Just_A_Guy

Facial hair. I don't think so.
I hope for the best for Retzlaff. I hope even more that future BYU athletes will take their promise to follow the honor code with greater sincerity. We're definitely swimming upstream in that regard. Maybe we should call ourselves the BYU Salmon.

Interestingly, notwithstanding Nephi’s remarkable clarity on the issue, the Nephites themselves struggled to retain a clear Christology at various points in their history.  Sherem, Nehor, Zeezrom, and Korihor deviated wildly from Nephi’s Christology and amassed significant Nephite followings.  When Benjamin and Mosiah and Abinadi and Alma I and Alma II preach Christ, you often get little textual hints that the connections they were making were absolute novelties to most of their audiences.

The names Joshua and Jesus are the same name (Hebrew and Aramaic respectively).  Either spelling in English, it was common male name in Ancient Israel.  But it is highly unlikely that the name "Jesus" would have been written in an ancient HEBREW text.
I'll even posit an idea that will throw you all for a loop: It may even be possible that Jesus was not literally His mortal given name.  The name literally means "Jehovah Saves".  So, it could have been a name-title, as so many individuals of special mission had in the OT times AFTER they became adults. 
Of course, this becomes a moot point since this is the name by which we know Him today.  But it is an interesting quirk.
Beyond that, the first time the name Jesus appears in the BoM is 
Notice that he specifically says that an ANGEL TOLD HIM THE NAME.  He received it through revelation.  And it appears that until that moment, Nephi was unfamiliar with the actual name of the Savior that would be used.
Christ is not a Greek word.  It is the Anglicized version of the Greek Christos (Χριστός) which simply means Annointed One.  The Hebrew word is Mashiach (Anglicized: Messiah).  So, both Christ and Messiah are correctly considered English words which are loan words from Greek and Hebrew respectively.
And in accordance with my point of interest, it may very well be that Nephi was given the Hebrew TITLE by which He would be known, which would have been translated as "The Lord's Annointed Savior, the Son of God."
Jeshua-Mashiach, Ben-El (or Bene-Elohim).
Even if there were truly no mention of the Son of God in the Old Testament.
When TRANSLATED the name/title could have easily taken on many forms.  And Jesus Christ would have been a perfectly acceptable ENGLISH translation.
People make a big deal about it because they have no idea how translations work, especially when working with an ancient language translated nearly 200 years ago with a style of English that we would find understandable, but rather awkward.  And many words have expeienced semantic shift since the early 1800s.
Bottom line: None of this surprises me.

This is most likely what I would back.
Joseph Smith fell back onto what he was familiar with during the translation in many instances.  It most likely is not a word for word translation, but one that also was done in accordance with what Joseph was familiar with.
This happens with some translations today as well, especially in texts where it is more poetic.  There is a choice in these texts on whether to go with a word by word translation, which will be a literal translation of what the document actually says, or go with a more substantial translation which confers what the document actually means.
For example, if we had a phrase in the United States in English that says...Go break a leg...or...beating a dead horse...and translated it to another language people may be confused why we were wishing someone who was about to do something big to go break a leg, or why people who were rehashing old arguments were beating  a dead horse instead of talking.
Poetic texts are even tougher than that to confer what the author actually means.  In addition, there is the question on whether to try to keep the poetry of the writing, or whether to go more towards what is a standard language.  Take Virgil's Aeneid.  In it, you have all these choices regarding translation.  If you go for a pure translation a lot of the symbolism and other areas of the work could be lost.  If you go only for one that tries to stay as true to the words, but also convey the feelings and experiences of it, you may lose some of the actual wording utilized, and may not convey the feeling of the poetic verse (dactylic hexameter).  If you try to go and convey the feeling of the poetry in motion by replicating the meter of the poetry, you may lose both some of the actual meaning while not staying true to the words.
It is a tricky thing translating many of the ancient works.
At times, it is left to the translator's best understanding of the matter.  Some times they already have exposure to a particular type of translation of the work (for example, many translators of the Aeneid choose to go for a more literal word on word that remains close to the actual meter of the epic poem, but that means that the casual reader will miss quite a bit of some of why things are done or the symbology and meaning of some of the work).  It is what they are familiar with and so they go with that tried and true form of translation.
Joseph Smith did not have the exposure to a lot of various translations of the Bible during his time period (or at least most likely did not, and/or utilized one version of the bible for most of his actual reading and studying).  Hence, just like other translators he probably fell back on that familiarity during his translations.  This is why much of the Book of Mormon, especially when it repeats a portion found in the Bible, replicates those portions of the Bible.  It was what he was familiar with.
The same could go for certain terms in the Book of Mormon.  He was familiar with the name of the Lord in the New Testament and when a descriptor of that name came up during translation, he fell back on what he was familiar with.  So, the actual term could have been another term or word, but as Joseph was more familiar with the term Christ (which one could view as an actual title rather than a name, Joseph and Mary did not have that as a last name, or at least most Scholars agree they didn't), when a term meaning the anointed one popped up, that's the term he utilized.

