"Mormon Leader: Nicknames for Faith are 'Victory for Satan' "

[PruePhillip]

I'm afraid that really doesn't address the issue at all. Jesus told Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church." If you don't believe He followed through and actually did so, that's up to you.

Not sure what this is meant to mean. Peter wasn't the rock: it was Peter's revelation
of the Christ that was the rock. And yes, Jesus did establish a church - He just didn't
give it a name because God's way isn't defined with a man-made name.

Re Jesus second coming. Don't the Mormons believe Jesus went to the Americas?

 

[Katzpur]

Not sure what this is meant to mean. Peter wasn't the rock: it was Peter's revelation
of the Christ that was the rock.

I didn't say peter was the rock. I just quoted the scripture. It was the rock of revelation upon which Jesus was going to build His Church.

And yes, Jesus did establish a church - He just didn't
give it a name because God's way isn't defined with a man-made name.

Okay, if He established His Church, then it was Jesus Christ' Church, or the Church of Jesus Christ, regardless of how people actually referred to it back in 34 A.D.

Re Jesus second coming. Don't the Mormons believe Jesus went to the Americas?

Yes, we believe that Jesus visited the American continent in order to teach His gospel there. It would be only logical that He'd want for more than just the people of the Holy Land to hear His message. But that certainly wasn't His Second Coming. That is yet to happen. Mormons believe, like all other Christians, that Jesus Christ will return to the Earth in glory at some point in the future, and that when He does, the Millennium will begin and He will reign for 1000 years.

 

[PruePhillip]

I didn't say peter was the rock. I just quoted the scripture. It was the rock of revelation upon which Jesus was going to build His Church.

Okay, if He established His Church, then it was Jesus Christ' Church, or the Church of Jesus Christ, regardless of how people actually referred to it back in 34 A.D.

Yes, we believe that Jesus visited the American continent in order to teach His gospel there. It would be only logical that He'd want for more than just the people of the Holy Land to hear His message. But that certainly wasn't His Second Coming. That is yet to happen. Mormons believe, like all other Christians, that Jesus Christ will return to the Earth in glory at some point in the future, and that when He does, the Millennium will begin and He will reign for 1000 years.

Jesus said he came to the house of Israel. He didn't go preaching in Rome, or Africa,
or Egypt or the Americas.
Saying that He continued preaching after His resurrection I take to mean a second
coming.
I would take it further - Jesus didn't come to be a preacher. His own people were to
take the Gospel into all the world. Jesus came to be the Messiah who laid down His
life for His people. He promised to return as the Reigning King.
Jesus is not so much a preacher, or prophet, or wise man, or king, or a rabbi but the
Messiah.

 

[Katzpur]

Jesus said he came to the house of Israel.

That is absolutely right! Though His gospel would ultimately be preached throughout the world, He made a point of saying that His personal ministry would be solely to the house of Israel. In John 10:16, He is quoted as telling some of those of the house of Israel, "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." We believe that in about 600 B.C. a small group (perhaps a couple of dozen) people of the house of Israel, left Jerusalem and were led to the New World, where they settled and taught their children and as many people outside of their group who would listen about a Messiah who would be born at some time far into the future. We believe the "other sheep" Jesus referred to in John 10:16 were, therefore, also of the house of Israel. Since they were among the people who Jesus came to minister to, and since He said these "other sheep" would not only "hear the message" of His gospel but would "hear His voice," who else might they have been? Certainly they were not other people in the Holy Land, and He was crucified not long after speaking of these "other sheep."

I would take it further - Jesus didn't come to be a preacher. His own people were to take the Gospel into all the world. Jesus came to be the Messiah who laid down His life for His people. He promised to return as the Reigning King. Jesus is not so much a preacher, or prophet, or wise man, or king, or a rabbi but the Messiah.

I absolutely agree. While it was important that He preach His gospel, and while it was important that He be the best conceivable example of how we should treat one another, His primary purpose in coming to Earth was to be our Messiah, to atone for our sins, to provide a means for us to be reconciled to our Father in Heaven, and to give each of us the promise of a new, resurrected body.

