New Symbol to Identify the Church

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, darkrats said:

There are many Churches that claim exclusive authority, but most are considered (like the Mormons) not to be Christian. Examples would be the Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, Church of God (many varieties) and so on. When we focus to much on the LDS Church we tend to believe that our doctrines and practices are unique and special, but they are not. Think eternal marriage (Swedenborgians)

Are you sure?  Quoth Wikipedia:

Quote

Swedenborg defined the celestial marriage or heavenly marriage as the marriage of love with wisdom or of goodness with truth. He wrote, "Truth and good joined together is what is called the celestial marriage, which constitutes heaven itself with a person." Swedenborg does not use "celestial marriage" to refer to the marriage of husband and wife, although he says that the marriage of husband and wife has its origin in the heavenly or celestial marriage of goodness and truth.

Thx,

Smac

[Bob Crockett]

15 minutes ago, darkrats said:

There are many Churches that claim exclusive authority, but most are considered (like the Mormons) not to be Christian. Examples would be the Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, Church of God (many varieties) and so on. When we focus to much on the LDS Church we tend to believe that our doctrines and practices are unique and special, but they are not. Think eternal marriage (Swedenborgians), becoming Gods (any offshoot of the once well known World Wide Church of God), having Apostles (Apostolic Churches). Some churches even do the LDS Church one better by speaking in tongues (Pentecostal Churches) which isn't done by the LDS Church. Other churches practice healing, playing with serpents (snakes). Even the Eastern Christian churches believe in ascending to some form of Godhood. The LDS Church is not the final bastion of exclusive authority. There are also many occult groups that operate as churches which have additional scriptures over and above the Bible. Joseph Smith may have had a true vision, but he wasn't experiencing anything completely different. I don't recall the name of the church, but there was even a group that constructed a temple around the same time as JS lived. As for end time Prophets, think the Bahai's who had their own latter-day prophet.

So you say.  But when Jesus walked the earth, He did have and claim exclusive authority.  When Moses led the Children of Israel, he did have and claimed exclusive authority.   Now, I suppose you could contest that by pointing to magical or exotic competitive religions at the time, such as Mithras (which taught a virgin birth and a sacrifice before Christ), but as long as you are willing to admit the truth of competing claims, there is nothing we can say to you.

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Can't trademark the Christus.  Already in the public domain.

I was thinking more of Moroni since the subdiscussion was about a speculated trend in dropping Moroni as a signifier of the Church.

[darkrats]

18 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

So you say.  But when Jesus walked the earth, He did have and claim exclusive authority.  When Moses led the Children of Israel, he did have and claimed exclusive authority.   Now, I suppose you could contest that by pointing to magical or exotic competitive religions at the time, such as Mithras (which taught a virgin birth and a sacrifice before Christ), but as long as you are willing to admit the truth of competing claims, there is nothing we can say to you.

The poster I was replying to had mentioned that beyond the Catholic Church he was unaware of others that claimed exclusive authority. I'm not saying their claims were true, only that such other churches did exist.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

But are trademarks logos?

They can be, but trademark is a more general legal term that controls how a design, or sign, or group of words, or logos can be used. Other things like logos can be trademarked, such as the name of the Church.  A trademark is a type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression which identifies products or services of a particular source from those of others.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

As for Catholics accepting baptisms from Protestants,

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/03/are-protestant-baptisms-valid/

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, darkrats said:

The poster I was replying to had mentioned that beyond the Catholic Church he was unaware of others that claimed exclusive authority. I'm not saying their claims were true, only that such other churches did exist.

Are those faiths you mentioned mainstream though?

[darkrats]

53 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Are those faiths you mentioned mainstream though?

I would say the JW's and the SDA's are probably as mainstream as the LDS's. And the Bahai's are kind of like the Protestants of the Islamic world.

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, darkrats said:

There are many Churches that claim exclusive authority, but most are considered (like the Mormons) not to be Christian. Examples would be the Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, Church of God (many varieties) and so on.

Some more mainstream type churches that claim exclusive authority would be Eastern Orthodox and Anglican.  The Eastern Orthodox Church considers itself to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church established by Christ and his apostles, but so do the Catholics.  

The differences come in the claims as to the source of that exclusive authority.   The Wikipedia article on "Apostolic succession" says, "Christians of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Old Catholic, Anglican, Moravian, and Scandinavian Lutheran traditions maintain that 'a bishop cannot have regular or valid orders unless he has been consecrated in this apostolic succession.'   Each of these groups does not necessarily consider consecration of the other groups as valid."   Other groups (like Jehovah's Witnesses) typically claim the Bible as their source of authority, and that's where the claim to authority falls totally apart in my opinion.   I think the Latter-day Saints are somewhat unique in claiming a direct restoration of authority by divine means.  