There are some obvious things missing in the translation.  The term Christ is from the Greek.   The Hebrew term translated into English is Messiah.  Both are in reference to “the anointed one”.  There is still some confusion that has arisen from the Dead Sea Scriptures that there may be more than one “the anointed one”.
There are so many ways that the ancient scripture text cause confusion, but one thing we can understand through the restoration (especially temple revelation) is that all of G-d’s covenant saints are anointed.  The ordinance of anointing is a precursor on the covenant path to a “oneness” with the Christ – who is also one with the Father, thus resulting in the Saints becoming one with G-d.  Of course, the traditional and creedal Christians are lost in a labyrinth of teachings that amount to the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.
The Biblical Book of Isaiah speaks clearly to the concept of apostasy and restoration.  The history of apostasy and restoration from Jesus to today clearly follows the type and shadow of Isaiah but is lost to most modern Christians.  Why?  Because as the apostasy took place, the Christians of the apostasy forgot Isaiah and thought that apostasy was a heresy or a change of doctrine.  Isaiah clearly taught that man becomes separated from G-d through transgression of the law, changing the ordinances and breaking the everlasting covenant.
If one uses the internet to investigate why LDS are excluded from those “Traditional” and “Creedal” Christians, you will find that it is always because of a doctrine that they claim is heresy.    And because of what they claim is heresy, the claim is, that LDS worship a “different” Jesus.
As LDS we ought to be careful and mindful not to fall into the trap of apologetics of doctrine and instead hold to the Gospel of Christ.  Which is to love one another, have faith in Jesus Christ (which is the foundation of the law), be baptized by one authorized by Christ (which prevents changing the ordinances) and keeping the everlasting covenant (which is solemnized in the temple of G-d).
 
The Traveler

Two thoughts:
1. Deuteronomists removed clearer references to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and the Messiah from the O.T. - whether His name was there or not, all clearer references were removed, especially if they indicated He was the Son of God.
2. If the Nephites knew the name Jesus Christ (or the Hebrew form of it), it would not and could not impact their faith. Christ did not come to them until He was resurrected, when both the Father and Christ Himself declared who and what He was.  But if the people in the old world knew His would-be name ahead of time, then:
That could have lead to a zillion people with that very common Hebrew name, some of whom could have falsely claimed they were the Messiah That could have impacted their need to have faith and choose whether to believe that Jesus was the Christ, because He worked quite a while before announcing who and what He was.

Jesus Christ has many names and titles so we don't actually know what the Nephites were calling Him. So you may be right that Joseph Smith used the name he was most familiar with. Also, it was the prophet Mormon who compiled the gold plated. He lived post Jesus' appearance so he may have simply used the name he was most familiar with.
Another thought, some of the information pertaining to Jesus' identity may have been hidden to prevent false Messiah's. Once the Nephites separated that was no longer an issue. 

