Church name and "too frequent repetition" of his name

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

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 😁

You are exactly right, but few Mormons realize why.

[CV75]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

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.

Yes, that is why I pointed that out here: Posted 11 hours ago

ETA: I think I see your finer point, not to mention the actual name of the Father as in "the Son of God."

Edited November 7, 2019 by CV75

[Mark Beesley]

Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel comes to mind.

“Wherefore, whatsoever ye would have others do unto you, do ye even so unto them. This is the law and the prophets.” Jesus Christ

President Nelson gave simple, inspired counsel. If you are struggling with when, where, and how to use the name of the Savior, you may be a redne . . . Um, a Pharisee.

[stemelbow]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

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.

What's odd about all of this is we're taking a nineteenth century claim, pulled out of thin air, and claiming that was the position of ancient Hebrews--that they really did have a priesthood after the order of the Son and they really did substitute the name with a nickname.  To Nelson such a practice offends God, at least today.  Perhaps it was true the Hebrews were just guessworking it there and used a nickname, which nickname we use today, and yet God wished they did not use a nickname and saw no disrespect nor irreverence with invoking God or Jesus' name.  SO why do we use a nickname for that priesthood today?  Maybe on this Nelson has a point.  But certainly we're a bit stuck.  We have one prophet saying God is offended and Satan takes delight when we substitute a nickname, we have others saying the opposite.  If we feel forced to live by the principle that the most recent prophet is always the rightest, then we have an additional problem on our hands--someone over at Church central leaked out the notion that it's okay to use a nickname.  God is not offended and Satan doesn't claim a victory for anyone doing so.  Nelson hasn't, at least not yet, come back and said, "wait a minute.  I was right...God is offended and Satan does claim victory, God told me so.  We need to correct the message that it's okay to use Mormon again."  

Sounds like a problem only the Sadducees and Pharisees would take seriously to me.  

Edited November 7, 2019 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

39 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel comes to mind.

“Wherefore, whatsoever ye would have others do unto you, do ye even so unto them. This is the law and the prophets.” Jesus Christ

President Nelson gave simple, inspired counsel. If you are struggling with when, where, and how to use the name of the Savior, you may be a redne . . . Um, a Pharisee.

His counsel was contradicted by later church publication.  Indeed, though, Nelson really is only pushing a letter of the law type of directive here.  Odd claim really--speaking about God being offended over something so petty seeming.  

[MiserereNobis]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are exactly right, but few Mormons realize why.

It is one of things I've pushed a few times here on the board. From my vantage point, "modern-day revelation" does not differ in practice at all from the way the Catholic Church functions. We just use different words to describe the same process. The issue isn't that the LDS church is unique in its claims of being led by God. The issue is whether or not that claim, or the Catholic claim, is correct.

To use LDS terms, The Catholic Church fully believes that the pope is a prophet of God and the pope and the bishops united lead through modern-day revelation. (those words wouldn't make much sense to a Catholic, but the LDS definitions behind them fit)

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What's odd about all of this is we're taking a nineteenth century claim, pulled out of thin air, and claiming that was the position of ancient Hebrews--that they really did have a priesthood after the order of the Son and they really did substitute the name with a nickname.  To Nelson such a practice offends God, at least today.  Perhaps it was true the Hebrews were just guessworking it there and used a nickname, which nickname we use today, and yet God wished they did not use a nickname and saw no disrespect nor irreverence with invoking God or Jesus' name.  SO why do we use a nickname for that priesthood today?  Maybe on this Nelson has a point.  But certainly we're a bit stuck.  We have one prophet saying God is offended and Satan takes delight when we substitute a nickname, we have others saying the opposite.  If we feel forced to live by the principle that the most recent prophet is always the rightest, then we have an additional problem on our hands--someone over at Church central leaked out the notion that it's okay to use a nickname.  God is not offended and Satan doesn't claim a victory for anyone doing so.  Nelson hasn't, at least not yet, come back and said, "wait a minute.  I was right...God is offended and Satan does claim victory, God told me so.  We need to correct the message that it's okay to use Mormon again."  

Sounds like a problem only the Sadducees and Pharisees would take seriously to me.  

It is not "pulled out of thin air."  One of the key differences is that Mormons are not part of that Jewish system, and we don't use the Hebrew references anyhow.  What we are doing is to use the name Jesus Christ, on which there is no rule to refrain from saying.  Just the opposite:  The NT revels in the use of the term (in Greek), and claims "there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12), 

"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philipp 2:9-11).

