Apostles And Structure Of The Church

[Closet Doubter]

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?

David McKay (the prophet of my youth) is one that I still have a lot of respect for. He was followed however by Joseph Fielding Smith who wrote among other books "Doctrine of Salvation" and "Man, His Origin & Destiny" which contain many things that were considered "Doctrine" during the 70's but are now labeled by the apologists as "he was speaking as a man"

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?

It comes down to the subject of this post. The church states it has the same organization as the New Testament church organized by Christ. We state we are led by prophets and apostles. The members of the Church during the first 50 years after Christ could rely on the teachings of the apostles. Today we can supposedly rely on their teachings unless they are "speaking as a man" but no one except the Spirit tells us when they are speaking as men. Then the Spirit tells one person they are speaking as a man and tells another person that they are speaking as God's oracle. Apparently we have to beleive that God is a god of confusion. I don't beleive that God is a god of confusion and that is one reason that I beleive that something has gone wrong with the leadership and current organization of the church.

[Freedom]

You have yet to provide any evidence. J F Smith wrote a lot of books, but none of them were adopted by the church as doctrine and they were never presented as doctrine. There have been hundreds of church leaders and you are finding the personal writings of one man as the foundation of your argument. Go back and do as I have suggested and i think you will find that your argument is not supported. Take an hour and take note of all the conference talk subjects from 1970. Your concern about false teaches will disappear.

[Calm]

You have yet to provide any evidence. J F Smith wrote a lot of books, but none of them were adopted by the church as doctrine and they were never presented as doctrine.

Actually one was:

Church History and Modern Revelation: Being a Course of Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums for the Year 1947.

Salt Lake City: The Council of the Twelve Apostles, 1946.

http://www.lds.org/c...topic=resources Edited July 12, 2013 by calmoriah

[Wanderer7]

The members of the Church during the first 50 years after Christ could rely on the teachings of the apostles. Today we can supposedly rely on their teachings unless they are "speaking as a man" but no one except the Spirit tells us when they are speaking as men. Then the Spirit tells one person they are speaking as a man and tells another person that they are speaking as God's oracle. Apparently we have to beleive that God is a god of confusion.

It seems to me that in your conclusions you have made a few assumptions that aren't accurate. First of all, under what assumption do you make the claim that everything Peter or the other Apostles taught were the mind and will of God? We don't have everything they ever said or wrote. How do you know they didn't teach Adam God or some other "false" doctrine taught by early church leaders of this dispensation? We have chosen to canonize some of their writings, but that was by "common consent," which you referenced disparagingly earlier. That is Christianity's only real basis for that determination. Furthermore, several books that we consider scripture were not written by prophets or apostles. If that's the case, then 1 of 2 possibilities exists:

1) Apostles and prophets aren't needed

or

2) When anyone speaks by the Holy Ghost through proper priesthood direction, it is truth.

The Doctrine & Covenants agrees with the second option. That means that all of us are under the obligation to discern what is truth and what is not. You seem to assume that God's requiring us to discern truth by the Holy Ghost produces confusion. However, if you will look at the history of God's dealings with mankind, it is the way God works. The purpose of Apostles and Prophets is not to provide a source of absolute truth, but to be a conduit for God to speak to the world at large. In other words, it is my responsibility to determine the paths I need to take, but not my responsibility to declare universal doctrine. That responsibility lies int he general authorities of the church. That doesn't make them infallible, however. It is still up to me to determine the accuracy of their teachings. That being the case, the consistent teachings of the prophets and apostles will take you closer to Christ.

[Freedom]

Actually one was:

http://www.lds.org/c...topic=resources

But did it teach evolution, Adam god, Mary having sex or any of the other concerns listed?

[Calm]

But did it teach evolution, Adam god, Mary having sex or any of the other concerns listed?

The text isn't online, but it is probably available through Gospelink or some such database.

[Freedom]

Well, I'm not going back to church until you find it. Or until Sunday. Which ever comes first.

[Abulafia]

Wanderer7,

2) When anyone speaks by the Holy Ghost through proper priesthood direction, it is truth.

