LDS

[Olowkow]

Current members. LDS is for Latter Day Saints. The saints of the latter days to distinguish them from Saints past.

So, "latter days" means "now". I actually never thought of it that way. All current members are "saints"?

saint (s

nt)n.1. a. Abbr. St. or S. Christianity A person officially recognized, especially by canonization, as being entitled to public veneration and capable of interceding for people on earth.

b. A person who has died and gone to heaven.

c. Saint A member of any of various religious groups, especially a Latter-Day Saint.
2. An extremely virtuous person.

tr.v. saint·ed, saint·ing, saints To name, recognize, or venerate as a saint; canonize.

OK, so there is a separate definition just to include groups such as LDS, (def. 1-c).

So saying "I'm a saint" is perfectly legit for LDS members. It really comes across to me as "I am an extremely virtuous person", however. (def 2) I can see why Catholics might not appreciate this usage of the word.

 

[Pup]

I understand. It just sounds strange or over the top to call oneself a "saint", rather than "active member of the Latter Day Saints". I should have included a smiley I suppose, though I joke with my former LDS friend all the time about this kind of stuff.

Seriously though, are the "saints" the current members or the deceased good guys?

I find something implicitly odd in proud claims of belief in supernatural stuff, though I don't generally go out of my way to call people on it.

They're the current members. In context, it just means something like faithful or Christian or the good guys (in the sense of those who are on Christ's side), pretty much the same claim that members of all religions make.

Here's a sort of anti-Mormon, or Mormon-neutral site on the history of the church's name:
http://www.mormonthink.com/nameweb.htm

Oddly enough, the biggest criticism seems to be the lack of "Christ" in the name for a while. They say almost nothing about the "Saint" part.

But according to that site (which I think is accurate) the chronology of names was:

1830: Church of Christ
1834: The Church of the Latter Day Saints
1838: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
"The hyphen in 'Latter-day' was add about a century or so later to be grammatically correct."

Speaking of what to call church members... In researching the 19th century, I wind up talking a lot about the Methodist Episcopal Church, which was the official name for the mainstream Methodist church back then. I've jokingly wanted to call the members "Methodic Episcopalians."

 

[Olowkow]

1830: Church of Christ
1834: The Church of the Latter Day Saints
1838: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
"The hyphen in 'Latter-day' was add about a century or so later to be grammatically correct."

Thanks, I guess I just took "Latter-Day Saints" to mean something like the end of the world (last days?) saints or Revelation saints, or ....who knows?
Is the current "Church of Christ" related in any way to the Mormonism?

 

[Empress]

Thanks, I guess I just took "Latter-Day Saints" to mean something like the end of the world (last days?) saints or Revelation saints, or ....who knows?
Is the current "Church of Christ" related in any way to the Mormonism?

That is the sense they're using it in. The "Latter Days" are the end days, b/c we're in the final days prior to Jesus' return. Saints just means a follower of Jesus (as Pup put it: the good guys) but the LDS believe they're the only ones who have the full gospel of Jesus.

"Church of Christ" or "Disciples of Christ" are unrelated. They're a loosely-comprised group of independent churches that might have very different views from church to church. Jim Jones was a pastor of the Disciples of Christ.

"Community of Christ" however, is related. They used to be known as the Reorganized LDS (RLDS) and is the break-off sect that Smith's wife and son were part of when Brigham Young took over the leadership of the mainstream LDS.

 

[abaddon]

It was the preceding post

Was it? The preceding post was this:

I suspect she was talking about her and her sons:
These sorts of misunderstandings could be avoided if she would just utilize normal forum etiquette, and quote the appropriate post, but I think that's a lost cause.

To what exactly do you refer?

 

[Cat Tale]

What do you think of the BoA?
ETA: how do you explain the anomalies in the BoM?

Actually, my opinion on both of these has already been posted.
On the BoA
4449

On the BoM
2428

Despite some inaccuracies, I still firmly believe both the BoA and the BoM, and that they are both the word of God. Based on faith, not evidence.

 

[Olowkow]

That is the sense they're using it in. The "Latter Days" are the end days, b/c we're in the final days prior to Jesus' return. Saints just means a follower of Jesus (as Pup put it: the good guys) but the LDS believe they're the only ones who have the full gospel of Jesus....

I get it now. Thanks. I was picturing "saints" of LDS as those members who somehow survived the "latter days" when the end comes, maybe some select few of the best behaved members or martyrs, rather than all current members of LDS.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Was it? The preceding post was this:

To what exactly do you refer?

Abaddon:

I have reason to beleive that "the previous post" to which Janadele refers is my post; and that the "foolish questions" she refers to are my questions, patiently repeated, about the apparent anachronisms in the BoM; and that "us" is either the "royal we", or "Janadele and her sons" (which would be odd, as I did not ask if her sons might provide evidence until after she called my questions "foolish"), or a clumsy attempt to imply that my questions were so "foolish" that no one on the thread was interested in them...

Which is a shame, as I would be fascinated by evidence (not apologetics, but archaeological, physical, anthropological, evidence) of, for instance, wheat cultivation or a horse culture in the pre-Colombian Americas. I pored over pre-Colombian "lore" and legends when I was a boy in Guayaquil the same way boys in Texas devour amerindian "lore"...My teachers (none of whom could have distinguished a mormon from Adam's off ox--they had other fish to fry) would have loved to have been able to claim that the gringo did not bring the horse, or wheat, or any of the rest, to their shores.

