Apostles And Structure Of The Church

[thatjimguy]

Ok, staying away from the negative today. This one is geared toward our critics.

What is problem with the structure of the church. We say it's just like Christ's church he had back in the day. If it was good enough then, what is wrong with it now?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Ok, staying away from the negative today. This one is geared toward our critics.

What is problem with the structure of the church. We say it's just like Christ's church he had back in the day. If it was good enough then, what is wrong with it now?

That is one argument we can make well, it as the NT, with the exception of the first presidency. All they can argue is Christ's way of leaving his Church is no longer needed...what we should ask then, is; Why not?

[Questing Beast]

I think that the LDS assertions to "exactly follow" the primitive church as set up by Christ are weak. We don't have the same offices as given in the NT, and our defining of them to mean what we want them to mean can be engaged in by anybody. The evidence, as seen by the "Christian Church" community, is that the apostles were each over their respective "churches" of the Roman world. Once established, it was the bishops who took over and multiplied as required. Apostles were not needed, because divergence of the faith was foreseen as inevitable, only to be finally rectified by the return of Christ. Meanwhile, sheep and wolves, faith and adversity, schism among men, etc. That was the prophesied fate of the primitive church. If God had intended for the Christian faith to have apostles, they would have replaced themselves instead of separating to build up the religion in widely separated geographical locations, and dying off naturally enough. (The martyrdom corpus is not supported by historical evidence....)

[cesc101]

If God had intended for the Christian faith to have apostles, they would have replaced themselves instead of separating to build up the religion in widely separated geographical locations, and dying off naturally enough. (The martyrdom corpus is not supported by historical evidence....)

That's weird, considering that Judas was REPLACED. Moreso, we have other mentions of Apostles in the NT; without clear evidence, who's to say they were not REPLACEMENTS?

Besides, an important reason why they separated to distant location, was to preach the gospel.

Edited July 11, 2013 by cesc101

[cesc101]

Duplicated.

Edited July 11, 2013 by cesc101

[Questing Beast]

The very earliest missionary work performed spread the religion rapidly, and the apostles stayed near their respective areas of labor. There is no evidence than subsequent "general conferences" were ever held, i.e. the apostles remained separated. The "church" fragmented along natural lines of separation, the apostles died out, and it seems to me that such was intended, it was not forced by persecution (which was little enough in the first generations of Christianity), it just happened naturally....

[oremites]

I think that the LDS assertions to "exactly follow" the primitive church as set up by Christ are weak.

Since "exactly follow" is in quotes, can I ask you who you're quoting? I don't remember anyone claiming the LDS church is "exactly" like the primitive church.

[cesc101]

I don't remember anyone claiming the LDS church is "exactly" like the primitive church.

Articles of Faith 1:6

[Freedom]

The very earliest missionary work performed spread the religion rapidly, and the apostles stayed near their respective areas of labor. There is no evidence than subsequent "general conferences" were ever held, i.e. the apostles remained separated. The "church" fragmented along natural lines of separation, the apostles died out, and it seems to me that such was intended, it was not forced by persecution (which was little enough in the first generations of Christianity), it just happened naturally....

I would disagree with this. There is evidence that, whenever issues arose, they brethren gathered and consulted. The historical record does not tell us how the church fell apart or why at some point new apostles were not called. We are left to draw conclusions from what is written. They called replacement apostles and they consulted together regularly. Some external force prevented them following this pattern, we just are not certain what it was. My understanding is that they church leadership was hunted down and killed.

But as to why our current structure is not correct, the simple answer is that no matter what we did it would be wrong. It is a political came not a truth seeking game that the critics are playing.

[Freedom]

Articles of Faith 1:6

the word 'exactly' does not appear in this verse. It is problematic to suppose that the current structure is exactly alike the primitive church. The current structure isn't even exactly like the structure from 1972 never mind 1832. This verse is referring to the priesthood offices of Elder, 70, High Priest, Patriarch and Apostle in the MP and Deacon, Teacher, Pries and Bishop in the AP.

[cesc101]

the word 'exactly' does not appear in this verse.

I know. But the word SAME appears in it, right?

And for the record, i don't believe because we have names like "deacons", "bishops", "apostles", that they all perform the same function as the primitive-church, or that the system of administration is the same.

[cesc101]

Sorry for the duplication.

Edited July 11, 2013 by cesc101

[cinepro]

Ok, staying away from the negative today. This one is geared toward our critics.

What is problem with the structure of the church. We say it's just like Christ's church he had back in the day. If it was good enough then, what is wrong with it now?

I'm not sure I quite understand your question, but I would say that the current leadership structure that gives priority to the older leaders can have its drawbacks as people live longer and longer.

I can understand the value of experience, but longevity seems to have an outsize influence on the ability of someone to become President of the Church.

[Abulafia]

For me this is a tricky area. It is only Luke/Acts for whom the Apostles are a type of sealed unit, with Matthias replacing Judas. Given that Luke/Acts is off on so many other things, (for instance when compared to some of the contradictions betweens Paul's account of his travels and Luke/Acts) then I think that the description of the replacing of Judas with Matthias by the 'casting of lots' should be handled with caution.

