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

[Scott Lloyd]

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

Who said a deacon has to be 12 years old?

[Duncan]

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.

 

 

When is this coming out? always enjoy your articles!

[mercyngrace]

 

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

 

Maybe lowering the age of priesthood ordination was given by a "change order". 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

When is this coming out? always enjoy your articles!

It was the 2014 Seminar for New MTC Presidents and Visitors' Center Directors. Coverage of the first day (Tuesday) will be published this weekend. We'll try to shoehorn coverage of the other two days in next week's issue.

 

I just came back a while ago from the last session, an address by Elder Russell M. Nelson to the departing missionary couples. (I'm not making this up.) During his talk, in reference to the Second Coming and how it won't be a secret, he said, "CNN will be there. KSL-TV will be there. Scott Lloyd will be there to report on it for the Church News."

 

When I came back to the office and related this, one of my colleagues said I should have asked him if this amounts to a prophecy that the Second Coming will transpire within the 30-40 years I have left in mortality.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

 

Maybe lowering the age of priesthood ordination was given by a "change order". 

 

 

 

Could be.

 

Or it may be that we lack sufficient documentation about the age of eligibility for priesthood ordination in Biblical times.

[CMZ]

Elder Callister gave a similar talk in my stake several years back when he was an Area Seventy.

Edited January 17, 2014 by CMZ

[CMZ]

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

 

Yes, disavowed or downgraded, or something to that effect. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to my knowledge is the only Book of Mormon-believing church that is flooding the earth with The Book of Mormon. If people get concerned about the other "Restoration churches" that have some degree of belief in The Book of Mormon they are welcome to be guided by the Spirit in investigating the claims of those other churches. There's nothing really too new or innovative about that concept.

[cinepro]

Who said a deacon has to be 12 years old?

 

I don't know.

 

But if your question was "Who says that Deacons need to be married?", my answer would be "Timothy".

[CMZ]

I take it you mean "Paul to Timothy" (actually, just "Timothy" referring to Paul's epistle to Timothy would still be correct). That'd be awesome if they required deacons to get married.

Edited January 17, 2014 by CMZ

[Duncan]

Cinepro is someone who I would love to have a BBQ with but the books of Timothy are disputed to even be from Paul

Edited January 17, 2014 by Duncan

[CMZ]

Then it might not even have been Paul who said deacons need to be married.

[Duncan]

Then it might not even have been Paul who said deacons need to be married.

 

 

could have even been me who said it 

Edited January 17, 2014 by Duncan

[Alan]

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. 

 

On ocassions when speaking with non-members I have described myself in the first instance as a "christian pastor" rather than a bishop. This is because to most people a bishop is one who wears a fish shaped hat, lives in a big church owned palace, sits in the House of Lords, and presides over diosese, parishes and priests. In case you're wondering, I do then clarify the actual title of the office I hold.

I believe bishop and pastor are very nearly the same thing.

Having said that, the responsibilities of a bishop have grown and developed beyond all recognition from Joseph Smith's day, and, I would suggest, from NT times as well.

 

On the more general point, I think it is problematic to try and demonstrate that we are the same as the NT church. Nowhere in the scriptures are we told that the NT church was the fulness or even the ideal. This dispensation is the "fulness of times", so we should expect it to look a little different. In fact, given that the NT church ultimately failed (meaning it failed to survive, not that it failed the saints) perhaps seeking to emulate it is not so wise.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Cinepro is someone who I would love to have a BBQ with but the books of Timothy are disputed to even be from Paul

 

 

Then it might not even have been Paul who said deacons need to be married.

Careful there. If you believe modern scholarship that Paul didn't write Timothy, you might have to believe modern scholarship that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Matthew, Mark. Luke and John. Daniel didn't write the book of Daniel. It's a pretty big rabbit hole.

[Scott Lloyd]

On ocassions when speaking with non-members I have described myself in the first instance as a "christian pastor" rather than a bishop. This is because to most people a bishop is one who wears a fish shaped hat, lives in a big church owned palace, sits in the House of Lords, and presides over diosese, parishes and priests. In case you're wondering, I do then clarify the actual title of the office I hold.

I believe bishop and pastor are very nearly the same thing.

