Comments on: The Four “Givers” of the Bloggernacle http://vsom.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-four-givers-of-the-bloggernacle/ Some Mormons, some former Mormons, and some in between discuss whatever they feel like in the Mormon realm. They try to keep judgementalism at a minimum. Tue, 12 May 2009 19:39:16 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: the narrator http://vsom.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-four-givers-of-the-bloggernacle/#comment-1339 the narrator Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:32:13 +0000 http://vsom.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-four-givers-of-the-bloggernacle/#comment-1339 or the words can be used to describe a movement. i don't think the temple rituals are as tied down to such a systematic semantic usage, such as we have tried to do with our ordinary usage. for example, in the church today we have made a distinction between salvation and exaltation. we say that hell is some spirit prison or outer darkness. we say that jehovah=jesus and elohim=god the father. that's all fine and dandy, but scripturally there is very little justification for any of it (except maybe the yahweh/elohim distinction which occurs occasionally in the OT). my point is that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" can have a broader meaning than the simple title of an organization. you can state your point all you want, and I'll disagree. or the words can be used to describe a movement. i don’t think the temple rituals are as tied down to such a systematic semantic usage, such as we have tried to do with our ordinary usage.

for example, in the church today we have made a distinction between salvation and exaltation. we say that hell is some spirit prison or outer darkness. we say that jehovah=jesus and elohim=god the father. that’s all fine and dandy, but scripturally there is very little justification for any of it (except maybe the yahweh/elohim distinction which occurs occasionally in the OT).

my point is that “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” can have a broader meaning than the simple title of an organization. you can state your point all you want, and I’ll disagree.

]]> By: Nick Literski http://vsom.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-four-givers-of-the-bloggernacle/#comment-1337 Nick Literski Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:21:11 +0000 http://vsom.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-four-givers-of-the-bloggernacle/#comment-1337 "Mormonism" is a movement. "Restorationism" is a movement. "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is a corporate entity, which is <i>part of</i> these movements. “Mormonism” is a movement. “Restorationism” is a movement. “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” is a corporate entity, which is part of these movements.

]]> By: the narrator http://vsom.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-four-givers-of-the-bloggernacle/#comment-1331 the narrator Mon, 03 Dec 2007 05:14:33 +0000 http://vsom.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-four-givers-of-the-bloggernacle/#comment-1331 and it can't be both? and it can’t be both?

]]> By: Nick Literski http://vsom.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-four-givers-of-the-bloggernacle/#comment-1326 Nick Literski Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:17:13 +0000 http://vsom.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-four-givers-of-the-bloggernacle/#comment-1326 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the specific legal name of a corporate entity, not a "movement." The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the specific legal name of a corporate entity, not a “movement.”

]]> By: m&m http://vsom.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-four-givers-of-the-bloggernacle/#comment-1285 m&m Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:35:02 +0000 http://vsom.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-four-givers-of-the-bloggernacle/#comment-1285 <i>guys, could we keep the temple quoting to a minimum. I (and I am sure others) would greatly appreciate it.</i> Yup. guys, could we keep the temple quoting to a minimum. I (and I am sure others) would greatly appreciate it.

Yup.

]]> By: the narrator http://vsom.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-four-givers-of-the-bloggernacle/#comment-1283 the narrator Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:10:09 +0000 http://vsom.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-four-givers-of-the-bloggernacle/#comment-1283 Nick... I guess another way to look at it is whether "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is a name-title of a formal organization or a description of a movement. Nick…

I guess another way to look at it is whether “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” is a name-title of a formal organization or a description of a movement.

]]> By: John C. http://vsom.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-four-givers-of-the-bloggernacle/#comment-1282 John C. Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:14:06 +0000 http://vsom.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-four-givers-of-the-bloggernacle/#comment-1282 guys, could we keep the temple quoting to a minimum. I (and I am sure others) would greatly appreciate it. guys, could we keep the temple quoting to a minimum. I (and I am sure others) would greatly appreciate it.

]]> By: the narrator http://vsom.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-four-givers-of-the-bloggernacle/#comment-1280 the narrator Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:44:52 +0000 http://vsom.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-four-givers-of-the-bloggernacle/#comment-1280 the scriptures often use "the church of christ" or "the church of jesus christ" without referring to some formalized organization. why can't we just add a time-code to it as well? i'll admit that the upfront reading does seem to point to the formal structure, but i don't believe it is necessarily the case. the scriptures often use “the church of christ” or “the church of jesus christ” without referring to some formalized organization. why can’t we just add a time-code to it as well? i’ll admit that the upfront reading does seem to point to the formal structure, but i don’t believe it is necessarily the case.

]]> By: Nick Literski http://vsom.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-four-givers-of-the-bloggernacle/#comment-1277 Nick Literski Thu, 29 Nov 2007 06:36:58 +0000 http://vsom.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-four-givers-of-the-bloggernacle/#comment-1277 The temple covenant doesn't say "church," or even "the church." It says, very specifically, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." There's simply no ambiguity there to justify the broader usage of "church" that you seem to advocate. The temple covenant doesn’t say “church,” or even “the church.” It says, very specifically, “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” There’s simply no ambiguity there to justify the broader usage of “church” that you seem to advocate.

]]> By: the narrator http://vsom.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-four-givers-of-the-bloggernacle/#comment-1275 the narrator Thu, 29 Nov 2007 04:19:51 +0000 http://vsom.wordpress.com/2007/11/27/the-four-givers-of-the-bloggernacle/#comment-1275 Nick, I am not saying anything about metaphors. I am saying that scripturally (especially with ancient scriptures) the word 'church' <i>literally</i> means a community/assembly/gathering - not an organized and hierarchical entity. Of course, this still begs the question of what sense 'church' is meant in the temple rites. Nick,

I am not saying anything about metaphors. I am saying that scripturally (especially with ancient scriptures) the word ‘church’ literally means a community/assembly/gathering – not an organized and hierarchical entity. Of course, this still begs the question of what sense ‘church’ is meant in the temple rites.

]]>