Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

What Is "the Church"?


Recommended Posts

Growing up Baptist, we used the term "church" most often to refer to either the building itself (e.g., "I need to stop by the church to drop this off to the pastor") or to the services that occurred there on Sundays (e.g., "Church was so boring today").  As a result, we almost never thought of our "church" in a more global sense.  In fact, I can't remember EVER hearing anyone ask about the "church's stance" on a particular issue.  Someone might ask, "What does the Bible teach about ?" or even "What does Pastor think about ?"  But the "Baptist Church" as an entity had no meaning to us.  In fact, I can't even tell you which of the several dozen Baptist conventions we even belonged to.

 

As Mormons, we don't think of our "Church" in such narrow terms.  Our Church has clearly defined doctrines and policies on just about every issue, and whenever someone has a question, they go "straight to the top" to find out what apostles have said about the issue.  For us, the Church is well-defined; not as a building or a service, but rather as an institution.  However, I wonder if by doing so, we've lost track of the REAL church -- the people.

 

After all, we often say that "The Church is true, but the people are not."  We would not say such a thing if we hadn't in some sense separated the people out from the Church itself.

 

This is interesting considering that our English word "church" derives, in part, from the Greek word "ekklesia," which refers not to the administration or even institution of the Church, but to the congregation or assembly, the people.  When Christ talked about His "church," He wasn't referring to His 501©(3) tax-exempt corporation nor was He referring to His 15 duly-appointed apostles.  Christ was referring to US -- the people.  And therefore, when we speak of serving the Church, we should be speaking of serving THE PEOPLE.  Yet, most often, we seem to be speaking of serving the institution, and more specifically, its leaders.

 

A "faithful" member of the Church is someone who shows their loyalty to the institution and its leaders.  Most often, that faithfulness inures to the benefit of the people themselves.  However, what happens when the interests of the institution and its leaders conflict with the well-being of the members (or at least, certain groups of members)?  Is it still being loyal to the Church to support doctrines and policies that damage, say, women, gays, plaid people, etc.?

 

Most of our discussions on this board seem to quickly break down into head counts of "Who is on Team Apostle?" "Who is on Team Apostate?" However, the real question seems to be "Who is on Team Member?"  Is this policy or that policy good for the membership?  Yet, we can never get to the point because "God's Church" has resolved the issue through the apostles.  Is that really the "Church" that Jesus was trying to build during His earthly ministry?

Edited by mormonnewb
Link to comment

Who is the "Church"?

 

Those who enter into the new and everlasting covenant with Christ by the prescribed method (baptism) by authority (priesthood).

That is who makes up "the Church".

There is also the Church of the Firstborn which are those who are permanent sealed/joined to Christ as his heirs.

 

Any other definition of Christ's Church is just the mortal structure used to manage the first two or incomplete.

Link to comment

Growing up Baptist, we used the term "church" most often to refer to either the building itself (e.g., "I need to stop by the church to drop this off to the pastor") or to the services that occurred there on Sundays (e.g., "Church was so boring today").  As a result, we almost never thought of our "church" in a more global sense.  In fact, I can't remember EVER hearing anyone ask about the "church's stance" on a particular issue.  Someone might ask, "What does the Bible teach about ?" or even "What does Pastor think about ?"  But the "Baptist Church" as an entity had no meaning to us.  In fact, I can't even tell you which of the several dozen Baptist conventions we even belonged to.

 

As Mormons, we don't think of our "Church" in such narrow terms.  Our Church has clearly defined doctrines and policies on just about every issue, and whenever someone has a question, they go "straight to the top" to find out what apostles have said about the issue.  For us, the Church is well-defined; not as a building or a service, but rather as an institution.  However, I wonder if by doing so, we've lost track of the REAL church -- the people.

 

After all, we often say that "The Church is true, but the people are not."  We would not say such a thing if we hadn't in some sense separated the people out from the Church itself.

 

This is interesting considering that our English word "church" derives, in part, from the Greek word "ekklesia," which refers not to the administration or even institution of the Church, but to the congregation or assembly, the people.  When Christ talked about His "church," He wasn't referring to His 501©(3) tax-exempt corporation nor was He referring to His 15 duly-appointed apostles.  Christ was referring to US -- the people.  And therefore, when we speak of serving the Church, we should be speaking of serving THE PEOPLE.  Yet, most often, we seem to be speaking of serving the institution, and more specifically, its leaders.

 

A "faithful" member of the Church is someone who shows their loyalty to the institution and its leaders.  Most often, that faithfulness inures to the benefit of the people themselves.  However, what happens when the interests of the institution and its leaders conflict with the well-being of the members (or at least, certain groups of members)?  Is it still being loyal to the Church to support doctrines and policies that damage, say, women, gays, plaid people, etc.?