For Paul, who declared himself an Apostle (and from the NT texts also had to defend that title against criticism) the definition was wider. More akin to a missionary who had seen the living Jesus, whether in the flesh or resurrected. For Paul, also it appears that Apostleship could include women.

Within the Didache we have accounts of travelling Apostles and Charismatic Prophets, who must be tested according to the two ways outlined at the beginning of the document. Yet later writers make no mention of charismatic Prophets. (Ignatius, Polycarp, 1 Clement), and do so only with regard to Prophets of the Hebrew Bible who prophesied the coming of a Man God and God Man.

Likewise, for Ignatius, Polycarp and 1 Clement, although recognizing Paul as an Apostle, as well as the 12, they all talk of them in the Past tense. So for them Apostles seemed to hold a special position as witnesses (literal witnesses) of the earthly and resurrected Jesus.

To that extent, it the Modern Apostles of the LDS church have 'not' seen the resurrected Jesus, can they then term themselves as Apostles? By the Didache's definition, probably, but by Luke/Acts, and Ignatius, Polycarp and 1 Clement probably not. Probably not by Paul either.

It's a puzzle.

[followerofemmanuel]

I am not a critic of the church, so I can not speak to their concerns. As a traditional Christian looking at the LDS Church, I see that it is highly structured, organized, well functioning and highly efficient. It's quite remarkable really. I am just not convinced that there was a totally apostasy. I also do not think there is any church that has it perfect because we are not perfect. I believe that there can be living prophets but I also believe according to the bible they must be tested because there are also so many false prophets. In testing the prophets though, you cannot assume their false because they teach a different message because you could miss out on the truth. We saw that example so many times in the Bible, Anyway, that's my take on the topic

[Calm]

Anyway, that's my take on the topic

I like it.

[Closet Doubter]

Ok, staying away from the negative today. This one is geared toward our critics.

What is problem with the structure of the church. We say it's just like Christ's church he had back in the day. If it was good enough then, what is wrong with it now?

IMHO the problem is not the structure, it's the hollow shell. At the top we have prophets that don't prophesy, seers that don't see, and revelators that don't reveal. We can't rely on the doctrine they teach because past prophets, seers, and revelators have taught false doctrine (priesthood ban, reason for priesthood ban, blood atonement, adam-God, origin of book of abraham etc). If past leaders could teach false doctrine then current leaders can also. They don't adequately clarify questions in doctrine leaving the un-called arc steadiers (apologists) to clarify doctrine so that the leaders can deny the clarification if it blows up on them. The revelations in Doctrine & Covenants teach that all things shall be done by common consent but we don't even have transparency in the Church finances to allow members to consent to the financial direction of the Church.

[Questing Beast]

Since "exactly follow" is in quotes, can I ask you who you're quoting? I don't remember anyone claiming the LDS church is "exactly" like the primitive church.

I put the quote marks in to qualify it, because clearly modern, that is LDS, church structure does not follow in detail what the NT primitive church offices were or did. Deacons were grown men back then, for instance, and women played a larger role, seemingly. For the LDS to make a big deal out of the fact that we have offices that match the NT church is pointless, since no structure is specifically laid out in the NT, so the LDS or any other "take" on the NT evidence is equally valid....

[Freedom]

I know. But the word SAME appears in it, right?

And for the record, i don't believe because we have names like "deacons", "bishops", "apostles", that they all perform the same function as the primitive-church, or that the system of administration is the same.

I may own the same care as you do but this does not make it the identical car. Do you have any evidence that they did not perform the same functions?

[Freedom]

IMHO the problem is not the structure, it's the hollow shell. At the top we have prophets that don't prophesy, seers that don't see, and revelators that don't reveal. We can't rely on the doctrine they teach because past prophets, seers, and revelators have taught false doctrine (priesthood ban, reason for priesthood ban, blood atonement, adam-God, origin of book of abraham etc). If past leaders could teach false doctrine then current leaders can also. They don't adequately clarify questions in doctrine leaving the un-called arc steadiers (apologists) to clarify doctrine so that the leaders can deny the clarification if it blows up on them. The revelations in Doctrine & Covenants teach that all things shall be done by common consent but we don't even have transparency in the Church finances to allow members to consent to the financial direction of the Church.

So one in 1,000 comments by some past church leaders are not entirely correct leads you to suggest that it is am empty shell? The official teachings of the church have never changed and the church is not in the business of speculation.

[Questing Beast]

...There is evidence that, whenever issues arose, they brethren gathered and consulted. The historical record does not tell us how the church fell apart or why at some point new apostles were not called. We are left to draw conclusions from what is written. They called replacement apostles and they consulted together regularly. Some external force prevented them following this pattern, we just are not certain what it was. My understanding is that they church leadership was hunted down and killed.

But as to why our current structure is not correct, the simple answer is that no matter what we did it would be wrong. It is a political came not a truth seeking game that the critics are playing.

