In the ongoing discussion
regarding President Nelson’s instruction to use the full name of the Church and
avoid abbreviated versions or nicknames, one scripture I haven’t seen mentioned
is D&C 107:1–4:
“There are, in
the church, two priesthoods, namely the Melchizedek and Aaronic, including the
Levitical Priesthood.
“Why the first is
called the Melchizedek Priesthood is because Melchizedek was such a great high
priest.
“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.”
Setting aside for
the moment the anachronisms in this section, such as the term church being used for pre-Melchizedek
times or the assumption that the modern LDS definition of the word priesthood existed in ancient days, I
have to wonder which approach to using the Lord’s name is correct. Is it
somehow offensive to Jesus to use his name too frequently, as indicated in
D&C 107? Or is it offensive to him to not use his name every time we refer
to the Church? Do we show respect for his name by not using it too frequently
or by using it as frequently as possible? This is confusing.
Jesus Christ is not God. The original name of the priesthood had the name God in it. Is it possible that the word God before being translated was actually the name of God? There is even as presented a difference unless you falsely believe that jesus christ and God are the same being!
ReplyDeleteAnyone who says that Jesus Christ is not God simply does not understand the scriptures. And that doesn't mean that the Father and the Son are the same being.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Anonymous. But let's make a point about names. We do not know God the Father's name. It is not God. That is a title. It is not Elohim, which is also a title and is actually plural, meaning generally "gods" or "deities." We do know Jesus's mortal name, which is NOT Jesus Christ. That is a name with a descriptor attached (Christ meaning Anointed One). D&C 107 is obviously not making a distinction between names and titles and is probably referring to not using the title "Son of God" too frequently. The history of section 107 is complicated and problematic in some ways because it introduces anachronisms into the scriptural record (see my recent Dialogue articles (issues 51.1 and 51.2) and William V. Smith's Dialogue article about priesthood revelations (issue 46.4) for more info. But it does make a strong point about not using the name (or title) of the Supreme Being too frequently. I am just saying we can't have it both ways. So which is it? How do we show reverence and respect, by using the name frequently or using it infrequently?
ReplyDeleteI guess we could refer to the name of the church as The Church of Yeshua Ha'Mashiach of Latter-Day Saints.
ReplyDelete