- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve recently reframed “taking the name of the Lord in vain” away from the Jewish superstition of “Oh my God” and similar (which FTR, I still think is disrespectful to God, but not for the sake of the commandment) toward claiming to do things in his name, but actually doing things with your own agenda. In the church, it’s habit (reinforced by teachings) to end pretty much anything churchy with “In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen”
Do you think maybe this is applied to broadly? I mean, people end testimonies and talks that way, when really, they’re just opinion pieces and doctrinal commentaries. Are those things
reallywhat Jesus would say in your situation? Are you reallyspeaking in his name? Or are you being vain and presumptuous in closing your remarks in his name? Just a thought. Not trying to condemn.
In a fashion typical of them, the Jews often overdo it. The Jews are so paranoid about avoiding something that they put rings around rings around rings around rings. This is because they derive from the Pharasaical tendency and have been effectively run by lawyers for years. You could say it’s an unfortunate consequence of ghettoes and curfews, that has resulted in excessive interpretation, interpolation and speculation. Jesus stood in opposition to such legalistic tomfoolery, yet it has taken over what would become Judaism. The New Testament is replete with stories of how hypocritical it was even then.
I think it is ridiculous for example that some of them insist on writing “G*d” in English. Not only does that actually make it look like foul language putting it in the company of f*** and s***, but it is wrong as it is not the true name of God in the Bible. Nor is Jesus the true name of Jesus either – it is English via Greek & Latin.
I heard someone say that they interpreted “not taking the Lord’s name in vein” not so much as cursing, but more of putting words in God’s mouth – i.e. “God wants us to convert as many people as we can, so let’s go on a crusade.” I could see where God would get more upset at that compared to someone using God’s name when they accidentally hit their thumb with a hammer. I agree, Beefster, and have often had the same thought. It is especially perplexing to me when people have just taught pseudo-doctrine or outright false doctrine. Mostly it’s just habit/perceived expectation. Interesting perspective, LH. I can’t say I’ve heard that before but it seems to fit.
I’ve come to realize, taking the Lord’s name in vain is largely dependent on circumstance and intent. “Oh my God” is a perfectly valid response to extreme loss, terrorist attacks, catastrophes, or sorrow. It could also be used in instances of joy or peace. Even Jesus Christ said “My God…”, many times throughout his life, including upon the cross. If it can be said with the right intent, as a prayer or exultation of the soul, I think it’s perfectly acceptable. But it is not an appropriate response to Becky’s new shoes, no matter who she thinks she is. That being said, “God” is a title, not a name.
I am glad I’m not the only one who feels saying “In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen”, is not an appropriate sign-off phrase (as it is often used). I don’t think Jesus would particularly approve. It’s also kind of funny that Jesus Christ was never called “Jesus” nor “the Christ” while he was alive, and yet we place such a strong importance to calling him by, and doing things in that name. I guess it’s the meaning behind it, that matters; Everyone knows who you mean when you say “Jesus Christ”. That is the name we have given him, so I guess it works…
At one point I read a study that tracked this trend in LDs conference talks. It appears that this began in conference talks that would end with a prayer or blessing. Examples: “I pray that all LDS men within the sound of my voice would honor the priesthood” or “I give you an apostolic blessing that you may open your mouths without fear” and then close “in the name of….” Gradually that morphed until more and more of the conference talks were ending in that way even without any prayer or blessing.
Now, to end a talk without it would seem weird (almost blasphemous) to many in the congregation.
Roy wrote:
At one point I read a study that tracked this trend in LDs conference talks. It appears that this began in conference talks that would end with a prayer or blessing. Examples: “I pray that all LDS men within the sound of my voice would honor the priesthood” or “I give you an apostolic blessing that you may open your mouths without fear” and then close “in the name of….”Gradually that morphed until more and more of the conference talks were ending in that way even without any prayer or blessing.
Now, to end a talk without it would seem weird (almost blasphemous) to many in the congregation.
Interesting. As a speaker I have tried to do a couple things over the past two years or so.
1. I have made a concerted effort to not start off by saying “Good morning brothers and sisters….” I can’t say I’ve been all that creative, but I have been starting with things like “I’m glad to be here this morning” or “Thank you for that talk/song.” I have done this because the whole brothers and sisters thing is trite and used too often.