 

[PruePhillip]

We believe that in about 600 B.C. a small group (perhaps a couple of dozen) people of the house of Israel, left Jerusalem and were led to the New World, where they settled and taught their children and as many people outside of their group who would listen about a Messiah who would be born at some time far into the future. We believe the "other sheep" Jesus referred to in John 10:16 were, therefore, also of the house of Israel. Since they were among the people who Jesus came to minister to, and since He said these "other sheep" would not only "hear the message" of His gospel but would "hear His voice," who else might they have been? Certainly they were not other people in the Holy Land, and He was crucified not long after speaking of these "other sheep.".

I accept that the lost tribes went to the New World in the same way I accept the "book of Abraham"
as being legitimate.
I can trace a vanishingly tiny piece of my Jewish ancestry to the expulsion of the Jews from Portugal.
Some, like the Cohanim line of Jews, can trace their line w.a.y. back to the OT Levites. We find no
such DNA in the New World.
And then you get all sorts of problems with a resurrected Christ continuing to preach to the diaspora
Jews. Or even, why Jesus would want to revert to the OT symbols the NT did away with.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not sure what this is meant to mean. Peter wasn't the rock: it was Peter's revelation
of the Christ that was the rock.

So Jesus named Peter "rock" to signify that he wasn't the "rock?"

 

[Katzpur]

I accept that the lost tribes went to the New World in the same way I accept the "book of Abraham"
as being legitimate.

Okay, just to clear things up... In case you ever decided to tell someone that a "Mormon" had told you that the people who migrated to the Western Hemisphere from Jerusalem were some of the "lost tribes," that is not the case. I never said anything at all to imply that, and that is not what we believe. A couple of dozen people from two nuclear families (plus one additional man) hardly constitute a lost tribe.

I can trace a vanishingly tiny piece of my Jewish ancestry to the expulsion of the Jews from Portugal.
Some, like the Cohanim line of Jews, can trace their line w.a.y. back to the OT Levites. We find no
such DNA in the New World.

This is an extremely complex topic. I am not a population geneticist and I doubt you are either. So all we can really do is play the "My Expert is Smarter than Your Expert Game." I don't want to do that. It's just a never-ending circle that leads nowhere. I will, however, post a few comments on the subject and leave it at that. Feel free to try to rebut them if you wish, but really have no interest in getting into a lengthy debate on this subject.

As to the matter of Native Americans supposedly carrying no traces of Jewish DNA, there are a number of explanations for this (although only a fraction of them have ever been tested). Here's how one of the reasons was explained to me. The following is an experiment anyone can do to demonstrate the process by which the Nephites’ generic markers could not only easily have disappeared over time, but how they almost certainly would have done. The concept is known to scientists as "genetic drift."

Put 10 red marbles and 10 blue marbles in a jar. Pick one marble at random and check the color. Let's say it's red. Return the marble to the jar, but also take a marble of the same color from a bottle of spares, and put it in a second jar. The new marble (the one you just put in the second jar) will represent the red lineage. It's the lineage you want to track. Keep repeating this process, picking one random marble each time until the second jar has twenty marbles. (Always return the original marble you picked to the jar you took it from. That jar must always contain 20 marbles.) Of the 20 marbles in the second jar, you might have 8 red ones and 12 blue ones. After you've got 20 marbles in the second jar, start the whole process over again, this time picking marbles from the second jar and adding marbles of the corresponding color from your pile of spares to a third jar. By the time you've got 20 marbles in your third jar, you may have 5 red ones and 15 blue ones. By the time you're working on your fourth or fifth jar, you will likely have only blue marbles. If you have even one red one, though, repeat the process. You are guaranteed to have all blue by the time you get to the sixth or seventh jar. Blue will be fixed and red (the lineage you were trying to trace) will be gone forever. The lineage of the two men and their wives who, with their children, came to the American continent in about 600 B.C. is almost certain to have been lost during the 1600 years since their known descendants were last heard of.

A relatively recent scientific project known as the deCODE Project offers another fascinating example of the problems in tracing specific genealogies. As part of this project, DNA samples of people born in Iceland after 1972 were traced back to the year 1742. It was discovered that the vast majority of the people alive today in Iceland are the descendants of a very small percentage of the people who lived in 1742. 1742 is less than 300 years ago, and yet many, many people living at that time have no genetic lineages represented in Iceland’s population today. This is not to say that they have no descendants in Iceland. It’s just that none of these lineages can be genetically traced.