I remember my mission president saying that we didn’t have authority to dust our feet or shake our coattails or whatever.
Interestingly:  D&C 60 was given three months after D&C 49 and the ensuing mission to the Shakers, in which Parley Pratt dusted his coattails against the Shakers and things went downhill from there.  So I love that now, in August 1831, the Lord is saying “yeah, shake off the dust, but for goodness’ sake, PARLEY, don’t let them see you doing it!”

I remember my mission president saying that we didn’t have authority to dust our feet or shake our coattails or whatever.
Interestingly:  D&C 60 was given three months after D&C 49 and the ensuing mission to the Shakers, in which Parley Pratt dusted his coattails against the Shakers and things went downhill from there.  So I love that now, in August 1831, the Lord is saying “yeah, shake off the dust, but for goodness’ sake, PARLEY, don’t let them see you doing it!”

Quite possibly.  I was just prefacing my thoughts on potential modern applications by pointing out that Isaiah’s initial hearers were most likely interpreting him as prophesying about the result of a ruinous war (see Isaiah 3:25-26) and, more generally, the humiliation through war and disease of the formerly-prideful women of the southern kingdom of Judah.

Given that Isaiah is so prone to dual prophesies, I think the primary meaning is less about future male/female relationships and more of a simple (and maybe hyperbolic) illustration of the destruction that will have been wrought on (then-) future Israel through wars, to the point that there just aren’t many men left.
But if one reads the verse loosely and tries to apply it to our own culture in the last days, what we might fundamentally see is women offering men the benefits of a traditional marriage (in a word:  sex) while not demanding that men reciprocate with the traditional responsibilities of marriage (material support/commitment).  And I think lots of modern American/ Western women do precisely that, to avoid the “stigma” of virginity/undesirability or in pursuit of some will o’ the wisp emotional connection or out of a “maybe he’ll like me if I just change enough” dynamic or out of a desperate need not to be alone as their culture accuses them of “passing their prime”.  There may not be a stigma against being unmarried; but I get the impression that (outside the Mormon corridor, at least) there’s very much a stigma against being chaste.

Quite possibly.  I was just prefacing my thoughts on potential modern applications by pointing out that Isaiah’s initial hearers were most likely interpreting him as prophesying about the result of a ruinous war (see Isaiah 3:25-26) and, more generally, the humiliation through war and disease of the formerly-prideful women of the southern kingdom of Judah.

Given that Isaiah is so prone to dual prophesies, I think the primary meaning is less about future male/female relationships and more of a simple (and maybe hyperbolic) illustration of the destruction that will have been wrought on (then-) future Israel through wars, to the point that there just aren’t many men left.
But if one reads the verse loosely and tries to apply it to our own culture in the last days, what we might fundamentally see is women offering men the benefits of a traditional marriage (in a word:  sex) while not demanding that men reciprocate with the traditional responsibilities of marriage (material support/commitment).  And I think lots of modern American/ Western women do precisely that, to avoid the “stigma” of virginity/undesirability or in pursuit of some will o’ the wisp emotional connection or out of a “maybe he’ll like me if I just change enough” dynamic or out of a desperate need not to be alone as their culture accuses them of “passing their prime”.  There may not be a stigma against being unmarried; but I get the impression that (outside the Mormon corridor, at least) there’s very much a stigma against being chaste.

Given that Isaiah is so prone to dual prophesies, I think the primary meaning is less about future male/female relationships and more of a simple (and maybe hyperbolic) illustration of the destruction that will have been wrought on (then-) future Israel through wars, to the point that there just aren’t many men left.
But if one reads the verse loosely and tries to apply it to our own culture in the last days, what we might fundamentally see is women offering men the benefits of a traditional marriage (in a word:  sex) while not demanding that men reciprocate with the traditional responsibilities of marriage (material support/commitment).  And I think lots of modern American/ Western women do precisely that, to avoid the “stigma” of virginity/undesirability or in pursuit of some will o’ the wisp emotional connection or out of a “maybe he’ll like me if I just change enough” dynamic or out of a desperate need not to be alone as their culture accuses them of “passing their prime”.  There may not be a stigma against being unmarried; but I get the impression that (outside the Mormon corridor, at least) there’s very much a stigma against being chaste.