The Doctrine & Covenants agrees with the second option. That means that all of us are under the obligation to discern what is truth and what is not. You seem to assume that God's requiring us to discern truth by the Holy Ghost produces confusion. However, if you will look at the history of God's dealings with mankind, it is the way God works. The purpose of Apostles and Prophets is not to provide a source of absolute truth, but to be a conduit for God to speak to the world at large. In other words, it is my responsibility to determine the paths I need to take, but not my responsibility to declare universal doctrine. That responsibility lies int he general authorities of the church. That doesn't make them infallible, however. It is still up to me to determine the accuracy of their teachings. That being the case, the consistent teachings of the prophets and apostles will take you closer to Christ.

I'm not sure people needed priesthood direction at the time of Jesus. He was a follower of Judaism for sure, what kind of Judaism is up for grabs, but parts seemed to be very liberal when compared to what many of the Pharisees and Sadducees were teaching.

Jesus isn't a priest, but claims revelation and authority direct from God, which some disputed and some didn't. It is only much later, after his death that priesthood is assigned to him via Hebrews as a way of embedding authority in a more structured manner I would guess, but Jesus never mentions it. Mark is interesting because when the Apostles confront Jesus with the fact that people are casting out devils in his name, he tells them not to forbid them. Which appears to give a liberal view of authority.

The early communities speak of authority, but not by virtue of priesthood office.

As for the revelation via the spirit, the Didache actually has a lot of protective wisdom within it against false apostles and prophets. Of course it is one community with one view, but the suggestion is that whilst there were itinerant prophets and apostles, if they asked for money or overstayed their welcome they weren't to be trusted and were false. They were also to be followers and teachers of the two ways as outlined in the Didache, and if they taught and acted against the basic ethics from within them (a development of the 10 commandments) then they were false.

In the community of the Didache it appears that a Prophet was a charismatic seer, much like Agabus and was given considerable leeway in the community as well as being entitled to 'first fruits' a type of donation from the community that could go to them and teachers, as well as to the poor if there were no prophets present. This implies that they were full time officers worthy of their keep. It's a different world for Ignatius and Polycarp. This charismatic strand doesn't appear to last and is formalised under the bishops.

[Questing Beast]

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.

Well, your last statement is surely a fact. You can't prove pro or con church "structure/organization" (whichever) by resorting to the NT. So the big point (okay, not "core") made on my mission about the "org" matching "Christ's Church" was just that, an assertion without provable evidence. Mormons can have it their way, and so can their detractors, and "we" are exactly where we've always been, in no position to know one set of assertions from the rest....

[cdowis]

IMHO the problem is not the structure, it's the hollow shell.

Thank you for revealing your point of view at the top of your post. We are left in no doubt where you are going.

At the top we have prophets that don't prophesy, seers that don't see, and revelators that don't reveal.

This does not describe the church to which I belong. The major duty of a prophet is not to be a fortune teller, but to administer the keys of the priesthood, to govern the kingdom of God. And that is precisely what happens in my church.

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.

What church are you describing? The priesthood ban was not doctrine but a practice, just as limiting the office of Elder to a certain age. Christ forbade the apostles from preaching to the Gentiles while he was on earth, etc. These are practices, NOT doctrines.

The other stuff you mention are not LDS doctrines.

If you are going to post in an LDS forum, please do your homework.

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.

You are still confused on the role of the "leaders". It is certainly not to answer every silly and foolish question presented to 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.

We approve the leaders who drive the finances of the church. If we do not trust them, we are simply free to vote against them or leave the church itself.

That is the law of common consent.

Edited July 14, 2013 by cdowis

[Abulafia]

The major duty of a prophet is not to be a fortune teller, but to administer the keys of the priesthood, to govern the kingdom of God. And that is precisely what happens in my church.

The major problem with this Cdowlis, is that what you are describing isn't a prophet as represented in the NT canon, or in the Didache and many of the earliest non-canonical writings for that matter.

In Acts a Prophet is mentioned by name, Agabus, because he foretold a famine in Jerusalem, thus emphasizing his gift of prophecy. He isn't an acknowledged pillar, those titles go to Peter, James (presumably the brother of Jesus) and John.

In 1 Corinthians, the Prophets come second only to the Apostles, and creep in just ahead of Teachers, who hold a prized position within some of the earliest communities.

In the Didache, the position of an itinerant prophet is emphasized by virtue of his or her charismatic gifts. Later in the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp, the position of a prophet is already a thing of the past. They are mentioned only insofar as they have been interpreted as prophesying of the coming of Messiah and Son of Man, Jesus.

