allowing His people to learn "line upon line, precept upon precept" and to reveal knowledge as they are ready to receive it and as they manifest that readiness by going to Him with questions.

 

Edited April 7, 2014 by Scott Lloyd