Much love and good wishes to you, @JohnsonJones.

Much love and good wishes to you, @JohnsonJones.

Sorry for the late reply.
I could have retired years ago, but I was reluctant to.  It meant that I would have to monitor my money far more tightly and I also enjoyed being able to do what I was doing at that time.  I had already worked a great deal with another career, and this opportunity to teach and research sort of leaped out at me.  I took it and enjoyed it greatly.
However, various factors combined to finally make me take the jump and go off the cliff to retirement.
#1 - Politics.  Not the politics that we think about, but university politics.  I was responsible at times for getting grants and contracts and overlooking grants and contracts.  There were several factors that were making them much harder to obtain or to feasibly consider.  It was getting to be a chore and really making my life a rather unfun experience at times.
#2 - My health.  Healthwise I am not doing so great these days.  As I get older, my health just doesn't want to keep up.  It also appears that I may have gotten some dementia (and I do not know how long that means I'll be able to remain as I am, or if it will get worse and eventually I'll not be able to do things.  I do not want to be a burden on my family, but if it gets worse...then we will be there).  In addition some other health concerns have popped up that could get worse relatively quickly.  It's estimated I may have only 1 to 3 years left.  If I only have so much time, I want to spend it doing what I want to do.  I may get a miracle, but I've lived my life and if I don't, I'll be happy with where I'm at.  I'm trying to convince a son or in-law to at least sign onto these forums so when I am no longer able to visit, they at least can keep people updated.
#3 - It just feels like it's time.  The world and the students are changing, and sometimes I just feel like a fish out of water.  I think I'm ready to be done with this stage of my life.
On the bright side, I am retired now.  I've gone traveling (and really crazy thing happened in Utah while I was there.  They actually closed the entire Federal Highway Last weekend!  I've never seen another state completely close the highway down without any real reason (Beyond construction).  Normally they find a way to at least keep one side open.  I've gone to Disney World with some grandkids (we went to all 4 parks.  It's different when you are older.  I think I prefer Animal Kingdom these days to the other parks, though the grandkids probably enjoyed the other ones better).  I went throughout the Western States and I've visited several of the National Parks out there.
On the downside, I've found I am going to have to cut back as much as I can on spending.  Finances will be tighter and I'm still adjusting.  I am fortunate to have a buffer, but I still need to ensure that I stop overspending and take time to focus more on the spending necessities and less on what I would like (for example, my summerly trips overseas...done [though that was usually for research trips rather than pure enjoyment].  My thoughts on touring Europe...currently it seems like it may be a little too expensive for my retirement budgets).  Bills and Budgets are tighter now and I'm feeling it.  Maybe more car trip traveling around the US during the summer than going internationally, and more time with family than experiencing sights and culture.

A sizeable percentage of those on the membership rolls of our church are not active. They didn't have to "escape" they simply stopped coming. I agree that leaving behind the cultural aspect of the Church requires significant adjustment but this video is not about closure. He is openly engaging our church but now as an antagonist. This is not escaping but attacking.
Obedience to God's laws is the only thing that brings lasting joy. So to the extent that anyone obeys God's laws they can receive that joy in proportion. Our Church's mission is to teach a fullness of God's laws so people can receive a fullness of joy, if they so choose it. It's up to them. But we seek for those who are not content being just fine. 