The question to be argued really isn't, "Are today's Native Americans of Middle-eastern ancestry?" but "Is it possible that a small family from the Middle-east could have settled on the already populatedAmerican continent 2600 years ago and left no genetic evidence of their existence?" Genetic drift, the founder effect and population bottlenecks alone would explain how Lehi's haplogroup would almost certainly have disappeared after just a few generations. If Lehi and his family had arrived on an empty continent, it would be a different matter entirely, but we know that wasn't the case.

Some Native Americans, though it's impossible to know how many,are descended from a mere handful of women who, with their husbands, settled somewhere on the American continent over two and a half millennia ago. At the time they arrived, the continent was already populated with people who had come across the Bering Strait. Because nuclear DNA changes too quickly from one generation to the next, it cannot be used effectively for population studies. We must instead rely on mtDNA, which is always passed from a mother to her children. Within a few short generations, the haplogroup is likely to disappear entirely. Within 2600 years, to expect to be able to identify it at all is completely unreasonable.

And then you get all sorts of problems with a resurrected Christ continuing to preach to the diaspora
Jews. Or even, why Jesus would want to revert to the OT symbols the NT did away with.

Okay, you lost me at this point. You're going to have to be a lot more specific than you're being in order for me to be able to respond to this criticism.

 

[SoyLeche]

Okay, just to clear things up... In case you ever decided to tell someone that a "Mormon" had told you that the people who migrated to the Western Hemisphere from Jerusalem were some of the "lost tribes," that is not the case. I never said anything at all to imply that, and that is not what we believe. A couple of dozen people from two nuclear families (plus one additional man) hardly constitute a lost tribe.

Everyone always forgets about the Mulekites. But still, not a "lost tribe".

 

[PruePhillip]

Okay, you lost me at this point. You're going to have to be a lot more specific than you're being in order for me to be able to respond to this criticism.

in regards this quote "And then you get all sorts of problems with a resurrected Christ continuing to preach to the diasporaJews. Or even, why Jesus would want to revert to the OT symbols the NT did away with."
The Old Testament was a symbolic book. It helps us to understand Christ. We don't sacrifice lambs for instance, but in calling Christ the "Lamb of God" we understand because of the OT story. And Jesus is our "High Priest" and Jerusalem is the "city of God" and the Jews are the "people of God" etc..
These are the "weak and beggarly elements" that the author of Hebrews spoke of. We have no more need of a sanctuary, or a high priest, or holy days, or animal sacrifices, or a nation of God's people, or a Jerusalem, or the Mercy Seat, or the stone tables of the Commandments because WE are the temple of the living God, and Christ intercedes for us without symbols. A "new and living way."

Mormonism speaks to a third testament - not much different from the beggarly elements Christians left behind (but certainly, resurrected in many non-Apostolic churches, beginning right there in NT times and still seen today in Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodox etc..)

 

[Katzpur]

in regards this quote "And then you get all sorts of problems with a resurrected Christ continuing to preach to the diasporaJews. Or even, why Jesus would want to revert to the OT symbols the NT did away with."
The Old Testament was a symbolic book. It helps us to understand Christ. We don't sacrifice lambs for instance, but in calling Christ the "Lamb of God" we understand because of the OT story. And Jesus is our "High Priest" and Jerusalem is the "city of God" and the Jews are the "people of God" etc..
These are the "weak and beggarly elements" that the author of Hebrews spoke of. We have no more need of a sanctuary, or a high priest, or holy days, or animal sacrifices, or a nation of God's people, or a Jerusalem, or the Mercy Seat, or the stone tables of the Commandments because WE are the temple of the living God, and Christ intercedes for us without symbols. A "new and living way."

Mormonism speaks to a third testament - not much different from the beggarly elements Christians left behind (but certainly, resurrected in many non-Apostolic churches, beginning right there in NT times and still seen today in Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodox etc..)

Thanks for the explanation, and I finally understand you. Respectfully, though, I must disagree, at least to some extent. I definitely don't think those things (the things you refer to "weak and beggarly elements) are the most important part of the gospel. Most important is the way in which we show our Father in Heaven and His Son, Jesus Christ, how much we love them -- and this, for the most part, becomes evident in the way we treat our fellow human beings.

 

[PruePhillip]

Thanks for the explanation, and I finally understand you. Respectfully, though, I must disagree.

A lot of this is covered in Romans and Hebrews. And wasn't it Paul who feared for those in his church who observed days and months. There were no Holy Days in the Gospel other than Sunday, and no symbols other than the Baptism and bread and wine.
Everything else was man-made.