2. I have likewise made a concerted effort not to just finish with “ItnoJCa” which was usually immediately preceded by a testimony. It’s not that I don’t bear testimony (such as it is) anymore, I just don’t do it at the end (I actually like it in the beginning). What I have taken to doing is closing with a very brief summary as a prayer – “It is my prayer that we might all find comfort in the words of the Book of Mormon….” I have noticed that some GAs do it this way, it fits me better, and I don’t know of any other way to break the itnoJCa thing and not be super awkward. I did not know there was a history behind it. Do you know at what point the tradition was started?
DarkJedi wrote:I did not know there was a history behind it. Do you know at what point the tradition was started?
https://boaporg.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/in-the-name-of-jesus-christ-amen/ Looks like the flat “sign off” version that we are accustomed to today was put into practice by SWK.
It is interesting that:
1) this practice evolved in our rather recent history.
2) we use scriptures to justify and defend it (even though as beefster suggests, some scriptures might also be against it).
3) current members must follow the custom to avoid super awkwardness and loss of social capital.
I had no idea there was a history to it as well. Cool finds! I find the phrase “oh my god” to be learned at a young age, so I don’t find it to be disrespectful. To me, it’s become such a common expression that it’s mostly lost its expressive power. I used to take a lot of offense at it, but now I hardly mind it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
“Oh my God” is far too overused now and it is more or less in line with a curse word. I’d prefer folk swore than used blasphemy. Oh and by the way, if we’re discussing talks, using dictionary definitions is tacky. I know of no other religion where the name or title of deity is used often and reflexively as either a “swear word” or in an unthinkingly casual way. That says a lot, I think.
“Vain” can mean “prideful” or “without effect”. I see the usage at the end of talks as very much without effect – unless the talk was spiritually moving – to someone – at some point – etc. Thus, it could be in vain – but it isn’t always in vain.
Roy wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:I did not know there was a history behind it. Do you know at what point the tradition was started?
https://boaporg.wordpress.com/2010/04/04/in-the-name-of-jesus-christ-amen/ Looks like the flat “sign off” version that we are accustomed to today was put into practice by SWK.
It is interesting that:
1) this practice evolved in our rather recent history.
2) we use scriptures to justify and defend it (even though as beefster suggests, some scriptures might also be against it).
3) current members must follow the custom to avoid super awkwardness and loss of social capital.
Thanks. It does seem to be fairly recent, and if it was SWK that really sort of started it on a regular basis it explains why I have always thought of it as the standard because SWK was president when I was baptized. I’m betting SWK asked the Q15 and much smaller Q70 (there was only one quorum then) to close GC talks that way and it stuck. That said, it also looks like it would be very hard to change now.
(Nelson, Oaks and Ballard are the only current members of the Q15 who could have had a personal relationship with SWK as members of the Q15, but SWK was incapacitated at the time. They may have had personal relationships, as we know Nelson did, prior to their calls.)
Old Timer wrote:
I know of no other religion where the name or title of deity is used often and reflexively as either a “swear word” or in an unthinkingly casual way.That says a lot, I think.
“Vain” can mean “prideful” or “without effect”. I see the usage at the end of talks as very much without effect – unless the talk was spiritually moving – to someone – at some point – etc. Thus, it could be in vain – but it isn’t always in vain.
I can. Islam.
They say Insh’Allah etc very casually even as a term of annoyance.
In classical Rome, the names of the gods were used in this way too.
SamBee wrote:
Old Timer wrote:
I know of no other religion where the name or title of deity is used often and reflexively as either a “swear word” or in an unthinkingly casual way.That says a lot, I think.
“Vain” can mean “prideful” or “without effect”. I see the usage at the end of talks as very much without effect – unless the talk was spiritually moving – to someone – at some point – etc. Thus, it could be in vain – but it isn’t always in vain.
I can. Islam.
They say Insh’Allah etc very casually even as a term of annoyance.
In classical Rome, the names of the gods were used in this way too.
My first thought was some of my more evangelical acquaintances who very often (to the level I do sometimes get annoyed) end sentences with something like “Praise be to God,” “Praise the Lord” or other variants. I don’t have qualms with their faith or the expression thereof, but I have wondered if it is taking the Lord’s name in vain because it is so often. I don’t think it is intended or interpreted that way among them, however.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.