Elder Callister's Ces Devotional-Blueprint Of Christ's Church

[ChristKnight]

Did anyone watch Elder Callister's CES Devotional last Sunday?  It was on the blueprint of Christ's Church (you can view it here if interested).  I found it very interesting.  I think that many would enjoy more apologetic talks from leaders on topics such as this.  Basically, he talked about how the LDS Church matches the New Testament Church on various points that are part of the blueprint given by Christ anciently for His Church.  They include:

 

-Organization

-Teachings

-Ordinances

-Fruits

-Revelation

 

He says that the Church should be the same, unless a "change order" is given, which is done through revelation.  He also said that only the LDS Church matches point for point the blueprint of Christ's Church.

 

I did find a few things that I'd like to discuss from his talk.  In the "organization" part, he talked about the necessary offices in the Church, such as apostles, prophets, etc.  He also mentioned seventy.  For those knowledgeable on this, I'm wondering, was "seventy" an actual priesthood office in the ancient Church?  I thought it was just that Christ had called seventy men to go out two by two, not that there was an office named "seventy".  I also find difficulty with the citation of Ephesians 4:11-13 for some of the necessary offices in Christ's Church:

 

¹¹ And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers

¹² For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

¹³ Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 

This is frequently used to show the offices needed in the true Church, until we all come in the unity of the faith.  However, there is no office of "pastor".  Elder Callister said that the role of pastor is found in bishops and those that preside.  I couldn't help but think of the Catholic/Orthodox view that bishops have authority from the apostles ("apostolic authority"), but are not referred to as "apostles" per se.  In some cases it therefore seems as if the name of the office isn't the requirement.  So is it really giving a list of the names of necessary priesthood offices?  Also, as we know, "evangelist" is said to mean "patriarch", though I'm wondering if there is any ancient and/or NT confirmation for that view.

 

I have thoughts on the other parts of his talk, but I guess I'll just ask about this part in this thread. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Here is my Deseret News report of his talk, published on Monday.

 

There will also be a lengthier Church News report this weekend.

[Scott Lloyd]

He says that the Church should be the same, unless a "change order" is given, which is done through revelation.  He also said that only the LDS Church matches point for point the blueprint of Christ's Church.

 

I did find a few things that I'd like to discuss from his talk.  In the "organization" part, he talked about the necessary offices in the Church, such as apostles, prophets, etc.  He also mentioned seventy.  For those knowledgeable on this, I'm wondering, was "seventy" an actual priesthood office in the ancient Church?  I thought it was just that Christ had called seventy men to go out two by two, not that there was an office named "seventy". 

Moses also called seventy of the elders of Israel to administer. I don't have the reference at hand but it's in there. (Edited to add: I looked it up. See Exodus 24:9 and Numbers 11:16.)

 

If it's not clear from the Bible that this was an actual priesthood office, both in the Old Testament and New Testament, well, that's just one more example of the Bible not being perfect and of the need for ongoing revelation.

 

I also find difficulty with the citation of Ephesians 4:11-13 for some of the necessary offices in Christ's Church:

 

¹¹ And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers

¹² For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

¹³ Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 

This is frequently used to show the offices needed in the true Church, until we all come in the unity of the faith.  However, there is no office of "pastor".  Elder Callister said that the role of pastor is found in bishops and those that preside.  I couldn't help but think of the Catholic/Orthodox view that bishops have authority from the apostles ("apostolic authority"), but are not referred to as "apostles" per se.  In some cases it therefore seems as if the name of the office isn't the requirement.  So is it really giving a list of the names of necessary priesthood offices?  Also, as we know, "evangelist" is said to mean "patriarch", though I'm wondering if there is any ancient and/or NT confirmation for that view.

 

The word bishop means overseer or watcher. The word pastor means shepherd. In a figurative sense, both words mean the same thing.

 

We know through revelation that an evangelist is a patriarch.

 

And having authority conferred by apostles is not the same thing as being an apostle.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[teddyaware]

Did anyone watch Elder Callister's CES Devotional last Sunday?  It was on the blueprint of Christ's Church (you can view it here if interested).  I found it very interesting.  I think that many would enjoy more apologetic talks from leaders on topics such as this.  Basically, he talked about how the LDS Church matches the New Testament Church on various points that are part of the blueprint given by Christ anciently for His Church.  They include:

 

-Organization

-Teachings

-Ordinances

-Fruits

-Revelation

 

He says that the Church should be the same, unless a "change order" is given, which is done through revelation.  He also said that only the LDS Church matches point for point the blueprint of Christ's Church.