 

[Katzpur]

A lot of this is covered in Romans and Hebrews. And wasn't it Paul who feared for those in his church who observed days and months. There were no Holy Days in the Gospel other than Sunday, and no symbols other than the Baptism and bread and wine.
Everything else was man-made.

Thanks for your comments. Please read my amended post above, since I was apparently adding to it when you were posting your last post. So, I'm curious... Do you not celebrate Easter or Christmas? And are you affiliated with any specific Christiandenomination?

 

[PruePhillip]

Thanks for the explanation, and I finally understand you. Respectfully, though, I must disagree, at least to some extent. I definitely don't think those things (the things you refer to "weak and beggarly elements) are the most important part of the gospel. Most important is the way in which we show our Father in Heaven and His Son, Jesus Christ, how much we love them -- and this, for the most part, becomes evident in the way we treat our fellow human beings.

Yes, how we treat others is super-important, but it's not the reason we can be acceptable to God.
There are many kind people who are not religious - even to the point of hating the very idea of God.
We are to believe in Him, and worship him in the manner He sees fit (not with out own ideas, which is a form of idolatry.)
I tolerate Christmas for the sake of children, and family gatherings.
The foundation church did not observe in Christmas or Easter.
I believe the Apostles respected the Passover and the temple, but only as still-standing institutions. Indeed, they had to be SEEN to be respecting these as the Jews said they were disrespecting their bible and the laws of Moses.
Been discussing the Ark of the Covenant with some JW's. (It's a safe topic and I don't have to wade into this Taze Russel business!) I reckon the Ark is hidden. If it was captured (as in Samuel) this wold have been mentioned. If it was hid there would be no mention. Interesting.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes, how we treat others is super-important, but it's not the reason we can be acceptable to God.

I think that, when it gets right down to it, we are acceptable to God for the simple reason that He loves us. It's not that we're particularly "lovable" because often times we're not. And I think that when Jesus laid down His life for us, it was the greatest possible demonstration of the kind of love God wants us to come to have for all of our brothers and sisters (I use the phrase "brothers and sister" to mean all of mankind, not just members of our own church or people we deem to have been "saved"). One of my favorite verses in The Book of Mormon states, "When ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God." To me, "worshiping" God means serving Him. I don't believe we entered this world already condemned or bearing any guilt whatsoever for Adam's sin. I do believe that we are predisposed to sin, though, and that there is not one of us who will make it through life without distancing ourselves from God. Each of us is in equal need of a Savior, and that Savior is Jesus Christ. I see belief in Him as essential to salvation, but I definitely do not think that a proclamation of faith is sufficient to please God. I believe it is His desire that we all return to His presence someday, but more importantly, I think He wants us to return better than we started.

There are many kind people who are not religious - even to the point of hating the very idea of God.
We are to believe in Him, and worship him in the manner He sees fit (not with out own ideas, which is a form of idolatry.)
I tolerate Christmas for the sake of children, and family gatherings.
The foundation church did not observe in Christmas or Easter.
I believe the Apostles respected the Passover and the temple, but only as still-standing institutions. Indeed, they had to be SEEN to be respecting these as the Jews said they were disrespecting their bible and the laws of Moses.
Been discussing the Ark of the Covenant with some JW's. (It's a safe topic and I don't have to wade into this Taze Russel business!) I reckon the Ark is hidden. If it was captured (as in Samuel) this wold have been mentioned. If it was hid there would be no mention. Interesting.

Mormons celebrate Easter and Christmas, but no other "Holy Days." I don't believe we have been commanded to do so by any means, but neither do I think God is in any way displeased with our commemorating either His Son's birth or resurrection. Obviously, the focus of either of these holidays should be on Christ, and not on Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Personally, I get kind of turned off by the Jehovah's Witnesses insistence that people who celebrate Christmas and Easter are somehow sinning. I just don't see it that way.

 

[PruePhillip]

...but I definitely do not think that a proclamation of faith is sufficient to please God. .

There is a saying "Saved by faith alone in Christ alone"
If you look it up it comes, in part, from James' epistle.
Trouble is - James said nothing of the sort.
"Saved by faith alone" is mentioned 70 million times in Google
James said, if I recall, that they are NOT SAVED BY FAITH ALONE
and his verse is Googled just a fraction of the "saved by faith alone."