To my understanding it seems that Joseph was accorded the title Prophet because he was able to prophesy, translate and reveal the mind and will of God, at least in the mind of his followers. The title just stuck for all consecutive leaders. Wasn't Brigham reluctant to have himself addressed as Prophet? I remember reading that somewhere. Perhaps he recognised that he didn't have the same charismatic gifts that he imputed to Joseph?

Edited July 15, 2013 by Abulafia

[Calm]

The major problem with this Cdowlis, is that what you are describing isn't a prophet as represented in the NT canon, or in the Didache and many of the earliest non-canonical writings for that matter.

I like Kevin's work in this area: http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets/Tests

[Abulafia]

Thanks Calmoriah, I will check it out.

[Abulafia]

Calmoriah, have checked the link. The main problem I have with Kevin's work is that, understandably, he makes everything seem to be ordered and tidy. Ignatius and Polycarp writing in the early 100's CE would take the same view, but the evidence seems so much more messy and ad hoc in the very earliest communities. In Paul and the Didache's communities prophets are itinerant charismatics. In the Didache they appear to be a regular and expected form of traveler coming through the communities.

The author of Acts has Agabus again prophesying of the fate that would befall Paul should he go to Jerusalem, and interesting in Acts 21 makes mention of the 4 daughters of Philip the evangelist, all of whom have the gift of prophecy.

Paul is troubled by the charismatic nature of the Prophets and gives advise in 1 Corinthians 14:26 - 27 to the Prophets, who seem to be all speaking at once! Keep quiet and let each have his/her turn and weigh what they say, as well as pointing out that a prophet must acknowledge 'the command of the Lord'

I appreciate that Hebrews was an attempt to legitimize authority and structure, but I don't think it was considered by the earliest followers? ie... I don't think they had access to it, or knew of its existence?

Edited July 15, 2013 by Abulafia

[Freedom]

Well, your last statement is surely a fact. You can't prove pro or con church "structure/organization" (whichever) by resorting to the NT. So the big point (okay, not "core") made on my mission about the "org" matching "Christ's Church" was just that, an assertion without provable evidence. Mormons can have it their way, and so can their detractors, and "we" are exactly where we've always been, in no position to know one set of assertions from the rest....

We are claiming we have the same organization as the primitive church and no other religious on the face of the earth makes this claim. What we do know is that they had apostles, prophets, evangelists pastors and teachers. A clear organized structure. The catholic church has an organized structure, but they do not the offices set out by Paul. No protestant church on the earth has this structure. There is argument about the exact duties of these offices, but the existence of the offices themselves are not in dispute.

[Tacenda]

http://www.lds.org/l...a____&hideNav=1

As expressed by Elder Bruce R. McConkie:

"To have one’s calling and election made sure is to be sealed up unto eternal life; it is to have the unconditional guarantee of exaltation in the highest heaven of the celestial world; it is to receive the assurance of godhood; it is, in effect, to have the day of judgment advanced, so that an inheritance of all the glory and honor of the Father’s kingdom is assured prior to the day when the faithful actually enter into the divine presence to sit with Christ in his throne, even as he is ‘set down’ with his ‘Father in his throne.’ (Rev. 3:21.) (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Bookcraft, 1973, 3:330–31.)

As Elder McConkie goes on to indicate, the “unconditional guarantee” means that a person’s actions have been fully approved, that “there are no more conditions to be met by the obedient person.” (P. 335.) When one has been thus sealed up unto eternal life, he is “sealed up against all manner of sin except blasphemy against the Holy Ghost and the shedding of innocent blood.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:46.)

The Prophet Joseph Smith’s exhortation to press forward to this goal of assured exaltation is as follows:

"I would exhort you to go on and continue to call upon God until you make your calling and election sure for yourselves, by obtaining this more sure word of prophecy, and wait patiently for the promise until you obtain it.” (Teachings, p. 299.)

ME: So for some this second anointing is given? To the rest, they are to wait patiently for the promise until they obtain it? How does that work? Do they get it in the Millennium? And how is this applied to Christ's structured church in the beginning?