"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him" (Coloss 3:17).

Sounds to me as though Pres Nelson is following NT precedent in emphasizing the name of Jesus Christ.  You, on the other hand, seem to be adopting the restrictive claims of the Sadducees and Pharisees in denying his right to do so.  Same thing they did to Jesus Christ himself.  Is God not permitted to instruct his prophets, and are we not a Church which accepts continuing revelation?  The Jews rejected that notion two thousand years ago, and were sent into Exile -- from which they have only recently emerged.  Is there a lesson to be learned?

Edited November 7, 2019 by Robert F. Smith

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is not "pulled out of thin air."  One of the key differences is that Mormons are not part of that Jewish system, and we don't use the Hebrew references anyhow.  What we are doing is to use the name Jesus Christ, on which there is no rule to refrain from saying.  Just the opposite:  The NT revels in the use of the term (in Greek), and claims "there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12), 

"Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philipp 2:9-11).

"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him" (Coloss 3:17).

Sounds to me as though Pres Nelson is following NT precedent in emphasizing the name of Jesus Christ.  You, on the other hand, seem to be adopting the restrictive claims of the Sadducees and Pharisees in denying his right to do so.  Same thing they did to Jesus Christ himself.  Is God not permitted to instruct his prophets, and are we not a Church which accepts continuing revelation?  The Jews rejected that notion two thousand years ago, and were sent into Exile -- from which they have only recently emerged.  Is there a lesson to be learned?

I'm denying what right?  If Nelson is intent on naming the Church and it's members with the full name, be my guest.  I don't see the fuss about calling the Church Mormon or it adherents Mormon.  He does...He suggested that calling it Mormon gives a win to Satan and offends God.  

I merely pointed out that the ancient Hebrews as claimed in the D&C saw speaking Jesus' name, as they had it, as lacking respect and reverence for Him.  I"m saying, apparently, the ancient Hebrews were wrong in that notion.  It's not disrespectful nor irreverent.  

[Robert F. Smith]

6 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

..........................

I merely pointed out that the ancient Hebrews as claimed in the D&C saw speaking Jesus' name, as they had it, as lacking respect and reverence for Him.  I"m saying, apparently, the ancient Hebrews were wrong in that notion.  It's not disrespectful nor irreverent.  

But that is just my point:  The D&C does no such thing.  It speaks to an old practice to explain why the term "Melchizedek" was adopted, and the name Jesus was not part of that old practice.  I gave you the context.  What is it that you don't understand about that context?

[stemelbow]

48 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But that is just my point:  The D&C does no such thing.  It speaks to an old practice to explain why the term "Melchizedek" was adopted, and the name Jesus was not part of that old practice.  I gave you the context.  What is it that you don't understand about that context?

So you are saying the D&C does not suggest it was disrespectful and irreverent to speak the name of the son of God?  Jesus is his name is it not?  Apparently it's not disrespectful nor irreverent to speak his name.  If it were then Nelson would embrace the nickname as the ancient Hebrews apparently did (I say apparently because I don't see any reason at all to really give credence to the D&C claim about what ancient Hebrews did, particularly since the Melchizedek priesthood was never a something to them, most likely.  

[Robert F. Smith]

52 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

So you are saying the D&C does not suggest it was disrespectful and irreverent to speak the name of the son of God?  Jesus is his name is it not?  Apparently it's not disrespectful nor irreverent to speak his name.  If it were then Nelson would embrace the nickname as the ancient Hebrews apparently did (I say apparently because I don't see any reason at all to really give credence to the D&C claim about what ancient Hebrews did, particularly since the Melchizedek priesthood was never a something to them, most likely.  

If you are bound and determined to falsify the plain meaning of a text, naturally it will seem to fit your preconceptions and your need to find fault:

D&C 107:2-4 "Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood .....  Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.  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."

That is a descriptive not a prescriptive text.  I explained what that meant in a real-world Jewish context, which you immediately rejected -- as Sadducees and Pharisees always do.  In no way does the text say what you claim it says.  Worse, you likewise falsify Jewish history to exclude that other priesthood -- even though you qualify your lack of knowledge with "apparently" and "most likely."

Apparently you have never read the book of Hebrews in the NT.  You are also apparently ignorant of the best of non-Mormon scholarship on this issue, that of the late Frank Moore Cross:  See a good summary in Richley Crapo, “Lehi, Joseph, and the Kingdom of Israel,” Interpreter, 33 (2019): 289-304, online at https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/lehi-joseph-and-the-kingdom-of-israel/ .