 

Most of our discussions on this board seem to quickly break down into head counts of "Who is on Team Apostle?" "Who is on Team Apostate?" However, the real question seems to be "Who is on Team Member?"  Is this policy or that policy good for the membership?  Yet, we can never get to the point because "God's Church" has resolved the issue through the apostles.  Is that really the "Church" that Jesus was trying to build during His earthly ministry?

I hate when people refer to "The Church" because it is so ambiguous, yet I catch myself doing it all the time out of habit. When someone uses that term as an authority such as, "What does The Church say", or "The Church says", I like to ask, "who in the church and when?"

Link to comment

I hate when people refer to "The Church" because it is so ambiguous, yet I catch myself doing it all the time out of habit. When someone uses that term as an authority such as, "What does The Church say", or "The Church says", I like to ask, "who in the church and when?"

I like that. Who in the church AND when? That pretty much leaves every question up for debate.

Link to comment

Read Doctrine and Covenants section 10 especially verse 67

Pertinent, but not the whole schmeer.  In the current LDS KJV Bible, "Bible Dictionary," 645,

 

Church. From the Greek, Ecclesia, meaning “an assembly called together.”  The church is the organized body of believers who have taken upon themselves the name of Jesus Christ by baptism and confirmation.  To be the true church it must be the Lord’s church, and must have his laws, his name, and be governed by him through representatives whom he has appointed (3 Ne. 27:1–12; D&C 115:4).  In this sense, the church began with the days of Adam, and has been on the earth among mankind whenever there were a group of believers who had the priesthood and revelations of heaven.  The word church is used only twice in the four Gospels (Matt. 16:18; 18:17) but is frequently mentioned in Acts, the epistles, and Revelation.  The O.T. uses the term congregation for church.  The word kingdom is often used in the scriptures to mean the church, since the church is literally the kingdom of God on the earth.  The Book of Mormon, as it speaks of O.T. events, uses the word church (1 Ne. 4:26), and the Doctrine and Covenants speaks of the church in O.T. times (D&C 107:4).
   Principal offices in the church are spoken of by Paul in Eph. 4:11–16, in which it is pointed out that the church is a means by which the saints (or members) become edified and progress toward the full measure of the stature of Christ.  That belonging to the Lord’s church is important is emphasized in Acts 2:47, where we find that “the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”  In the church there should be unity and oneness, and Paul was greatly concerned that there were divisions in the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 1:10–13).  He repeatedly explained that all the offices and functions of the church are necessary (Rom. 12:4–5; 1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4:1–16), the whole body being fitly joined together.  The scriptures contain the prophecies that the church which Jesus established would fall into apostasy.  This occurred soon after the death of the Twelve.  Consequently, the church, with the same organization, doctrines, and authority, has in the last days been restored to the earth, preparatory to the second coming of Jesus Christ (2 Thes. 2:1–9; D&C 20:1–4; cf. Acts 3:19–21; A of F 6).
Link to comment

Growing up Baptist, we used the term "church" most often to refer to either the building itself (e.g., "I need to stop by the church to drop this off to the pastor") or to the services that occurred there on Sundays (e.g., "Church was so boring today"). .........................................................

As Mormons, we don't think of our "Church" in such narrow terms.

Aside from referring to the bldg in the old days as a "meeting house," Mormons have typically spoken of the bldg and mtgs there as "church," as have most Protestants.  But "church" has many meanings in Mormon parlance.

 

..........................................  Our Church has clearly defined doctrines and policies on just about every issue, and whenever someone has a question, they go "straight to the top" to find out what apostles have said about the issue.

Not true in either case.  The LDS Church has some very specific religious doctrines and policies, to be sure, but not on just about every issue.  Indeed, faithful Mormons cannot agree on a wide array of secondary, unimportant issues which we discuss regularly on this board.  For example, on science, creation, evolution, and Book of Mormon geography.

Moreover, Mormons do not even agree on what the Brethren may have said on some controversial issues.  Why?  Because the Brethren are not a pack of dictators, and they frequently leave many issues to be decided by ordinary Mormons.  Why?  Because they are not central to salvation or exaltation.

Another policy which the Brethren favor is decentralization:  local, self governance -- a major teaching of Joseph Smith.  This includes directives from the Brethren that church activities are secondary to the family.  The family comes first.

Finally, some members do indeed seek counsel from the remarks of the Brethren in books, articles, and in Conference addresses.  Others seek knowledge first via the Scriptures, and give less force to the opinions of the Brethren.  In either case, it is a mistake which some Mormons make to end the matter with the words of Scripture or the Brethren, and neglect the witness of the Holy Spirit.