 

I did find a few things that I'd like to discuss from his talk.  In the "organization" part, he talked about the necessary offices in the Church, such as apostles, prophets, etc.  He also mentioned seventy.  For those knowledgeable on this, I'm wondering, was "seventy" an actual priesthood office in the ancient Church?  I thought it was just that Christ had called seventy men to go out two by two, not that there was an office named "seventy".  I also find difficulty with the citation of Ephesians 4:11-13 for some of the necessary offices in Christ's Church:

 

¹¹ And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers

¹² For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

¹³ Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

 

This is frequently used to show the offices needed in the true Church, until we all come in the unity of the faith.  However, there is no office of "pastor".  Elder Callister said that the role of pastor is found in bishops and those that preside.  I couldn't help but think of the Catholic/Orthodox view that bishops have authority from the apostles ("apostolic authority"), but are not referred to as "apostles" per se.  In some cases it therefore seems as if the name of the office isn't the requirement.  So is it really giving a list of the names of necessary priesthood offices?  Also, as we know, "evangelist" is said to mean "patriarch", though I'm wondering if there is any ancient and/or NT confirmation for that view.

 

I have thoughts on the other parts of his talk, but I guess I'll just ask about this part in this thread.

The words pastor (one who watches over lambs and sheep) and bishop (one who watches over the lambs and sheep who are the Church) mean virtually the same thing.

[juliann]

I really liked the blueprint metaphor as well as his underlying message.  What I think needs to stop is this traditional claim we have constructed about the church being identical to the primitive church (he emphasized how exact the similarities were more than once).   The organization is not identical....and the NT is not a manual in how to organize a church, if it was churches would look much more alike.   The generic "apostasy" stuff is also highly problematic because what happened was extremely complex and these "apostates" we rail at are the ones dying for Christianity and making sure that enough of it survived to be put back together. This is a really good treatment of it from a scholarly perspective http://www.amazon.com/Early-Christians-Disarray-Contemporary-Perspectives/dp/0934893020/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389899821&sr=1-1&keywords=early+christians+in+disarray

This volume of essays reports new research by several LDS scholars in different fields. They identify common myths and misconceptions about the apostasy and promote better understanding of when and why the apostasy occurred.

 

 

This is also a very good presentation from an LDS scholar that points out the holes in our reading our own practices back into the NT.  https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/go-ye-all-world-messages-new-testament-apostles/same-organization-existed-primitive-church   Also  http://www.millennialstar.org/a-missionary-guide-to-the-apostasy/

 

Most of all, everybody else being wrong doesn't make us right.  And it just insults the other guy.  Our beliefs can stand on their own.

[Scott Lloyd]

The words pastor (one who watches over lambs and sheep) and bishop (one who watches over the lambs and sheep who are the Church) mean virtually the same thing.

Great minds think alike. But I got there first!

[Scott Lloyd]

FYI:

 

Here is an article I wrote back in 2011 on the priesthood office of Seventy.

[Kenngo1969]

As the old saying says, "When my church changes: continuing revelation; when your church changes: apostasy."  I don't think we can have it both ways: either we believe in continuing revelation, or we don't.  If we don't want anyone else to make too much of the differences between the church described in the New Testament and the Restored Church of Jesus Christ, we ought not make too much of the similarities.  

[cinepro]

"The LDS Church is true because we are exactly the same as the Church Jesus set up in the New Testament, except for all the stuff we've changed." 

 

 

This has been a problem ever since the whole "17 Points of the True Church" story started making the rounds.

 

I'm sorry to see Elder Callister thinks so little of the college-age LDS that he assumes they wouldn't figure out the problems with his argument.  I guess as long as they don't actually read their Bibles, and just stick to proof-texting, he'll be okay.

[Scott Lloyd]

"The LDS Church is true because we are exactly the same as the Church Jesus set up in the New Testament, except for all the stuff we've changed." 

 

 

This has been a problem ever since the whole "17 Points of the True Church" story started making the rounds.

 

I'm sorry to see Elder Callister thinks so little of the college-age LDS that he assumes they wouldn't figure out the problems with his argument.  I guess as long as they don't actually read their Bibles, and just stick to proof-texting, he'll be okay.

I don't see what Elder Callister was doing as "prooftexting" so much as assembling an array of evidences.

 

He has a juris doctorate and a professional background in the law. Thus, I'm confident he understands that, while taken all by itself, a piece of evidence might not be probative or irrefutable, in combination with other pieces of evidence, it can be persuasive.