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

If you are bound and determined to falsify the plain meaning of a text, naturally it will seem to fit your preconceptions and your need to find fault:

D&C 107:2-4 "Why the first is called the Melchizedek Priesthood .....  Before his day it was called the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.  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."

That is a descriptive not a prescriptive text.  I explained what that meant in a real-world Jewish context, which you immediately rejected -- as Sadducees and Pharisees always do.

Always do?  As in the present?  I'm confused what your point is.  Perhaps we can agree on one thing, we are making an issue out of nothing here?  I don't know why Nelson tried to make it an issue to begin with.  Seems petty and silly.  

 

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  In no way does the text say what you claim it says.  Worse, you likewise falsify Jewish history to exclude that other priesthood -- even though you qualify your lack of knowledge with "apparently" and "most likely."

Apparently you have never read the book of Hebrews in the NT.  You are also apparently ignorant of the best of non-Mormon scholarship on this issue, that of the late Frank Moore Cross:  See a good summary in Richley Crapo, “Lehi, Joseph, and the Kingdom of Israel,” Interpreter, 33 (2019): 289-304, online at https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/lehi-joseph-and-the-kingdom-of-israel/ .

After reading your linked article I will gladly confess I have no desire whatsoever to get caught up in this matter.  Hence I'll set myself in the mode of agree to disagree with you on it.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

So you are saying the D&C does not suggest it was disrespectful and irreverent to speak the name of the son of God?  Jesus is his name is it not?  Apparently it's not disrespectful nor irreverent to speak his name.  If it were then Nelson would embrace the nickname as the ancient Hebrews apparently did (I say apparently because I don't see any reason at all to really give credence to the D&C claim about what ancient Hebrews did, particularly since the Melchizedek priesthood was never a something to them, most likely.  

I think he is suggesting that the name that is not to be repeated too frequently is that of the Supreme Being, or the actual name of the Father, who is identified as "God" in the term "Son of God" and which name was known among the ancients but mentioned only rarely.

It is interesting to me that the longer name of the Priesthood and the name of the Supreme Being just might be the same thing since He too is the Son of His God (or a Son who became the Son). We use name-titles all the time, and God is often referred to by His divine attributes (in this case, eternal order, power and unity).

[JAHS]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are exactly right, but few Mormons realize why.

It is one of things I've pushed a few times here on the board. From my vantage point, "modern-day revelation" does not differ in practice at all from the way the Catholic Church functions. We just use different words to describe the same process. The issue isn't that the LDS church is unique in its claims of being led by God. The issue is whether or not that claim, or the Catholic claim, is correct.

To use LDS terms, The Catholic Church fully believes that the pope is a prophet of God and the pope and the bishops united lead through modern-day revelation. (those words wouldn't make much sense to a Catholic, but the LDS definitions behind them fit)

I have always believed that there are only three religions that could have it right:  The Catholics, the Jews, or the Mormons, mostly because of claims to authority from God.   I am partial to the latter of course.  😊

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Always do?  As in the present?  I'm confused what your point is.  Perhaps we can agree on one thing, we are making an issue out of nothing here?  I don't know why Nelson tried to make it an issue to begin with.  Seems petty and silly.  ......................

At the simplest level, it may well be that God wants greater emphasis on the name of Jesus Christ, and so he told his Prophet to emphasize it.  "Jesus Christ" instead of "Mormon."  If you were an Ad Man, would that make any kind of sense?  As in advertising?  The NT quotations I provided are pretty clear on why.  I still don't understand why you go out of your way to find fault with that.  I'm not Catholic, but if the Pope said something similar, I would not make disrespectful remarks.  I would try to understand what he is saying in a reasonable way.  It is "petty and silly" not to take that gracious approach.

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

At the simplest level, it may well be that God wants greater emphasis on the name of Jesus Christ, and so he told his Prophet to emphasize it.  "Jesus Christ" instead of "Mormon."  If you were an Ad Man, would that make any kind of sense?  As in advertising?  The NT quotations I provided are pretty clear on why.  I still don't understand why you go out of your way to find fault with that.  I'm not Catholic, but if the Pope said something similar, I would not make disrespectful remarks.  I would try to understand what he is saying in a reasonable way.  It is "petty and silly" not to take that gracious approach.

If it was all about advertising, gret, no problem.  It wasn't a bout emphasizing so much as suggesting god is easily offended and satan takes delight when some one uses a particular nickname that many are familiar with.  