1 hour ago, darkrats said:

Think eternal marriage (Swedenborgians), becoming Gods (any offshoot of the once well known World Wide Church of God), having Apostles (Apostolic Churches). Some churches even do the LDS Church one better by speaking in tongues (Pentecostal Churches) which isn't done by the LDS Church. Other churches practice healing, playing with serpents (snakes). Even the Eastern Christian churches believe in ascending to some form of Godhood. The LDS Church is not the final bastion of exclusive authority. There are also many occult groups that operate as churches which have additional scriptures over and above the Bible. Joseph Smith may have had a true vision, but he wasn't experiencing anything completely different. I don't recall the name of the church, but there was even a group that constructed a temple around the same time as JS lived. As for end time Prophets, think the Bahai's who had their own latter-day prophet.

Well, there's a reason The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is called the "restored" church.  It's not "restored" if it hasn't been taught by previous prophets or apostles at some point in history.  Pretty much every religion on the planet has borrowed one piece or another of the teachings that God gave anciently.  So there are definitely going to be similarities. 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

So which Christian church doesn't believe the things in the Bible are enough, just curious.

The Catholics who believe in the three pillars: the Scriptures (Bible), Sacred Tradition, and Living Magesterium. Protestants created sola scriptura.

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

especially after the Catholic church started accepting Protestant baptisms,

The Catholic Church has always accepted protestant baptism. Well, at least the Council of Trent (mid 1500s) cleared up any misconceptions there were about it. Valid priesthood authority is not needed for baptism. This isn't a Vatican II thing.

Edited April 9, 2020 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

The Catholic church at least as I know it in Mexico has really changed, sparking a backlash among its more conservative members.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is still the official doctrine of the Catholic Church and claims that exclusive priesthood authority resides in the Catholic Church. Any teaching otherwise (by your priest or whoever) runs contrary to Catholic doctrine.

[Navidad]

24 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is still the official doctrine of the Catholic Church and claims that exclusive priesthood authority resides in the Catholic Church. Any teaching otherwise (by your priest or whoever) runs contrary to Catholic doctrine.

HI Thanks for the reply. What does exclusive priesthood authority residing in the Catholic church mean to you? Can you define that for the non-Catholic? What is the common priesthood of all believers that one reads about in Catholic literature? Thanks

Edited April 9, 2020 by Navidad

[darkrats]

""Christians of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Old Catholic, Anglican, Moravian, and Scandinavian Lutheran traditions maintain that 'a bishop cannot have regular or valid orders unless he has been consecrated in this apostolic succession.'   Each of these groups does not necessarily consider consecration of the other groups as valid."   Other groups (like Jehovah's Witnesses) typically claim the Bible as their source of authority, and that's where the claim to authority falls totally apart in my opinion"

Jehovah's Witnesses claim their authority in the same way the LDS Church does. Instead of tracing that authority through a line of 'consecrated' Bishops, their Governing Body claims to be God's Annointed, chosen by God himself. They may pay lip service to the Bible as their authority, but a study of their history, using their own publications, clearly show that members look to the Watchtower organization to interpret the Scriptures and to guide them in following God's will. Just as the LDS Church puts the Book of Mormon (the most correct book) above the Bible (only as it is translated correctly), the JW's will always put their Watchtower publications above the plain text of the Bible. Spend a few minutes talking to a JW member and this will be made very clear in short order.

[Navidad]

5 minutes ago, darkrats said:

""Christians of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Old Catholic, Anglican, Moravian, and Scandinavian Lutheran traditions maintain that 'a bishop cannot have regular or valid orders unless he has been consecrated in this apostolic succession.'   Each of these groups does not necessarily consider consecration of the other groups as valid."   Other groups (like Jehovah's Witnesses) typically claim the Bible as their source of authority, and that's where the claim to authority falls totally apart in my opinion"

Jehovah's Witnesses claim their authority in the same way the LDS Church does. Instead of tracing that authority through a line of 'consecrated' Bishops, their Governing Body claims to be God's Annointed, chosen by God himself. They may pay lip service to the Bible as their authority, but a study of their history, using their own publications, clearly show that members look to the Watchtower organization to interpret the Scriptures and to guide them in following God's will. Just as the LDS Church puts the Book of Mormon (the most correct book) above the Bible (only as it is translated correctly), the JW's will always put their Watchtower publications above the plain text of the Bible. Spend a few minutes talking to a JW member and this will be made very clear in short order.

When I refer to the priesthood I am usually talking about the "common priesthood," the authority granted all believers as the royal priesthood, the priesthood of the believer and that individual's authority to go directly to the Father absent any human intermediary. Christ as the only High Priest grants that, not any specific church. We may be talking about different kinds of authority.

Of course each denomination has guidelines of authority for ordination of its own ministers and the performance of its own ordinances in its own church. 

[poptart]

Due to the Catholic/Lutheran background I prefer crucifixes, pic related is one of my favs.  That being said, I like it!  Props to whomever designed the new logo.

On 4/5/2020 at 9:27 AM, Bob Crockett said:

I'm opposed.  I'm opposed to depictions of Jesus that have no connection to the Biblical story.  That isn't Jesus. That's a Norwegian view of Jesus, which is steeped in paganism.  Wodin?