Jandele? If you read this: I am not "anti-mormon". I am "pro-knowledge".

 

[Slowvehicle]

Actually, my opinion on both of these has already been posted.
On the BoA
4449

On the BoM
2428

Despite some inaccuracies, I still firmly believe both the BoA and the BoM, and that they are both the word of God. Based on faith, not evidence.

Thank you, Cat Tale. I can respect that. I did not appreciate the implication (not an implication you made) that the reason I did not know of the evidence that had already been found was due to my supposed "anti-mormon" bias, or to the deficiency of my scholarship.

Although, as my previous post says,I would love to see evidence, if any is, in fact, ever found.

 

[Empress]

Abaddon:

I have reason to beleive that "the previous post" to which Janadele refers is my post; and that the "foolish questions" she refers to are my questions, patiently repeated, about the apparent anachronisms in the BoM; and that "us" is either the "royal we", or "Janadele and her sons" (which would be odd, as I did not ask if her sons might provide evidence until after she called my questions "foolish"), or a clumsy attempt to imply that my questions were so "foolish" that no one on the thread was interested in them...

I think you'll find you asked about her sons right before she responded with "us" which is what makes me suspect "us" refers to her and her sons. Here's the layout from my last post.

This thread would be far more readable if certain posters could stick to typical forum etiquette and just hit the "quote" button.

 

[bruto]

Well, there's one good side to this thread.

Long ago, a good friend who has since died used to characterize difficulties and obstacles with the phrase "that's enough to piss off a saint." Never thought I'd live to see it really happen.

 

[tsig]

Actually, my opinion on both of these has already been posted.
On the BoA
4449

On the BoM
2428

Despite some inaccuracies, I still firmly believe both the BoA and the BoM, and that they are both the word of God. Based on faith, not evidence.

So Joe got some things wrong but that doesn't sway your belief that he was right?

 

[SezMe]

OK, so there is a separate definition just to include groups such as LDS, (def. 1-c).

Are there any cults other than the LDS and splinter groups that use the word "saint" in their title and that its members are non-ironically called "saints" by themselves or outsiders?

 

[Slowvehicle]

I think you'll find you asked about her sons right before she responded with "us" which is what makes me suspect "us" refers to her and her sons. Here's the layout from my last post.

This thread would be far more readable if certain posters could stick to typical forum etiquette and just hit the "quote" button.

Thank you, Empress. I believe you are right about "us".

I still would have liked to have seen evidence of pre-Colombian horses...

 

[Slowvehicle]

Are there any cults other than the LDS and splinter groups that use the word "saint" in their title and that its members are non-ironically called "saints" by themselves or outsiders?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church refers to the whole church, the mystical assembly of all believers, living and dead, as the "communion of the saints". (Part 1, Sec, 2, Ch. 3, Art. 9, paragraph 5/946 ff)

IIRC, in the NT, "saints" was applied to baptised members of a local congregation, see (I think) II Cor. 1:1; I Cor 1:2, for instance...

 

[Pup]

Actually, my opinion on both of these has already been posted.
On the BoA
4449

On the BoM
2428.

If this thread goes on long enough, it'll be like this old joke.

 

[abaddon]

Abaddon:

I have reason to beleive that "the previous post" to which Janadele refers is my post;

Maybe, but we are all just guessing, and janadele won't tell.

and that the "foolish questions" she refers to are my questions, patiently repeated, about the apparent anachronisms in the BoM;

And again, we are left to guess what her replies refer to.

and that "us" is either the "royal we", or "Janadele and her sons" (which would be odd, as I did not ask if her sons might provide evidence until after she called my questions "foolish"), or a clumsy attempt to imply that my questions were so "foolish" that no one on the thread was interested in them...

Yet your questions are cogent and on point, I think she has no answers, and thus prefers to avoid those nasty questions.

Which is a shame, as I would be fascinated by evidence (not apologetics, but archaeological, physical, anthropological, evidence) of, for instance, wheat cultivation or a horse culture in the pre-Colombian Americas.

You know that is not going to happen.

I pored over pre-Colombian "lore" and legends when I was a boy in Guayaquil the same way boys in Texas devour amerindian "lore"...My teachers (none of whom could have distinguished a mormon from Adam's off ox--they had other fish to fry) would have loved to have been able to claim that the gringo did not bring the horse, or wheat, or any of the rest, to their shores

The mormon book says it's true, therefore it must be true. Sure.

Jandele? If you read this: I am not "anti-mormon". I am "pro-knowledge".

Being pro-knowledge makes you by default anti-mormon in Janadeles book.

 

[deaman]

Just for the record, I am a very active Latter-day Saint.

For the record, you consider yourself someone who lives the life of a saint? Traditionally, a saint is one who has been recognized for having an exceptional degree of holiness, sanctity, and virtue.

Would that be you?

 

[Pup]

For the record, you consider yourself someone who lives the life of a saint? Traditionally, a saint is one who has been recognized for having an exceptional degree of holiness, sanctity, and virtue.

Would that be you?

I can understanding missing questions and answers from pages back, but seriously? The last few posts just three or four hours ago went over all that, with dictionary definitions and everything.

 

[SezMe]

I second Pup. Are you being gratuitously confrontational for the mere amusement factor?