Professor Richard Poll famously distinguished between two types of faithful Mormons: (1) those who follow the Liahona, and (2) those who hold fast to the Iron Rod.

 

For us, the Church is well-defined; not as a building or a service, but rather as an institution.  However, I wonder if by doing so, we've lost track of the REAL church -- the people.

The church is the Congregation of God in the sense  in which your comment is meant to be taken, and you don't seem to realize that the Mormons do think of themselves as a people, and most see that they are part of a way of  life which has as its goal to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world -- even if they do not constantly think of themselves as the literal, eschatological Saints of the Last Days

 

After all, we often say that "The Church is true, but the people are not."  We would not say such a thing if we hadn't in some sense separated the people out from the Church itself.

I have never heard a Mormon say that, and I am not clear on what that even means.  Perhaps you mean that the Kingdom of God on Earth is an awesome, sacred organization which the people have a hard time living up to.  However, the Mormons as a people seem to me to feel comfortably to be members of that Kingdom here and now.

 

This is interesting considering that our English word "church" derives, in part, from the Greek word "ekklesia," which refers not to the administration or even institution of the Church, but to the congregation or assembly, the people.

Actually, our modern word "church" comes from Greek Kyriakos "Belonging to the Lord," which came into European use as kirk.

 

When Christ talked about His "church," He wasn't referring to His 501©(3) tax-exempt corporation nor was He referring to His 15 duly-appointed apostles.

 I thought he appointed 12 apostles.

 

Christ was referring to US -- the people.  And therefore, when we speak of serving the Church, we should be speaking of serving THE PEOPLE.  Yet, most often, we seem to be speaking of serving the institution, and more specifically, its leaders.

How odd.  I have never conceived of the LDS Church in this way, and certainly don't lionize or serve the leaders, and I don't find my fellow Mormons speaking of the Brethren in that way at all.  It is almost as if we are members of distinct organizations, you and me.

 

A "faithful" member of the Church is someone who shows their loyalty to the institution and its leaders.  Most often, that faithfulness inures to the benefit of the people themselves.  However, what happens when the interests of the institution and its leaders conflict with the well-being of the members (or at least, certain groups of members)?  ...........................................

As I pointed out above, the family officially comes before other considerations.  One must resolve such conflicts through discussion and prayer,

 

Most of our discussions on this board seem to quickly break down into head counts of "Who is on Team Apostle?" "Who is on Team Apostate?" However, the real question seems to be "Who is on Team Member?"  Is this policy or that policy good for the membership?  Yet, we can never get to the point because "God's Church" has resolved the issue through the apostles.  Is that really the "Church" that Jesus was trying to build during His earthly ministry?

That is the kind of managerial jargon which I never hear or experience at "church," and never find that even being hinted at by the Brethren.  Perhaps during the forthcoming General Conference you could cite some examples of that sort of nonsense in sermons by the Brethren.  Or perhaps you could cite that type of language from a Church manual.  Maybe I am simply out of touch with the reality which you have discerned.  Or maybe you are a member of Team Amway, or Team Mary Kay, and have gotten confused about which is which.  The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not a Multi-Level Marketing scheme.

Link to comment

 

 

A "faithful" member of the Church is someone who shows their loyalty to the institution and its leaders.  Most often, that faithfulness inures to the benefit of the people themselves.  However, what happens when the interests of the institution and its leaders conflict with the well-being of the members (or at least, certain groups of members)?  Is it still being loyal to the Church to support doctrines and policies that damage, say, women, gays, plaid people, etc.?

 

 

I think that we would need to ask the apostle paul. He had no problems with defining what a christian is or isn't. And what the churcfh is as an organization. The early members also had a dress code that separated them from the pagans. And they had a certain definition for a lifestyle that also separated the early christians from the pagans. I don't see the apostle paul to be a postmodern kind of guy. I don't see him supporting the pagan lifestyle for the members. Nor do I see him honoring drastic differences of beleifs among the members. Some of his letters deal with unity within the church body.

 

The 'church' as used by its members just signifies an institution that they belong to. Many faiths have their own vacabulary among members and culturalisms magnified in words. .

Edited by why me
Link to comment

Growing up Baptist, we used the term "church"

lds.org describes the Church in terms of a pattern of organization: https://www.lds.org/topics/church-organization/the-church-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng

 

“The pattern begins when God, our Heavenly Father, calls a prophet to lead and teach the people (see Amos 3:7). From God, the prophet receives priesthood keys, which are the power and authority to direct the work of God on earth. This work includes ordinances (or religious ceremonies) necessary for salvation, such as being baptized and receiving the Holy Ghost (see John 3:5). The prophet also receives continuing revelation, or communication from God, regarding His will for the people. Under the authority and direction of the prophet, the people are organized into a church, where they can be taught God’s truths and receive ordinances.”