I have a lot of respect for JW's and Mormons. Both groups to me
come across as having much higher levels of commitment than
ordinary Protestant or Catholic groups.

We have to be careful not to add things to our service that Christ
and His church did not observe. It's not just nit-picking - there are
serious reasons why people go down that path. I believe that many
of the people the epistle writers referred to as "Jews" were not so
much Jewish people or Judaism but people who reverted to the
rules and rituals of the OT. Indeed, I suspect that Diotrephes in the
NT could have been an early Catholic Bishop who broke from Paul's
doctrine.

 

[Prestor John]

I know this is the third thread I've started about Mormons today, but it's only because the replies to my first post "Banned Mormon Cartoon" got me looking into the religion a bit, which in turn has led me to this odd news breaking item:

October 8, 2018
"The president of the Mormon church reiterated Sunday that he wants members, the media and others to use the faith’s full name, saying nicknames are “a major victory for Satan.”

Addressing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ twice-yearly conference in Salt Lake City, Russell M. Nelson said the church’s name “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,” Nelson said. “And if we allow nicknames to be used and adopt or even sponsor those nicknames ourselves, he is offended.”

Nelson, 94, who is considered a prophet, reiterated that his instruction is not a name change, The Salt Lake Tribune reported.

It is a correction,” he said. “It is the command of the Lord.”
​

Now this is a bit strange in light of the fact that

"The faith had embraced and promoted the term Mormon over the past several years, using it in a documentary and TV and billboard ads. A church webpage that was up before Nelson’s announcement had described the term as an “unofficial but inoffensive nickname for members.”
source​

So for close to 200 years Satan has hoodwinked the Mormon leadership into thinking "Mormon" was an acceptable nickname for the church ("Satan's Victory") until god finally prompted Nelson to change the name.

"Mr Nelson, 93, said the move had been prompted by God, who "impressed upon my mind the importance of the name"."
source
​

In light of its importance one has to wonder why god waited so long to make the correction.

.

The name of the Church has always been the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Members of the Church embraced the nickname "Mormons" in the past because it was often the only name that people recognized.

President Nelson was not the first prophet to make similar declarations about members using the actual name of the Church.

I have been motivated my entire adult life to reminding others about the actual name of the Church because a past prophet (I can't remember which at the moment) impressed the importance of my doing so to me.

No change was made. God did not wait for anything. This is our MO.

 

[Skwim]

The name of the Church has always been the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Then you may be interested to learn this about your church, which comes from Wikipedia.

"The LDS Church traces its founding to April 6, 1830, when Joseph Smith and five other men formally established the Church of Christ. The church was known by this name from 1830 to 1834.

In the 1830s, the fact that a number of U.S. churches, including some Congregational churches and Restoration Movement churches, also used the name "Church of Christ" caused a considerable degree of confusion. In May 1834, the church adopted a resolution that the church would be known thereafter as "The Church of the Latter Day Saints". At various times the church was also referred to as "The Church of Jesus Christ", "The Church of God", and "The Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints".​

No change was made. God did not wait for anything. This is our MO.

But there was change. From April 6 of1830 to May of 1834, four years and one month, the church was called "Church of Christ. From then on it has been called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, as well as a few other names. I'm surprised you didn't know this.

.

 

[Prestor John]

Then you may be interested to learn this about your church, which comes from Wikipedia.

"The LDS Church traces its founding to April 6, 1830, when Joseph Smith and five other men formally established the Church of Christ. The church was known by this name from 1830 to 1834.

In the 1830s, the fact that a number of U.S. churches, including some Congregational churches and Restoration Movement churches, also used the name "Church of Christ" caused a considerable degree of confusion. In May 1834, the church adopted a resolution that the church would be known thereafter as "The Church of the Latter Day Saints". At various times the church was also referred to as "The Church of Jesus Christ", "The Church of God", and "The Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints".​

But there was change. From April 6 of1830 to May of 1834, four years and one month, the church was called "Church of Christ. From then on it has been called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, as well as a few other names. I'm surprised you didn't know this.

.

I never considered that.

The only revelation from the Lord that I could recall in regards to the naming of His Church was the one where He name it the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Perhaps the Prophet did not consult the Lord about the naming of the Church until later?

That's an interesting side note.