Pahoran wrote:If I thought anyone was actually interested in some actual facts, I could quite easily lay out the various forms the official name of the Church took until it reached its final form in 1838.
But this is clearly just an adolescent locker-room discussion, so I don't see any point, really.
Regards, Pahoran
I am interested. by the way, I dislike the crudeness of SB's remarks.
Pahoran wrote:If I thought anyone was actually interested in some actual facts, I could quite easily lay out the various forms the official name of the Church took until it reached its final form in 1838.
But this is clearly just an adolescent locker-room discussion, so I don't see any point, really.
Regards, Pahoran
I am interested. by the way, I dislike the crudeness of SB's remarks.
Ditto to disliking the crudeness, although it does provide an opportunity for a small joke.
Bond
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
"Saints"---another problem. Saint suggests that someone is holy. Typically this has been a title for people who have earned it, rather than a whole group of people who follow the same doctrine. It's also usually used to label someone who is deceased. As there are obviously LDS who are still alive, shouldn't being called a saint be an insult to their mortality? I suggest the new name of "The Church of Remaining Alive Persons of Jesus Christ".
You demonstrate your biblical ignorance here dude.
Paul called all believers in Jesus Saints. Try reading the New Testament.
Some time ago I was visiting the Smithsonian portrait musuem and found a few paintings of early church leaders and the captions said, for example, "Brigham Young, President of the Church of Latter Day Saints". In other words, they left out the "of Jesus Christ."
I was pretty concerned that the Smithsonian could mess up like that... but turns out, according to the LDS experts with whom I discussed the issue, that was the name of the church at the time the painting was commissioned. I can't remember when they added the "of Jesus Christ" but seems there have been some changes over the years.
~dancer~
Your experts were wrong. The Church was the Church of the Latter-day Saints, for a very bried period in the 1830's. Nobody would have been painting BY at that time.
Some time ago I was visiting the Smithsonian portrait musuem and found a few paintings of early church leaders and the captions said, for example, "Brigham Young, President of the Church of Latter Day Saints". In other words, they left out the "of Jesus Christ."
I was pretty concerned that the Smithsonian could mess up like that... but turns out, according to the LDS experts with whom I discussed the issue, that was the name of the church at the time the painting was commissioned. I can't remember when they added the "of Jesus Christ" but seems there have been some changes over the years.
~dancer~
Do you know where we could find out when that change was made, TD? It would be interesting to know if it was done in general conference, or just at the whim of the prophet at the time.
The Church of Christ from 1830 to 1832 or so. Briefly the Churh of the Latter day Saints, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from mid 1830's forward.
Pahoran wrote:If I thought anyone was actually interested in some actual facts, I could quite easily lay out the various forms the official name of the Church took until it reached its final form in 1838.
But this is clearly just an adolescent locker-room discussion, so I don't see any point, really.
"Saints"---another problem. Saint suggests that someone is holy. Typically this has been a title for people who have earned it, rather than a whole group of people who follow the same doctrine. It's also usually used to label someone who is deceased. As there are obviously LDS who are still alive, shouldn't being called a saint be an insult to their mortality? I suggest the new name of "The Church of Remaining Alive Persons of Jesus Christ".
You demonstrate your biblical ignorance here dude.
Paul called all believers in Jesus Saints. Try reading the New Testament.
Hey Jason,
If Paul says something, does that make it correct? In today's world only a few dead people are called saints, most notably in the Catholic Church. Why aren't former LDS leaders saintified. St. Joseph Smith, St. Brigham Young?
I also wonder if simply being labeled a "saint" is deserving. Some people who have been Christian (not just LDS, if you consider all believers in Christ "saints" according to Paul) have been anything but holy. Shouldn't one have to earn a title or distinction rather than simply being born into a religion or by simply joining a religion?
I'll ask the same asked above. Should the Church change its name to "Church of Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ" in order to be correct. Doesn't "Church of Latter Day Saints" designate the group, then "of Jesus Christ" at the end designate that it's Christ church?
Bond
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
If Paul says something, does that make it correct? In today's world only a few dead people are called saints, most notably in the Catholic Church. Why aren't former LDS leaders saintified. St. Joseph Smith, St. Brigham Young?
I also wonder if simply being labeled a "saint" is deserving. Some people who have been Christian (not just LDS, if you consider all believers in Christ "saints" according to Paul) have been anything but holy. Shouldn't one have to earn a title or distinction rather than simply being born into a religion or by simply joining a religion?
I'll ask the same asked above. Should the Church change its name to "Church of Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ" in order to be correct. Doesn't "Church of Latter Day Saints" designate the group, then "of Jesus Christ" at the end designate that it's Christ church?
Bond
Get used to this tactic.
When mo'pologists get cornered with an odd Mormon belief, they quickly drop, what I call the "Bible Card", out of their sleeve in an attempt to scare would be believers of the b***s*** in the Bible.
Funny how the book that is less "correct" is used so often to defend the "most correct" book and only true church....
Problem here is, Jason et al, most of us here don't buy into the Buy-Bull either.
When mo'pologists get cornered with an odd Mormon belief, they quickly drop, what I call the "Bible Card", out of their sleeve in an attempt to scare would be believers of the b***s*** in the Bible.
Funny how the book that is less "correct" is used so often to defend the "most correct" book and only true church....
Problem here is, Jason et al, most of us here don't buy into the Buy-Bull either.
I don't give the Bible much weight, but I give it alot more than the Book of Mormon. At least Jerusalem and Jericho exist. Show me Zarahelma!
Bond
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07