Welcome, Moroni60!
I can’t speak for any individual prophet; but looking to my own experience in giving priesthood blessings:  there have been occasional, very rare instances where specific verbiage was given to me, but generally it was concepts or impressions that I was left to put into vocabulary as best I could.
As we go back and look at the editorial history of the D&C and the way different revelations were edited, combined/separated, or revised even between the BoC versus the first edition D&C—I am increasingly persuaded that the fact that many of the revelations in the D&C are written in the Lord’s “voice” is less a reflection of the process the Lord used in each of those instances to communicate with the Prophet; and more frequently (not always, but very often) a stylistic choice made by Joseph Smith himself.  (Mormon himself, I think, does the same thing in recording/reconstructing some of the great sermons, and perhaps visions, in the Book of Mormon; particularly in Mosiah and Alma.)  The result can be something very powerful to read—if it’s not wrong.
President Taylor’s 1886 revelation shows what can happen when the prophet gets it wrong.  I have no doubt that he was given a true revelation with some general concepts that comforted him and led him to stay on a course that was right for the Church at that time.  But I have less confidence that, when he finally put pen to paper, he was able to articulate what he’d experienced in a way that wasn’t influenced by his own experiences and hopes and sufferings. President Taylor himself seems to have shared my doubts about his own scribal process in that instance; to such an extent that he declined to present it to the Twelve for review—let alone to the Church as a whole for canonization.  And I think since his day later prophets have, generally wisely, chosen to take a more modest approach.

Welcome, Moroni60!
I can’t speak for any individual prophet; but looking to my own experience in giving priesthood blessings:  there have been occasional, very rare instances where specific verbiage was given to me, but generally it was concepts or impressions that I was left to put into vocabulary as best I could.
As we go back and look at the editorial history of the D&C and the way different revelations were edited, combined/separated, or revised even between the BoC versus the first edition D&C—I am increasingly persuaded that the fact that many of the revelations in the D&C are written in the Lord’s “voice” is less a reflection of the process the Lord used in each of those instances to communicate with the Prophet; and more frequently (not always, but very often) a stylistic choice made by Joseph Smith himself.  (Mormon himself, I think, does the same thing in recording/reconstructing some of the great sermons, and perhaps visions, in the Book of Mormon; particularly in Mosiah and Alma.)  The result can be something very powerful to read—if it’s not wrong.
President Taylor’s 1886 revelation shows what can happen when the prophet gets it wrong.  I have no doubt that he was given a true revelation with some general concepts that comforted him and led him to stay on a course that was right for the Church at that time.  But I have less confidence that, when he finally put pen to paper, he was able to articulate what he’d experienced in a way that wasn’t influenced by his own experiences and hopes and sufferings. President Taylor himself seems to have shared my doubts about his own scribal process in that instance; to such an extent that he declined to present it to the Twelve for review—let alone to the Church as a whole for canonization.  And I think since his day later prophets have, generally wisely, chosen to take a more modest approach.

At the risk of opening old wounds and such, I have found it interesting that the prophet-presidents of the RLDS/Community of Christ branch of the restoration continued the tradition of adding to their D&C with revelations published in the Voice of God. As I skim over their D&C, it seems that this tradition continued until Pres. Wallace B. Smith and section 160 in about 1996. Pres. Grant McMurray and Stephen Veazy seem to have stepped away from voicing their additions to the D&C as clearly in the Voice of God.
Perhaps part of the answer is that anyone can write a document in the Voice of God, but such a practice does not necessarily make the alleged revelation a true revelation, as I'm sure many in this group would contest the legitimacy of sections 130ish+ of the D&C.

