RevTestament Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, ALarson said: Is that part in bold somewhere in the New Testament? Is there actually a record of this command? (Honest question....) 3 Nephi 27 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 my church 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.
SouthernMo Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Why is the church fighting so hard to show our faith in Christ? Other religions don't have that problem, it's a given, and they are still named Catholics, Methodists, Protestants... I think we as members need to focus more effort on living as Christ would have us live, rather than calling ourselves the right name. I don't support, or oppose this revelation President Nelson has received. I've got way bigger shortcomings in my life that I need to work on to become more like Christ. The revelation, it seems, is an indicator that for most members, this change will help them to be more like Christ. I hope it does. If not, this is just branding and public image, and another example of a church concerned with how others perceive it. Edited August 17, 2018 by SouthernMo 1
Tacenda Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I suppose it’s due in part to the false statements by many that the Church of Jesus Christ is not a Christian faith. Furthermore, as I have repeatedly pointed out, Christ Himself commanded that His Church be called by His name. How did Joseph not get the memo on that one, since he named the church "The Church of Latter-Day Saints? That one bothers me, why since he was visited time and time again, did the Lord let this one slip?
ksfisher Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 1 minute ago, ALarson said: Is that part in bold somewhere in the New Testament? Is there actually a record of this command? (Honest question....) "For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Doctrine and Covenants 115:4
ALarson Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 1 minute ago, RevTestament said: 3 Nephi 27 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 my church 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. Oh I know it was put into Mormon scripture. My question was regarding the Old Testament?
ksfisher Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 Just now, Tacenda said: How did Joseph not get the memo on that one, since he named the church "The Church of Latter-Day Saints? That one bothers me, why since he was visited time and time again, did the Lord let this one slip? "For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Doctrine and Covenants 115:4
changed Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 16 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Why is the church fighting so hard to show our faith in Christ? Other religions don't have that problem, it's a given, and they are still named Catholics, Methodists, Protestants... Others don't force you to have faith in the president of their church... for others, the focus really is to "Follow G-d" and have faith in G-d rather than "follow the prophet"... Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?
ALarson Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, ksfisher said: "For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Doctrine and Covenants 115:4 Again, where in the Old Testament? Not in Mormon Scripture.
Tacenda Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 1 minute ago, ksfisher said: "For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Doctrine and Covenants 115:4 My question is where was the Lord for 8 years, between the years 1830 to 1838, when the church didn't include His name? http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-Day_Saints,_the
Avatar4321 Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: The only time I cringed in the past was when I saw the phrase "the Mormon Church," (or, less commonly, "the Church of the Latter-day Saints") this because of the doctrine, as I understand it, that the Church is to be known by the name of Christ. I never had any qualms about referring to Church members as Mormons or using the word as a descriptor, as in "Mormon doctrine" or "the Mormon faith" or even "Mormonism." It will take some getting used to for me to remove these from my vocabulary, but I'm determined to follow President Nelson's direction. I am determined to follow his direction as well. I know it seems like a small and unimportant matter, but the Lord often uses the small and simple things to accomplish great things. now I don’t know what the Lord will accomplish through our obedience in this matter, but why shouldn’t we obey and find out? Why deny ourselves a blessing because we don’t want to do something so simple? 2
ksfisher Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 Just now, ALarson said: Again, where in the Old Testament? Not in Mormon Scripture. You don't accept modern revelation on the matter? 1
ksfisher Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 Just now, Tacenda said: My question is where was the Lord for 8 years, between the years 1830 to 1838, when the church didn't include His name? http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-Day_Saints,_the Why, for that matter, was all scripture not given to Adam at the very beginning. He could have just been presented with a copy of the four standard works as a parting gift when leaving the garden. Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: Isaiah 28:9-10 3
Avatar4321 Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I might say something like “the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints.” I might just wait and see what the Church does in conformity with this directive from the Church president and take my cue from that. Why not “doctrine of the restored church”? Or doctrines of the restoration
changed Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 http://cojc.org/ http://www.tcojc.us/ http://thechurchofjesuschrist.org/ http://www.churchofchrist-tl.org/about.html Does anyone think "The church of Jesus Christ", AKA "The Church of Christ" will fight back to maintain ownership of its name?