In my mind the "I'm a mormon" campaign was about advertising.  The god is petty and easily offended and satan delights suggests more than wanting to change emphasis or advertise. 

Considering the church has since said mormon is ok,  it feels a little slimy to think this was all started with some notion that God was offended by the use of mormon.    

Edited November 8, 2019 by stemelbow

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

It is one of things I've pushed a few times here on the board. From my vantage point, "modern-day revelation" does not differ in practice at all from the way the Catholic Church functions. We just use different words to describe the same process. The issue isn't that the LDS church is unique in its claims of being led by God. The issue is whether or not that claim, or the Catholic claim, is correct.

To use LDS terms, The Catholic Church fully believes that the pope is a prophet of God and the pope and the bishops united lead through modern-day revelation. (those words wouldn't make much sense to a Catholic, but the LDS definitions behind them fit)

Well, if we keep changing names, revising administration, and adjusting quorums we may not be far behind in our new word usage.
It may not be too long till the ward Bishop becomes the flock's Pastor.

It's all an issue of how change is accepted within the Church.
A Catholic believes that Christ's original Church was led by continuing revelation to make the changes in "administration" and "policy" and given "further light and knowledge" to get from Christ's day to where they are today.
An LDS member believes that Christ's restored Church is being led by continuing revelation to make the changes in "administration" and "policy" and given "further light and knowledge" to get from what Joseph restored to where they are today.

The only difference is who they believe is authorized to get the continuing revelation.  Either way both change to original to the new.
 

Edited November 8, 2019 by JLHPROF

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

If it was all about advertising, gret, no problem.  It wasn't a bout emphasizing so much as suggesting god is easily offended and satan takes delight when some one uses a particular nickname that many are familiar with.  

In my mind the "I'm a mormon" campaign was about advertising.  The god is petty and easily offended and satan delights suggests more than wanting to change emphasis or advertise. 

Considering the church has since said mormon is ok,  it feels a little slimy to think this was all started with some notion that God was offended by the use of mormon.    

Since I am not on a fault-finding spree, none of this seems odd to me, and I don't attribute the worst possible motives to LDS leaders, as you do.  On the one hand, you seem to be OK with God using an advertising program, but on the the other you take the harshest possible view of it, and you clearly don't believe either in God or his self-proclaimed representatives.  Instead of showing grace and tolerance to the beliefs of others, you want to place them in the worst possible light.  This is the way of the world, of course, and we see it exercised every day in the media, but is that the high ethical and moral way to approach the religion of your neighbors?  Why are you flinging slime at your Mormon neighbors?

[Scott Lloyd]

On 11/6/2019 at 8:02 PM, MiserereNobis said:

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 😁

As a Latter-day Saint, I've long felt greater doctrinal affinity for Catholicism than I have for Protestantism. 

In his book, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder,  Elder LeGrand Richards, one of our apostles, now deceased, quoted an experience related by an earlier apostle, Elder Orson F. Whitney. In a general conference in 1972, Elder Richards quoted the recollection from his own book:

 

Quote

 

I have always been greatly impressed by the experience that Elder Orson F. Whitney had. He was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, and he related this in one of our conferences. I would like to read it to you. He said:

“Many years ago a learned man, a member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. I became well-acquainted with him, and we conversed freely and frankly. A great scholar, with perhaps a dozen languages at his tongue’s end, he seemed to know all about theology, law, literature, science and philosophy. One day he said to me: ‘You Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don’t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism and Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that’s all there is to it. The Protestants haven’t a leg to stand on. For, if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need of Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism’s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days.’” (LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder [Deseret Book Co., 1950], pp. 3–4.)

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel comes to mind.

“Wherefore, whatsoever ye would have others do unto you, do ye even so unto them. This is the law and the prophets.” Jesus Christ

President Nelson gave simple, inspired counsel. If you are struggling with when, where, and how to use the name of the Savior, you may be a redne . . . Um, a Pharisee.

I'm glad you feel this way about the instruction given to us by President Nelson and others of the Brethren regarding calling the Church by its proper name. It has not always been so.

 

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since I am not on a fault-finding spree, none of this seems odd to me, and I don't attribute the worst possible motives to LDS leaders, as you do.  On the one hand, you seem to be OK with God using an advertising program, but on the the other you take the harshest possible view of it, and you clearly don't believe either in God or his self-proclaimed representatives.  Instead of showing grace and tolerance to the beliefs of others, you want to place them in the worst possible light.  This is the way of the world, of course, and we see it exercised every day in the media, but is that the high ethical and moral way to approach the religion of your neighbors?  Why are you flinging slime at your Mormon neighbors?