I don't know if this fully answers your question but perhaps we can infer some things from it. Brigham Young, "Light of the Spirit—Laws of Health—Joy in the Gospel, &c.," August 5, 1860, Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool: George Q. Cannon, 1861), 8:138
"No man ever preached a Gospel sermon, except by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. Without this power, there is no light in the preaching. Brother Bywater remarked that he did not desire a man of God, when he arose to speak to the people, to say, "Thus saith the Lord God Almighty," or "Thus saith Jesus Christ." People who require this, or who constantly require written revelation, have not a correct conception of revelation and its Spirit. What do the present professing Christian world know about the words of the Lord that came to Jeremiah, Isaiah, and other ancient Prophets? They read and hear without understanding much; they have not a true conception of the truth or principle of what they are reading. Is this the case with the Latter-day Saints? It is more or less the case with those who are continually desiring to have "Thus saith the Lord," and more written revelations. Those who possess the Spirit of revelation know the voice of the Good Shepherd when they hear it, and a stranger they will not follow. They discern the difference between the spirit and power of the Gospel and the precepts of men. When they hear truth poured upon the people, in comparison like the cataract of Niagara, they do not want "Thus saith the Lord," for it carries with it its own evidence, and is revelation to the believer. They understand, and the fountain within them springs up to everlasting life; they are happy partakers of the peace of God through the administration of his servants, and of the truths the Lord dispenses; and they receive truth upon truth, light upon light, which cheers and comforts their hearts day by day. If you wish to understand the true principles of revelation, live for it: there is no other way of obtaining eternal life."
These are BY's sentiments but I'm guessing other Church leaders simply followed suit until it became the norm to not state "thus sayeth the Lord." To me, he is saying that there is an expectation for the members of the Church to receive a direct confirmation from the Lord on prophetic teachings and so there is no need to constantly identify the source of revelation because the Source will reveal it's truthfulness to us directly. The Lord must have felt it was needed in the earliest days of the Church because many members were still largely inexperienced with how revelation worked both personal and authoritatively. That all changed with time. Now, as BY states, we don't need the Good Shepherd to preface everything he says with "I am your Shepherd," if we are His sheep we will automatically recognize His voice.

Welcome, Moroni60!
I can’t speak for any individual prophet; but looking to my own experience in giving priesthood blessings:  there have been occasional, very rare instances where specific verbiage was given to me, but generally it was concepts or impressions that I was left to put into vocabulary as best I could.
As we go back and look at the editorial history of the D&C and the way different revelations were edited, combined/separated, or revised even between the BoC versus the first edition D&C—I am increasingly persuaded that the fact that many of the revelations in the D&C are written in the Lord’s “voice” is less a reflection of the process the Lord used in each of those instances to communicate with the Prophet; and more frequently (not always, but very often) a stylistic choice made by Joseph Smith himself.  (Mormon himself, I think, does the same thing in recording/reconstructing some of the great sermons, and perhaps visions, in the Book of Mormon; particularly in Mosiah and Alma.)  The result can be something very powerful to read—if it’s not wrong.
President Taylor’s 1886 revelation shows what can happen when the prophet gets it wrong.  I have no doubt that he was given a true revelation with some general concepts that comforted him and led him to stay on a course that was right for the Church at that time.  But I have less confidence that, when he finally put pen to paper, he was able to articulate what he’d experienced in a way that wasn’t influenced by his own experiences and hopes and sufferings. President Taylor himself seems to have shared my doubts about his own scribal process in that instance; to such an extent that he declined to present it to the Twelve for review—let alone to the Church as a whole for canonization.  And I think since his day later prophets have, generally wisely, chosen to take a more modest approach.

The whole point to modern prophets is that they offer us the voice of the Lord as attenuated to our own particular time and place.
It is surely not an eternal principle that people must subordinate God’s instructions to civil authority in every instance.  If it were then Daniel would never have gone into the lion’s den, Shadrach & Co would never have gone into the furnace, Judaism would have ended with Esther, Nephi would never have gotten the brass plates, Abinadi would never have stood before Noah, Alma would never have baptized in the wilderness, Alma the Younger would have never entered Ammonihah, Lamoni would have gone up to the land of Nephi with his father, Moroni would never have threatened the chief judge and then retaken Zarahemla from the victorious kingmen, Nephi son of Helaman would have never preached against the corrupt judges, and Samuel the Lamanite would have never stood upon the wall.  And of course, Christ would have never gone to the cross; Peter would never have stood before the chief priests at Jerusalem or ultimately crucified on Vatican Hill, Paul would have never preached to Agrippa, and thousands of early Christians would have renounced their faith instead of going to their deaths in the arena and elsewhere.
D&C 58 and 98 were an expedient given at particular points in time to particular groups in particular circumstances.  The degree to which they apply today is best ascertained by looking at President Nelson’s and the Q15’s most current statements on the topic, which seem to indicate that for the time being—in general—God still expects us to submit ourselves to civil authority.