Because "apostles" stopped being front and center, a "great (and total) apostasy" can be asserted. Equally, because we have the obvious changes to the LDS Church structure pointed out above, the same defense or accusation can be laid to the LDS Church: it is either in apostasy because the contemporary Church does not follow the exact structure laid out by JS and BY, or, the Church structure can change, thus obviating the requirement for apostles in order to stave off the "falling away" into apostasy of the primitive church.

History, incomplete in a vast way, is malleable, so those who point out the weakness in the LDS assertions are not simply "critics", they are believers with different opinions....

[Closet Doubter]

So one in 1,000 comments by some past church leaders are not entirely correct leads you to suggest that it is am empty shell? The official teachings of the church have never changed and the church is not in the business of speculation.

I wouldn't be too concerned if it was only one in 1,000. When I am taught growing up that nothing died on this earth prior to 6,000 years ago, that the earth was created near a place called Kolob and 6,000 years ago came careening through the universe finally landing in its current orbit around the sun, that water covered the entire earth covering the peaks of the highest mountains 4500 years ago, that God had sex with Mary to conceive Jesus, that all the languages of the earth originated from an event about 4300 years ago, that a great civilization in America 2000 years ago had Horses, chariots, and and the technology to make steel and each of these things I can find in books or written sermons by both prophets and apostles during the course of the last 180 years and I am expected to pass it off as some random and minor church leaders taught some things that aren't quite correct, I have a problem with it.

When members state that "official teachings of the church have nevert changed", I am just incredulous. I guess it comes down to what is and is not an official teaching of the church. If I can't rely on the teachings of prophets, seers, and revelators to be correct and if the prophet can teach things but they aren't "official" then why do we need them? Lets call the Q15 what they really have morphed into, the board of directors and CEO, and quit pretending that they are really prophets, seers, or revelators.

[Freedom]

I wouldn't be too concerned if it was only one in 1,000. When I am taught growing up that nothing died on this earth prior to 6,000 years ago, that the earth was created near a place called Kolob and 6,000 years ago came careening through the universe finally landing in its current orbit around the sun, that water covered the entire earth covering the peaks of the highest mountains 4500 years ago, that God had sex with Mary to conceive Jesus, that all the languages of the earth originated from an event about 4300 years ago, that a great civilization in America 2000 years ago had Horses, chariots, and and the technology to make steel and each of these things I can find in books or written sermons by both prophets and apostles during the course of the last 180 years and I am expected to pass it off as some random and minor church leaders taught some things that aren't quite correct, I have a problem with it.

When members state that "official teachings of the church have nevert changed", I am just incredulous. I guess it comes down to what is and is not an official teaching of the church. If I can't rely on the teachings of prophets, seers, and revelators to be correct and if the prophet can teach things but they aren't "official" then why do we need them? Lets call the Q15 what they really have morphed into, the board of directors and CEO, and quit pretending that they are really prophets, seers, or revelators.

Perhaps you can list me all the teachings of David O McKay, for example, and then list how many times he taught any of the things you have listed here? If you put all the teachings of all the past prophets end to end, and then pulled out these esoteric ramblings that have never ever ever ever been considered or taught as doctrine, I think you will find I grossly underestimated how rarely it shows up. I suspect that for every 50,000 words there is one or two that reference these ideas.

Why don't you take the past 50 general conference talks and demonstrate how many of them spend more than 1% of their content on such topics? I think you will come up with zero. You are grossly distorting the reality and trying to find a problem where none exists.

If the church states that there is no position on evolution, it would take a rather suborn and narrow minded individual to then insist that one mans differing position on the matter is even remotely to be considered doctrine. If the scriptures, and all the church's official teachings state that Mary was a virgin, why would you then take one or two people opinions that it she was not and try to elevate such opinions above that of the church?

[Freedom]

Because "apostles" stopped being front and center, a "great (and total) apostasy" can be asserted. Equally, because we have the obvious changes to the LDS Church structure pointed out above, the same defense or accusation can be laid to the LDS Church: it is either in apostasy because the contemporary Church does not follow the exact structure laid out by JS and BY, or, the Church structure can change, thus obviating the requirement for apostles in order to stave off the "falling away" into apostasy of the primitive church.

History, incomplete in a vast way, is malleable, so those who point out the weakness in the LDS assertions are not simply "critics", they are believers with different opinions....

You are taking an extreme all or nothing position. The church structure has never been at the core of the matter, but rather the church offices. The same organization of offices is what we follow. No reasonable person would require that the structure be identical. This is impossible. The apostles remained front and centered until the church ceased to exist. Yes you can have different interpretations of history, but that is a different discussion. The question is whether we have the same organizations as existed in the primitive church and the answer is yes. The bible supports this view. Nobody should require the bible to prove this view because the text does not provide enough information to prove anything.

[halconero]

Slightly off-topic, but still something to be brought up given the title of the thread, but I personally believe that the Church will eventually be restructured along family lines, as has been the case in times past. Your priesthood leadership will be your parents (adoptive or biological) and the Presidency of the Church will be held by Adam and Eve due to their parenthood of the human race.

We do family history work to find our ancestors and redeem the dead, but also to prepare for a future Church reorganization.