Why not use a tree?  Some more benign paganism?

The Allfather would have one eye, a spear, hounds, crows/ravens and possibly a hat. 

[MiserereNobis]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

As for Catholics accepting baptisms from Protestants, I wasn't aware that was a thing.  Can you provide any references around that, is it an official directive for the whole church? 

For a baptism to be valid for Catholicism, it has to have (like every sacrament/ordinance): proper intent, proper form, proper matter. For baptism, this means water (matter), form (in the name of the Trinity), and intent (remission of original sin and initiation into Christianity). Thus, protestant baptisms have always been valid. There is no priesthood necessary for a valid baptism.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

HI Thanks for the reply. What does exclusive priesthood authority residing in the Catholic church mean to you? Can you define that for the non-Catholic? What is the common priesthood of all believers that one reads about in Catholic literature? Thanks

From the Catechism:

Quote

Two participations in the one priesthood of Christ

1546 Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church "a kingdom, priests for his God and Father."²⁰ The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ's mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are "consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood."²¹

1547 The ministerial or hierarchical priesthood of bishops and priests, and the common priesthood of all the faithful participate, "each in its own proper way, in the one priesthood of Christ." While being "ordered one to another," they differ essentially.²² In what sense? While the common priesthood of the faithful is exercised by the unfolding of baptismal grace --a life of faith, hope, and charity, a life according to the Spirit--, the ministerial priesthood is at the service of the common priesthood. It is directed at the unfolding of the baptismal grace of all Christians. The ministerial priesthood is a means by which Christ unceasingly builds up and leads his Church. For this reason it is transmitted by its own sacrament, the sacrament of Holy Orders.

 

[MiserereNobis]

My big question is... what's this site to do? First, Mormon is out, but it's part of this site. Now, the prime symbol is no longer Moroni, yet that's on this site...  

Edited April 9, 2020 by MiserereNobis

[california boy]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

But are trademarks logos?

Trademarks can be logos. They can also be images such as Micky Mouse.  You can also trademark phrases such as "We Try Harder".  If they are registered trademarks, then the company'organization can prohibit others from using that trademark.

What is interesting to me is that I highly doubt that the rendering of the Christus in the logo would be able to be trademarked since the Church does not own the copyright on the statue.  What that means is that anyone, any organization, any company could use a similar Christus rendering and the Church could do nothing to prevent that.  This could be a problem for the Church in the future.   For example, a website could use a rendering of the Christus without the name of the Church to confuse those that associate that image with the Church into thinking that a website is an official website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  You can see where this could be a real problem in the future for the Church if the new logo is used extensively to identify the Church.  Anti-Mormon sites could portray themselves by using a Christus rendering to being official Church websites or brochures or advertisements or publications.  

Yikes.

Edited April 9, 2020 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

On 4/8/2020 at 3:36 PM, hope_for_things said:

As much as I would love to take credit for creating the new logo, alas I can't.  This had nothing to do with me.  

Read for comprehension, man. I didn’t say you created the new logo. I said this wacky fantasy you have of the Church eliminating Moroni as a symbol is of your own making. 
 

Moroni wasn’t the Church’s logo to begin with. It was the Church’s full name in that distinctive font with the name Jesus Christ standing out in larger typeface. Where did you get the idea Moroni was the logo?

Edited April 9, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

On 4/7/2020 at 5:17 PM, rongo said:

My son has a brand new sister in his district from Sweden (she arrived on March 10th, right when all the craziness hit, so she has been sequestered her whole mission so far). She was a divinity school student when she joined the Church, and has only been a member for two years. 

As for Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians being all the same, when my wife and I were coming back from the FAIR Conference in Frankfurt in 2009, there were two elderly couples talking in the Newark Airport. My wife asked what they were speaking, and I said it sounded like one of the Scandinavian languages. They looked open and approachable, so I asked one of the men if they were speaking Swedish or Norwegian (it was Norwegian). "Swedish, Norwegian, same thing, right?" I said. He smiled and said, "Sweden is our little brother."  

Oh yeah. That's one thing you DO NOT want to get into, wrangling between Norwegians and Swedes.

It's even worse than Tongans vs Samoans!! 😠

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2020 at 12:21 PM, The Nehor said:

Depends which branch of our folklore you consider to be canon.

Does that mean there are stories of multiple prophets claiming that picture most accurately depicts Jesus?

[Calm]

On 4/8/2020 at 9:44 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

Jesus obviously looks like this, right?

Which prophet was it who identified this as the most true image of Jesus? I can't recall.

None.

http://mormonmonsters.blogspot.com/2009/09/del-parson-painting-is-accurate.html

[Fair Dinkum]

I feel bad for Moroni, he obviously wasn't meeting the boss's expectaions.  Imagine how you would feel if the boss came in and took over one of your most important responsibilities for himself.   Ouch.