[Ahab]

http://www.lds.org/l...a____&hideNav=1

As expressed by Elder Bruce R. McConkie:

"To have one’s calling and election made sure is to be sealed up unto eternal life; it is to have the unconditional guarantee of exaltation in the highest heaven of the celestial world; it is to receive the assurance of godhood; it is, in effect, to have the day of judgment advanced, so that an inheritance of all the glory and honor of the Father’s kingdom is assured prior to the day when the faithful actually enter into the divine presence to sit with Christ in his throne, even as he is ‘set down’ with his ‘Father in his throne.’ (Rev. 3:21.) (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Bookcraft, 1973, 3:330–31.)

As Elder McConkie goes on to indicate, the “unconditional guarantee” means that a person’s actions have been fully approved, that “there are no more conditions to be met by the obedient person.” (P. 335.) When one has been thus sealed up unto eternal life, he is “sealed up against all manner of sin except blasphemy against the Holy Ghost and the shedding of innocent blood.” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:46.)

The Prophet Joseph Smith’s exhortation to press forward to this goal of assured exaltation is as follows:

"I would exhort you to go on and continue to call upon God until you make your calling and election sure for yourselves, by obtaining this more sure word of prophecy, and wait patiently for the promise until you obtain it.” (Teachings, p. 299.)

ME: So for some this second anointing is given? To the rest, they are to wait patiently for the promise until they obtain it? How does that work? Do they get it in the Millennium? And how is this applied to Christ's structured church in the beginning?

Yes, some people have been assured by God that they will be saved, and those who haven't been thus assured by God need to keep pressing on to that goal until God also assures them that they are or will also be saved.

It's an assurance that comes from God, our Father, through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, rather than through somebody else other than him/them even though somebody else might tell you the same thing God has then told you.

It a moment that happens when it happens, and until that moment all you need to think about is that you can get that assurance as you keep trying to become more like how our Lord and our Father want you to be. God is anxious for you to be ready, and you can be ready as soon as you want to do what you need to do to become more and more like him in the core of your being.

Don't be so concerned about formal procedures, athough there are some that are necessary. What you should be seeking is God's personal assurance to you that you are or will be saved, and his assurance will help you to feel sure about what he is telling you.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Ahab

[Calm]

ME: So for some this second anointing is given?

I am not sure one can safely conclude the second anointing is purely one's calling and election made sure due to the fact that the Church is very comfortable to talk about the second, but doesn't talk about the first at all. In fact:

Caution: exercise caution while discussing the doctrine of having our calling and election made sure. avoid speculation. use only the sources given here and in the student manual. Do not attempt in any way to discuss or answer questions about the second anointing.

http://institute.lds...r-manualeng.pdf

The above is the only reference to the second anointing on lds.org and is used multiple times.

http://www.mormonchannel.org/qa/39?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LDSQuestionsAndAnswers+%28LDS+Radio%3A+Questions+and+Answers%29

http://www.mormonchannel.org/qa/40?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LDSQuestionsAndAnswers+%28LDS+Radio%3A+Questions+and+Answers%29

Edited July 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[Questing Beast]

We are claiming we have the same organization as the primitive church and no other religious on the face of the earth makes this claim. What we do know is that they had apostles, prophets, evangelists pastors and teachers. A clear organized structure. The catholic church has an organized structure, but they do not the offices set out by Paul. No protestant church on the earth has this structure. There is argument about the exact duties of these offices, but the existence of the offices themselves are not in dispute.

Yes, and perhaps "they" are wise to not assert what is unknowable from the NT. JS surely had some chutzpah....

[Questing Beast]

...

Don't be so concerned about formal procedures, athough there are some that are necessary. What you should be seeking is God's personal assurance to you that you are or will be saved, and his assurance will help you to feel sure about what he is telling you.

Depending on the oracles to advise you is also a slippery slope. I believe that "God" speaks to each of us personally, uniquely and always. Learning to "hear the voice of God" is the great secret that should be sought and improved, forever. Pestering "God" to know if you are "saved" seems too much like focusing on "goods of second intent" instead of a wider view to making the world a better place because you are in it. That is probably the essence of Christ's, "Lose yourself and you will find yourself" advice....

[canard78]

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.

But they weren't all killed in 1 day. They didn't keep replacing them even though they has the opportunity to.

Where are the evangelists and pastors now?

Where is are the teachers and deacons then?

