According to the Book of Mormon, the true Church of Christ will have the name of Christ in its official name.

"And how be it my church save it be called in my name?" 3 Nephi 27:8

Me: What does this mean? Does it mean that if a church does not have "Christ" or "Jesus Christ" in its official name, then it is not the true church?

Mormon: Yes, that's what it means. You notice that our church is named the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

Me: If it were officially called something else, without "Jesus" or "Christ" in the name, that would mean that it was not the true church?

Mormon: Of course. That's what the Book of Mormon teaches us. That way we can recognize that the Lutheran Church or the Catholic Church or the Methodist Church - since they are not named after Christ, are not His church.

Me: I see that the First Presidency of your church, on May 3, 1834, obtained a vote from a church conference to change the original official name of the church ("Church of Christ") to "The Church of the Latter-day Saints." No mention of Jesus or Christ. Your church had that name until April 26, 1838, a period of almost four years, when it got its present name (D&C 115:3-4). Does that mean that for those four years your church was not the true church?

Mormon: Well, it was still the true church. The church itself had not changed. It was the same church. Only the name was different.

Me: But you agreed with the Book of Mormon, that a church without "Christ" in its name was not the true church. Your church lacked that name for four years.

Mormon: I feel here the spirit of dissension. You need to pray more so that you are not under the influence of the Adversary.

I heard that last line so many times, I felt like Edith Bunker. "Stifle yourself Edith".

hahaha! Lose the argument -- invoke Satan. I love it.

+1

Richard, I really liked that presentation. I see this #3. I'm going to search for your previous two. I hope you'll continue to add more.

I love questions like these because, when I was TBM, everything seemed so black and white. When I started realizing the whole truth, my little black and white answers had to change into complex apologetics in order to remain faithful. That lasted about a week and then Occam's razor took over.

newnamenephi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Richard, I really liked that presentation. I see
> this #3. I'm going to search for your previous
> two. I hope you'll continue to add more.

Here's #2: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1089659

Here's #1: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1013735

Thanks for the links. I had found #2 but I couldn't find #1 for some reason. Do you have these on your website? If not, when you compile 10 or 20, you should put up a "Stump the Mormon" page. I'd love to have simple little trip-ups that make Mormon's think!

These are great questions for Facebook!

One Very important extra point to note,Catholics,Methodists,Lutherans etc. are Christian...(thereby having 'His name').

Mormons on the other hand...



*Also let's hope said Mormon never meets a Jehovah Witness,the debating would Never end!

What happened to "you will know them by their fruits"?

This happy month when faithful mormons will pull out their checkbooks for tithing settlements so SLC can buy more land or build another mall, donate to a charity or two that pull at your heart or give some volunteer hours because what Christ said was, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice."

nevermo1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One Very important extra point to note,Catholics,Methodists,Lutherans etc. are Christian...(thereby having 'His name').

No, the test is the NAME of the church, not what the church claims to be.

So denominations like "Church of Christ" and "Disciples of Christ" are just fine by Mormon doctrine, right?

Lostmypassword Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So denominations like "Church of Christ" and "Disciples of Christ" are just fine by Mormon
doctrine, right?

No, that would be the fallacy of "affirming the consequent":

The syllogism is:
If a church is the true church, its name will include the name "Christ".

To say "Church X includes in its name the word 'Christ', therefore it is the true church" is fallacious.

The only way to use the premise is to prove that a church is NOT the true church because it does not have the correct name.

Look up "affirming the consequent" on the Internet.

To quote Shakespeare:

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;

To paraphrase him in this context:

What's in a name? that which we call bullshit
By any other name would still be bullshit;

Good point, RPack. The Mormons have a fetish with words and titles, don't they?

Following that logic, we stick the name "Jesus Christ" into the name, and it becomes His church.

or burger joint? The burger of JC

The 'Latter-Day Saints' part is worn out.

'21st Century Aints' would be more accurate.

So the "Church of Jesus Christ of Satan" would ALSO be "the" true church, right???

All you need is "Jesus Christ" in the name, and--Presto!!! Change-o!!!--it is THE true church.

This is a very neat little racket, methinks.

So if my official corporate letterhead has "Church of Joshua, The Anointed One" perhaps I could be a contender for The Truth.

Or maybe I could use "The Yeshua Messiah Church".

Why should the name I use be limited to only the ancient Greek? I wonder what "Jesus Christ" is in Reformed Egyptian? Could I use that?

Sounds like a bunch of lawyers spouting little more than legalistic nonsense...oh wait...!

By that logic the FLDS could also be true.
The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

> Me: I see that the First Presidency of your
> church, on May 3, 1834, obtained a vote from a
> church conference to change the original official
> name of the church ("Church of Christ") to "The
> Church of the Latter-day Saints." No mention of
> Jesus or Christ. Your church had that name until
> April 26, 1838, a period of almost four years,
> when it got its present name (D&C 115:3-4). Does
> that mean that for those four years your church
> was not the true church?

Very well said post. Thank you.

Couple of minor nits:

1. The name changed in 1834 to: "The Church of the Latter Day Saints". There was no hyphen in the name, and the "D" was capitilized.

2. In 1838, it changed to: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". Again, no hyphen, and a capital "D".


That might seem minor, but legally it makes a *huge* difference.

The name did not become "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (hyphen, with a lowercase "d") until 1851 when under Brigham Young, a corporation was formed with that name. Then Brigham's corporation was disolved by the US Government in 1887.

Right now, the name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is a trademark of a later corporation by a different name.

Nevin Pratt

The 1838 name supposedly given by Jesus himself is NOT the name used today.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is different from the revealed name. Jesus did not hyphenate and I don't think he had a lower case D either.(not at my library so can't check)

Check this out, the name of Jesus Christ I left out of the church's name here too.

http://www.uri.org/search_results?cx=008267139695251349397%3A3kau9exrwow&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=the+church+of+latter+day+saints-mormon&x=23&y=11

This is the first listed circle, you can check out the rest if you're interested.

http://www.uri.org/cooperation_circles/detail/matindi

I thought its real name was Intellectual Reserve, inc.

No mater what's on the church building or what we call it, isn't the LDS church's one true legal name now something like:

The Corporation of The President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?

And aren't the actual, literal heads of the LDS church those who look after its funds, doing business as:

The Corporation of The Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints?

ETA: forgot to add that these are the names the church uses for itself, when it's sued in court and when it brings cases against others



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2014 11:19AM by bookratt.