[juliann]

But Scott, most of those evidences aren't supportable.  Anybody trying to use them with someone who is familiar with early Christian history rather than the narrative we have created will get cut off at the knees.  Saying we are exactly the same while casually changing evangelist to patriarch is evidence of why this approach is so very risky.  Coupled with it not being necessary at all makes its use even more incomprehensible.  We have better information now, it is incumbent upon us to wisely use it.   From MI's Underwood article linked above (emphasis added):

 

What is crucially the same about the Savior’s work in the latter days is its function. He continues to send forth authorized servants of various kinds (as apostles) who act under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost (as prophets) to shepherd His Saints (as pastors), to instruct them in the word of life (as teachers), and to spread the good news of His saving grace to all the world (as evangelists). These functions are the similarities that really count. Indeed, they are the essence of what makes this the “only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” (D&C 1:30).

 

 

The tradition of promoting the exactly the same offices as "evidences" is rather fun, though.  Because that indisputably includes Phoebe as a deacon and Junia an apostle if the description of our offices is read back into the NT. 

Edited January 16, 2014 by juliann

[juliann]

"The LDS Church is true because we are exactly the same as the Church Jesus set up in the New Testament, except for all the stuff we've changed." 

 

 

This has been a problem ever since the whole "17 Points of the True Church" story started making the rounds.

 

I'm sorry to see Elder Callister thinks so little of the college-age LDS that he assumes they wouldn't figure out the problems with his argument.  I guess as long as they don't actually read their Bibles, and just stick to proof-texting, he'll be okay.

 

It has been a problem long before that, I grew up hearing these claims.  Had I not gotten grad training in the NT,  I would still be repeating it as well.

[Kenngo1969]

Out of curiosity (I have not read the book, and I'm neither citing it with approval, nor am I prepared to defend its arguments, [nor, for that matter, am I necessarily criticizing it; I'm asking out of complete ignorance]) does Barry Bickmore's Restoring The Ancient Church suffer from the problems we've pointed out in this thread?

 

P.S.:  My impression is that Brother Bickmore is more doctrine-focused than structure-focused, so perhaps the answer to my question is, "No."  Thoughts?

Edited January 16, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[juliann]

Wait a minute,  did he actually use this 17 Points list? From what I recall, it seems to cover his points.

 

1. Christ organized the Church (Ephesians 4:11-14)
2. The true church must bear the name of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:23)
3. The true church must have a foundation of Apostles and Prophets (Ephesians 2:19-20)
4. The true church must have the same organization as Christ's Church (Ephesians 4:11-14)
5. The true church must claim divine authority (Hebrews 4:4-10)
6. The true church must have no paid ministry (Acts 20:33-34; John 10:11-13)
7. The true church must baptize by immersion (Matthew 3:13-16)
8. The true church must bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-17)
9. The true church must practice divine healing (Mark 3:14-15)
10. The true church must teach that God and Jesus are separate and distinct individuals (John 17:11; 20:17)
11. The true church must teach that God and Jesus have bodies of flesh and bone (Luke 23:36-39; Acts 1:9-11; Hebrews 1:1-3)
12. The officers must be called by God (Hebrews 4:4; Exodus 28:1; 40:13-16)
13. The true church must claim revelation from God (Amos 3:7)
14. The true church must be a missionary church (Matthew 28:19-20)
15. The true church must be a restored church (Acts 3:19-20)
16. The true church must practice baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:16&29)
17. "By their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthews 7:20)

 

 

Is there a more carefully documented account of the guy making up a story of how this came about than the link given to a message board?

[juliann]

Out of curiosity (I have not read the book, and I'm neither citing it with approval, nor am I prepared to defend its arguments, [nor, for that matter, am I necessarily criticizing it; I'm asking out of complete ignorance]) does Barry Bickmore's Restoring The Ancient Church suffer from the problems we've pointed out in this thread?

 

P.S.:  My impression is that Brother Bickmore is more doctrine-focused than structure-focused, so perhaps the answer to my question is, "No."  Thoughts?

It's been a very long time since I read that book and I haven't seen the revised version.   As I recall, he did an excellent job of compiling extra canonical primary sources....I suppose it could be accused of some proof texting but that is sometimes necessary when giving an overview of so many decades of Christian history.  These sources are more accessible now but at the time, this sort of thing had not been compiled in a readable yet scholarly manner for the average Mormon types so I really appreciate what he did.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I don't see what Elder Callister was doing as "prooftexting" so much as assembling an array of evidences.