 

The Lord conceptualizes the Church’s organization as both collective and individual members (D&C 130:1), but in either construct He governs it through His servants and the members sustain that pattern. Even if there were only one member, one member would have to be a prophet.

Link to comment

 

Our Church has clearly defined doctrines and policies on just about every issue, and whenever someone has a question, they go "straight to the top" to find out what apostles have said about the issue.

This is incorrect. There are MANY fundamental issues that the church does not have an official doctrine for but it is assumed there is. You're right that people look to the prophet and apostles words but just because they spoke them doesn't mean it's doctrine.

 

-Age of the earth

-Evolution

-Global Flood

-Christ's birthday

-Eternal progression between kingdoms

-the origin of Adam & Eve

 

ETC. This list could continue for a really long time. There are things that have been taught, sometimes even consistently, but that doesn't necessarily make it doctrine. D&C teaches that doctrine will be found in the scriptures, it will be accepted by the prophet and apostles and voted upon by common consent.

Link to comment

I don't like the phrase "the church is perfect but the people aren't." The church is consists of people and is therefore not perfect. It might be more accurate to say that the gospel is perfect.

I have a buddy who is catholic....I grilled him pretty hard about the history of his church and current issues as well, do you know what he said? "the church is perfect but the people aren't"

Link to comment

I have a buddy who is catholic....I grilled him pretty hard about the history of his church and current issues as well, do you know what he said? "the church is perfect but the people aren't"

 

An ex-Mormon friend told me that he thinks Mormons have this point exactly backwards.  He said that in general, Mormons as individual people are great and near-perfect, and that the real problem is that the institution of the Church (and the "official" version of the gospel the institution of the Church defines) is what's far from perfect.

Link to comment

An ex-Mormon friend told me that he thinks Mormons have this point exactly backwards.  He said that in general, Mormons as individual people are great and near-perfect, and that the real problem is that the institution of the Church (and the "official" version of the gospel the institution of the Church defines) is what's far from perfect.

The people keep me in, have to admit.

Link to comment

An ex-Mormon friend told me that he thinks Mormons have this point exactly backwards.  He said that in general, Mormons as individual people are great and near-perfect, and that the real problem is that the institution of the Church (and the "official" version of the gospel the institution of the Church defines) is what's far from perfect.

My point is that large religions have the same problems that we do. I disagree with your friend, I am in a position to see the cluster that goes on behind the scenes in my local ward.......

Link to comment

My point is that large religions have the same problems that we do. I disagree with your friend, I am in a position to see the cluster that goes on behind the scenes in my local ward.......

The church is not perfect. Neither are the people. Neither is the prophet. If we remain focused on perfection we're going to be bombarded continually with disappointment.

Link to comment

"God's Church" has resolved the issue through the apostles.  Is that really the "Church" that Jesus was trying to build during His earthly ministry?

Yes. See Matthew Chapters 16 and 18 (the only two places I can find where He uses the term “church” during His mortal ministry). There are two verses about it embedded in the instructions given specifically to the twelve in their unique capacity. Without them (the designation of "church," the instructions, or the twelve), there would be no bona fide organization to attract and serve members.

 

“…thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven…”

 

“At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus [and He instructed them]…tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

 

I would think “Team Member”, would consist of those fulfilling the duties of membership according to D&C 20:

 

68 The duty of the members after they are received by baptism.— [understand] all things concerning the church of Christ …previous to their partaking of the sacrament and being confirmed …so that all things may be done in order.

69 …manifest before the church, and also before the elders, by a godly walk and conversation, that they are worthy of it, that there may be works and faith agreeable to the holy scriptures—walking in holiness before the Lord.

70 …bring [their children] unto the elders before the church, who are to lay their hands upon them in the name of Jesus Christ, and bless them in his name.

75 …meet together often to partake of bread and wine in the remembrance of the Lord Jesus;

76 And the elder or priest shall administer it…

80 Any member of the church of Christ transgressing, or being overtaken in a fault, shall be dealt with as the scriptures direct. [see Matthew 18]

81 [have his name] kept in a book by one of the elders, whomsoever the other elders shall appoint from time to time;

84 … [certify] that they are regular members and in good standing…

 

To be "for the members," is to follow Him and those appointed by Him, as both He and His appointees are for the members.

Link to comment

An ex-Mormon friend told me that he thinks Mormons have this point exactly backwards.  He said that in general, Mormons as individual people are great and near-perfect, and that the real problem is that the institution of the Church (and the "official" version of the gospel the institution of the Church defines) is what's far from perfect.

And yet, the people are a reflection of what the church is. They go together like a horse and buggy. Would the mormon be great and near perfect without the lds church? Maybe not. So, that member is a mirror into the church and what it is.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...