Hello Bro Smith, thanks for the response.  I think I can certainly imagine worse motives for the LDS leaders, so I wouldn't say I'm attributing the worst possible.  In truth when you accuse me of attributing the worst possible motives I'm not sure what you mean.  I don't think I've attributed motives much at all to people.  I've described what happened.  Last year Pres Nelson told everyone at Gen Conf:

Quote

the name of the Church is not negotiable. When the Savior clearly states what the name of His Church should be and even precedes His declaration with, “Thus shall my church be called,” He is serious. And if we allow nicknames to be used or adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, He is offended.

What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement.

Previously he announced in Aug 2018:

Quote

The Lord has impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He has revealed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have work before us to bring ourselves in harmony with His will. In recent weeks, various Church leaders and departments have initiated the necessary steps to do so. Additional information about this important matter will be made available in the coming months.

SO he is not saying this is an advertising ploy, as you describe.  He is saying that using Mormon to describe the Church is a "major victory for Satan" and actually offends God.  Did I say anything about motivations here?  I don't think so.  You have been guessing at my motivations but I have not done the same.  Perhaps we should try to guess motivations:

1.  God really does get offended when we say Mormon Church instead of using the official name.

2.  GOd does not get offended and Nelson was wrong about that confusing impressions and feelings he has had.

3.  Nelson is offended by the references to Mormon and invoked God in hopes to get such references to stop (odd too since he tried to get this official name thing going in the early 90s only to be shot down by those above him).

4.  Nelson is, as you suggest, using this as an advertising ploy--we really want to emphasize that we believe in Jesus so we must use his name each time we reference us or our Church.  In so doing he decided to implement the ploy by suggesting God is behind it (even though Mormon has been used in many advertising campaigns in recent years).  

Who knows, huh?  

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

................................... 

Who knows, huh?  

Once again, instead of showing tolerance and grace toward the religions of others, you seek to play semantic games in order to make them look absurd, hypocritical, and evil.  Jesus suffered the same sort of attacks during his ministry from the sophistry of the Sadducees and Pharisees, themselves the primary hypocrites of their day.  Luke 11:54 "Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him."  Luke 20:20 "So they watched Him closely and sent spies who pretended to be sincere."  Mark 12:13 "to catch Jesus in His words."   Proverbs 1:11 "Come with us, let us lay wait ..., let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause:"  

The real question, stemebow, is why you fling slime at your neighbors?

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again, instead of showing tolerance and grace toward the religions of others, you seek to play semantic games in order to make them look absurd, hypocritical, and evil. 

No, you've misunderstood my intentions.  I'm asking because I really do not get how someone can see the events as described and make sense of them.  

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Jesus suffered the same sort of attacks during his ministry from the sophistry of the Sadducees and Pharisees, themselves the primary hypocrites of their day.  Luke 11:54 "Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him."  Luke 20:20 "So they watched Him closely and sent spies who pretended to be sincere."  Mark 12:13 "to catch Jesus in His words."   Proverbs 1:11 "Come with us, let us lay wait ..., let us lurk privily for the innocent without cause:"  

The real question, stemebow, is why you fling slime at your neighbors?

I don't.  I worry you are getting really offended and for that I apologize.  Although, to be clear, the only effort to question motives was in the 4 possibilities I mentioned.  And sure there are more.  

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As a Latter-day Saint, I've long felt greater doctrinal affinity for Catholicism than I have for Protestantism. 

I think it's your love for rules, obedience and order.  We have that in common.  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

No, you've misunderstood my intentions.  I'm asking because I really do not get how someone can see the events as described and make sense of them.  

I don't.  I worry you are getting really offended and for that I apologize.  Although, to be clear, the only effort to question motives was in the 4 possibilities I mentioned.  And sure there are more.  

Of course there are more, and I could come with more if I so desired.  Why is it that I don't do so?  Why is it that I am very hesitant to call everything into question?  In every day life, things are not precisely oriented, and people are not infallible.  We need to be decent and generous toward them.  That's something we needed to learn out on the playground in elementary and secondary school.  Not everyone got the message.  Not everyone has learned proper behavior.

You remind me of the story of two Arabs crossing a barren desert.  Nothing and nobody for miles and miles.  One of them turns to the other and says, "Hey, you."  The other replies, "Who, me?"