 

He has a juris doctorate and a professional background in the law. Thus, I'm confident he understands that, while taken all by itself, a piece of evidence might not be probative or irrefutable, in combination with other pieces of evidence, it can be persuasive.

This is the same Elder Callister that said this?

The Bible is one witness of Jesus Christ; the Book of Mormon is another. Why is this second witness so crucial? The following illustration may help: How many straight lines can you draw through a single point on a piece of paper? The answer is infinite. For a moment, suppose that single point represents the Bible and that hundreds of those straight lines drawn through that point represent different interpretations of the Bible and that each of those interpretations represents a different church.

 

What happens, however, if on that piece of paper there is a second point representing the Book of Mormon? How many straight lines could you draw between these two reference points: the Bible and the Book of Mormon? Only one. Only one interpretation of Christ’s doctrines survives the testimony of these two witnesses.

This despite the fact that their are multiple churches that use the book of mormom.  Despite the fact that the bible is not a single book by a single author.  It seems to me that Elder Callister is prone to simplistic arguments that lack nuance. 

[Kenngo1969]

It's been a very long time since I read that book and I haven't seen the revised version.   As I recall, he did an excellent job of compiling extra canonical primary sources....I suppose it could be accused of some proof texting but that is sometimes necessary when giving an overview of so many decades of Christian history.  These sources are more accessible now but at the time, this sort of thing had not been compiled in a readable yet scholarly manner for the average Mormon types so I really appreciate what he did.

Good info.  Thanks.

[cinepro]

This is the same Elder Callister that said this?

 

This despite the fact that their are multiple churches that use the book of mormom.  Despite the fact that the bible is not a single book by a single author.  It seems to me that Elder Callister is prone to simplistic arguments that lack nuance. 

 

That's always bugged me too!

 

But I guess the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price make four points, and we're the only church that goes through all four, so we must be true!

[cinepro]

I don't see what Elder Callister was doing as "prooftexting" so much as assembling an array of evidences.

 

He has a juris doctorate and a professional background in the law. Thus, I'm confident he understands that, while taken all by itself, a piece of evidence might not be probative or irrefutable, in combination with other pieces of evidence, it can be persuasive.

 

He's a lawyer?  That explains it!  

[Duncan]

This is the same Elder Callister that said this?

 

This despite the fact that their are multiple churches that use the book of mormom.  Despite the fact that the bible is not a single book by a single author.  It seems to me that Elder Callister is prone to simplistic arguments that lack nuance. 

 

 

I hear what you are saying but I wonder how many of those other Churches also say they are a restored Church, have priesthood keys, have a prophet. I know the COC disavowed the Book of Mormon

[Avatar4321]

Here is my Deseret News report of his talk, published on Monday.

 

There will also be a lengthier Church News report this weekend.

 

You've got a really cool job

[Scott Lloyd]

This is the same Elder Callister that said this?

 

This despite the fact that their are multiple churches that use the book of mormom.  Despite the fact that the bible is not a single book by a single author.  It seems to me that Elder Callister is prone to simplistic arguments that lack nuance. 

I don't have access to the the speech or article you are quoting from here, and hence, I lack the full context.

 

But from the snippet you quote here, it is apparent to me that the intent of the statement is not to disprove or debunk other religious faiths, but rather, to illustrate why a second witness of Christ (namely the Book of Mormon) is crucial.

 

Moreover, while it is true that the Bible is not a single book written by a single author, there are millions of people -- not just Latter-day Saints -- who regard it as God's word and who do regard it as a witness for Christ.

 

While Elder Callister's analogy may not be persuasive to one who does not even accept the Bible as a witness of Christ, it might be meaningful to one who does.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

 

However, there is no office of "pastor".  Elder Callister said that the role of pastor is found in bishops and those that preside.  

 

 

And I guess the role of married Deacons is found in 12 year old boys?

[Duncan]

He's a lawyer?  That explains it!  

 

 

he's worse then a lawyer, he's a tax attorney....I actually know Elder Callister. He was in my first area and in my mission presidency. I wouldn't say i was bosom buddies life long pals with the man but I spent a goodly enough time with him i.e, ridden in the same car with him, dinners etc. He wrote that book on the atonement and he also wrote a book on the apostasy. His brother is Douglas Callister who is a legendary person and their Granddad was LeGrand Richards

[Scott Lloyd]

You've got a really cool job

I try to remember that on occasions like two nights ago, when I didn't go to bed because I was up all night trying to meet a deadline reporting on a Missionary Department seminar I had covered that day.