Scott Lloyd Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 2 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: Why not “doctrine of the restored church”? Or doctrines of the restoration Fine for in-house use. I'm not sure how meaningful that would be to outsiders, though. 1
SouthernMo Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Why, for that matter, was all scripture not given to Adam at the very beginning. He could have just been presented with a copy of the four standard works as a parting gift when leaving the garden. Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: Isaiah 28:9-10 I like this perspective. It makes sense. But, this position acknowledges that change happens in time, context, setting, etc... And, if we have seen changes in God's people, or organization, or name in the past, then I think we must be open to the idea that it will (or at least could) change in the future. What I don't believe is that somehow, finally, President Nelson got it 'right' and that this is, and forever will be the right moniker for the church with God's authority. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: I am determined to follow his direction as well. I know it seems like a small and unimportant matter, but the Lord often uses the small and simple things to accomplish great things. now I don’t know what the Lord will accomplish through our obedience in this matter, but why shouldn’t we obey and find out? Why deny ourselves a blessing because we don’t want to do something so simple? I've been thinking about this in the past 24 hours. If we push back and murmur over a little thing like this, how willing would we have been to do the hard things in the early days of the Church such as enduring persecution, moving from place to place with the body of the Church, embracing the principle of plural marriage, etc.? Edited August 17, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 2
SouthernMo Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 As a side note, I would LOVE it if @FearlessFixxer changed the name of MormonLeaks to something more in lines with Church branding guidelines. 3
RevTestament Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 9 minutes ago, ALarson said: Oh I know it was put into Mormon scripture. My question was regarding the Old Testament? He was not called Yeshua in the OT, although it is arguable that the name Joshua was used as a prefigure. So, no you are not going to see that in the OT. (ie English Joshua = NT Jesus. The name became Jesus in the process of being translated through the Greek). Yeshua is the more correct transliteration. You do see this: Zech 3 3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. 4 And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment. 5 And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the Lord stood by. 6 And the angel of the Lord protested unto Joshua, saying, 7 Thus saith the Lord of hosts; If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by. 8 Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.
jkwilliams Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: I've been thinking about this in the 24 hours. If we push back and murmur over a little thing like this, how willing would we have been to do the hard things in the early days of the Church such as enduring persecution, moving from place to place with the body of the Church, embracing the principle of plural marriage, etc.? I'm not pushing back, really, but I feel a sense of loss from this. My identity is so tied up in being a Mormon. These less-specific identifiers leave me a little cold.
Avatar4321 Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 1 hour ago, Thinking said: When you say the people, do you include Joseph Smith as having limited light and understanding? Joseph Smith was the first to say he had limited understanding
Scott Lloyd Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 28 minutes ago, ALarson said: Is that part in bold somewhere in the New Testament? Is there actually a record of this command (or even where Christ made a reference to "His Church")? (Honest question....) Suppose there is not such a record of it in the New Testament. Would that mean Christ never taught it? Do you think the New Testament contains every single thing Christ ever taught? The New Testament itself says the contrary: Quote 25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. John 21:25
changed Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: As a side note, I would LOVE it if @FearlessFixxer changed the name of MormonLeaks to something more in lines with Church branding guidelines. "Mormon" and "LDS" will eternally be linked to the LDS church. There is no need for anyone no longer affiliated with Mormons to change their name.
Avatar4321 Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 47 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Shorthand (authorizedly, of course ;)) the name of the Church: "Doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ." Or how about Doctrine of Christ?
RevTestament Posted August 17, 2018 Posted August 17, 2018 15 minutes ago, changed said: http://cojc.org/ http://www.tcojc.us/ http://thechurchofjesuschrist.org/ http://www.churchofchrist-tl.org/about.html Does anyone think "The church of Jesus Christ", AKA "The Church of Christ" will fight back to maintain ownership of its name? No. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints beat them to the name. They are a later offshoot. The Church went through the same kind of thing with the Restored Church. To incorporate a name, all you basically have to do is change one word, so they cut out "of Latter Day Saints."
Recommended Posts