Having said that, the responsibilities of a bishop have grown and developed beyond all recognition from Joseph Smith's day, and, I would suggest, from NT times as well.

On the more general point, I think it is problematic to try and demonstrate that we are the same as the NT church. Nowhere in the scriptures are we told that the NT church was the fulness or even the ideal. This dispensation is the "fulness of times", so we should expect it to look a little different. In fact, given that the NT church ultimately failed (meaning it failed to survive, not that it failed the saints) perhaps seeking to emulate it is not so wise.

So you dispute the sixth Article of Faith, then?

In any event, Elder Callister did allow in his talk for "revelatory changes." He compared them to "change orders" in his "blueprint" analogy.

Edited January 17, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't know.

But if your question was "Who says that Deacons need to be married?", my answer would be "Timothy".

Did the author of the epistle to Timothy mean all deacons in all locales throughout all ages, or did he mean the specific deacons in Timothy's charge?

[Calm]

And wasn't the age of adulthood for men 12 years even if many (most) waited to be married (much like today)?

Would 12 year old males have been treated as other adult males in all ways or were there exceptions?

[ChristKnight]

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.

 

Thanks (forgot about that OT reference), so I do see the importance of seventy from the Old Testament through the New Testament.  However, as you mention, it isn't clear that there was an office of "seventy" present in the OT or NT, which is what I was wondering about.  So perhaps it's erroneous to use the Bible as an example of the need for having an office of "seventy", in contrast to having seventy elders, and that the office of seventy is the result of modern revelation?

 

 

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.

 

I guess the problem I see is that the verse cited is frequently used to show the offices needed in the Church (though frequently focusing on the need for apostles and prophets, but "prophet" isn't a priesthood office per se), yet there is no office of pastor.  Saying that pastor and bishop mean the same thing in a figurative sense shows that maybe the actual "name" isn't important (not sure if I'm saying what I'm trying to say correctly), and/or that using this verse as an apologetic for priesthood offices isn't necessarily completely correct, since not all of the names given in the verse are actual priesthood offices?

 

For Catholics, it isn't about having authority conferred by apostles, at least not in total, but that Catholics/Orthodox believe that bishops have the authority of the apostles, as their successors. 

[DBMormon]

Who said a deacon has to be 12 years old?

 

The current Church policy does.  All Adult Converts are ordained to the office of Priest to begin with.  No worthy adult is a deacon.  The only adult members who are deacons are those who are unworthy of further ordination.

[DBMormon]

If we are honest and let go of loop holes

Evangelist was not patriarch in the new testament - it is closer to what we have today as missionaries

Apostle while certainly speaking of the 12 also spoke of others who were not ordained apostles.

How we use youth in Priesthood is nowhere close to how the biblical church used them

and we no longer issue priesthood when revelation comes but rather by age and worthiness. and this was done in order to get the youth more involved in the gospel

Check out William Harltey's "From Men to Boys "

 

While we have some offices we do not have others.  We also mix up several offices and use them in ways the new testament church did not.  Itsimply is not the same in the way we have tried to force it to be.  round hole and square peg, but we just keep saying the peg is round and then look at you funny when you can't make it fit.

[daz2]

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

 

 

That explains a lot.  When I read the summary of the talk by Elder Callister, my first thought was that he was a modern day Elder LeGrand Richards, and I was reminded of A Marvelous Work and a Wonder.

 

I second DBMormon's recommendation of Bill Hartley's From Men to Boys, and in addition his piece Ordained and Acting Teachers in the. Lesser Priesthood, 1851-1883.   The functioning and relationship of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums and members were very different from today.  Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums (which were independent of wards and perhaps stakes (I don't recall if they were independent of stakes) would compete with each other for the most capable and mature men.  Teachers in the Aaronic Priesthood played a vital role--almost like police officer, resolving disputes between members, addressing congregational problems and the like--and the quorum wanted the very best men (and the bishops wanted teachers to be assigned or part of their wards).  But because the Melchizedek Priesthood was necessary to be endowed, when given a choice, mature men preferred to be ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood.  To address this imbalance, at some point elders and sometimes high priests were asked (not all accepted) to be "acting teachers" to assist the other mature men who exercised those roles.

 

The evolution of the roles is fascinating.  Hartley's articles traces the "change orders" (which came more often by experience, experimentation and trial and error than angelic directives) better than anything else I have read.