[Abulafia]

What we do know is that they had apostles, prophets, evangelists pastors and teachers. A clear organized structure. The catholic church has an organized structure, but they do not the offices set out by Paul. No protestant church on the earth has this structure. There is argument about the exact duties of these offices, but the existence of the offices themselves are not in dispute.

Well, it isn't as easy as that. For me, there appears to be at least 3 sets of tensions working within the earliest communities. Liberal view of authority versus conservative, hierarchical versus egalitarian, and charismatic versus structured.

You can find them all in the early communities and so it is difficult to argue with any degree of certainty against one or the other.

I think it should also be remembered that Jesus and the earliest followers never actually set out to form a separate community away from mainstream Judaism. It wasn't until sometime later that Jesus followers were even called 'Christians', that is, according to Acts 11:26. And that was in Antioch, not Jerusalem.

All the genuine Pauline evidence suggests that James and the Jerusalem contingent were devout Jews who followed Jewish feast days, dietary laws, honoured the Sabbath, as opposed to the Lord's Day, sacrificed in the Temple, and so forth. That means that they would have probably honoured the Jewish system of structure which at the time was the legal and religious structure of the Sanhedrin, lead by Elders (Presbyters) according to Josephus. The political arm of the Sanhedrin was composed of about 70 members. No record exists of how and by whom the members were elected, though sources mention the HIgh Priest and/or a Jewish King. Within the group there was a committee of 10 men who ranked above their colleagues.

The fact that they met in the Temple, gave them authority. Of course the power of the political arm was severely restricted under Roman Occupation, and ceased to exist after 70CE.

You also get the Great Bet Din, or religious Sanhedrin. Again Talmudic evidence suggests 70 helpers, consisting of priests (and therefore of Levitical descent). The Pharisees and Saduccees were in a constant power struggle within these councils. Qualifications for entrance into the Great Bet Din are similar to qualifications for roles within the early Jesus movement. (See Sanh 88b and Sanh 199)

So, then you get this Jesus Movement with the leaders not being from the tribe of Levi in the most part and so not priests. How do later writers then legitimize their authority. With Jesus as Divine Man as representative of the Father, and then according to Ignatius with the Apostles as representative of Jesus, and then of course with Bishops who seem to take the roles of the Apostles once they are gone.

That's only one strand, the one that came to be orthodox through Ignatius and on in to the Catholic Hierarchy. Once Jesus is dead, there seems to be a search of scripture (Hebrew) to make sense of it all. Jude mentions the Assumption of Moses and the Book of Enoch if I remember correctly, so many texts were explored to make sense of their world. And of course some of the communities would have been influenced by Roman and Greek Societal norms and structures.

So, I just think it is all incredibly messy.

Edited July 16, 2013 by Abulafia

[Abulafia]

Where are the teachers and deacons then?

Interestingly, for Paul, Apostles could be women according to some interpretations of Junia's role. There were definitely female Deacons, and most certainly Sister Missionaries!

LDS see a Deacon as a Male, Priesthood role, but this isn't the case for the earliest members of the various Jesus Communities. It isn't the case for Apostles, Prophets, and Presbyters either.

[danielwoods]

ME: So for some this second anointing is given? To the rest, they are to wait patiently for the promise until they obtain it? How does that work? Do they get it in the Millennium? And how is this applied to Christ's structured church in the beginning?

How do we know we are saved? We place our trust in God.

1 John 3:^{20 "}For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

²¹ Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God."

1 John ^{5:13 "}These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."

[Tacenda]

How do we know we are saved? We place our trust in God.

1 John 3:^{20 "}For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.

²¹ Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God."

1 John ^{5:13 "}These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."

I was talking more about the Second Anointing or Election Made Sure. Some have been anointed that they are "sure" to get in the upper level of the CK and will achieve deity. How come some get it off the bat, and others wait to receive it from God? Which was mentioned in article I linked. I agree that we should have confidence toward God. But why is that different for members in the LDS church that get that anointing in this life? So I wasn't talking about being "saved", but becoming a "deity". Now they go through life knowing instead of having faith? Does that do something to someone mentally? Could it hurt rather than help? And was this part of the original Gospel, that Jesus set up? My thinking is evolving to the feeling that I wouldn't want that election made sure, because then what does someone then work on? How much growing can one do? Or is it a matter of just trying to live up to such a calling? Is it healthy?