 

Off topic:  I am working on a paper contextualizing the role of "teachers" (in the priesthood and in the relief society) against comparable roles of teacher/leaders in Methodism, pastor/elder home visitation in Calvinism, and other visitation practices in American religion in the 1800s.  I am also looking for anything in social science studying any of these models (including home and visiting teaching).  So far, I have found nothing from the social science study standpoint--so I am making some hypotheses about home teaching: that (using sociology of religion terminology) it serves a social control function (though in a much softer way than when teachers were almost the equivalent of religious police), a social support function, and that it establishes or strengthens social networks within the community.  If anyone is aware of additional writings or works related to this, please send me a message.

[Scott Lloyd]

If we are honest and let go of loop holes

Evangelist was not patriarch in the new testament - it is closer to what we have today as missionaries

This seems to be more a matter of semantics than of doctrine. See the evangelist entry in the Bible Dictionary for a discussion of the distinction between evangelist as it is commonly used in Christendom and at certain places in the scriptures and as a designation of a priesthood office. At any rate, it's not just a "loophole." Joseph Smith said by revelation that an evangelist is a patriarch, and his statement is included in the scriptural canon (see Doctrine and Covenants 107:39-53).

 

Apostle while certainly speaking of the 12 also spoke of others who were not ordained apostles.

 

Is it that they weren't ordained or that they weren't numbered among the Twelve? Even today, we have apostles who are not in the Quorum of the Twelve. The members of the First Presidency each hold the apostolic office. And there have been times when counselors in the First Presidency were selected from outside of the quorum and were ordained apostles to hold the position in the First Presidency.

 

How we use youth in Priesthood is nowhere close to how the biblical church used them

 

I submit that there is not enough information available to know how "the Biblical church" used youth in the priesthood.

 

... and we no longer issue priesthood when revelation comes but rather by age and worthiness.

 

So revelation plays no part in it? The bishop's interview is nothing more than a formality, then?

 

While we have some offices we do not have others.

 

Examples?

 

  We also mix up several offices and use them in ways the new test

ament church did not.

 

 

CFR

 

  Itsimply is not the same in the way we have tried to force it to be.

 

Again, Elder Callister allowed for revelatory change, the "change orders" in his "blueprint" analogy.

[Scott Lloyd]

That explains a lot.  When I read the summary of the talk by Elder Callister, my first thought was that he was a modern day Elder LeGrand Richards, and I was reminded of A Marvelous Work and a Wonder.

 

I second DBMormon's recommendation of Bill Hartley's From Men to Boys, and in addition his piece Ordained and Acting Teachers in the. Lesser Priesthood, 1851-1883.   The functioning and relationship of the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums and members were very different from today.  Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums (which were independent of wards and perhaps stakes (I don't recall if they were independent of stakes) would compete with each other for the most capable and mature men.  Teachers in the Aaronic Priesthood played a vital role--almost like police officer, resolving disputes between members, addressing congregational problems and the like--and the quorum wanted the very best men (and the bishops wanted teachers to be assigned or part of their wards).  But because the Melchizedek Priesthood was necessary to be endowed, when given a choice, mature men preferred to be ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood.  To address this imbalance, at some point elders and sometimes high priests were asked (not all accepted) to be "acting teachers" to assist the other mature men who exercised those roles.

 

The evolution of the roles is fascinating.  Hartley's articles traces the "change orders" (which came more often by experience, experimentation and trial and error than angelic directives) better than anything else I have read.

 

I just scanned Bill Hartley's article online. While it discusses in-depth the evolution of priesthood offices in this dispensation (19th and 20th centuries) I really didn't see anything in there about priesthood offices in the ancient Church. Perhaps there was something there that I missed; as I said I only scanned it.

 

But whether or not  youth were involved early on -- either anciently or in this dispensation -- the point that is being made is that that the priesthood offices did exist, just as is stated in the sixth Article of Faith.

 

Moreover, it occurs to me change that comes about through experience, experimentation and trial does not necessarily rule out an element of revelation/inspiration.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

Did anyone notice that we are arguing about words here?

[mfbukowski]

This seems to be more a matter of semantics than of doctrine.

No kidding!