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

[Scott Lloyd]

Did anyone notice that we are arguing about words here?

I, for one, did.

 

I'm glad you did as well. I was beginning to think I was in the Twilight Zone.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

No kidding!

No kidding, no kidding!

 

Of late, I have been reading the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and, as it happens, I ran across a sentence from Clement that, though written in the post-apostolic, pre-Nicene Creed period, is remarkably timeless in its application:

 

 

Ye are fond of contention, brethren, and full of zeal about things which do not pertain to salvation.

 

I think Clement and I would have understood each other very well. Too bad we are separated by a couple of millennia.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

Joseph very well could have made a fasle assumption.  Similar to other false assumptions he made at times.  God tells him Patriarchs are part of the restoration and the only office he has left on the list that isn't used is Evangelist.  Joseph connects the dots where God never intended.

 

Patriarch of our dispensation is completely unrelated to evangelist in the meridian of time.

 

I wish we would stop teaching people they are the same because even if they got it wrong and Joseph got it right, it still isn't the same thing.

 

By apostle, I mean that the NT uses the word apostle loosely on several instances.  See https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/go-ye-all-world-messages-new-testament-apostles/same-organization-existed-primitive-church

 

I just get tired of us always explaining away the instances we as a institution further nonsense at times simply because most members will never consider an alternative more informed meaning behind the issues.  For example we trump out Joseph leg surgery as a child to show that Joseph was the kind of person who wouldn't drink alcohol and fail to tell people he drank his share of alcohol through his life.

 

We need to do a much better job of letting go of the nonsense that no longer supports an informed paradigm and build our historical narrative on more accurate interpretations.

[mfbukowski]

No kidding, no kidding!

 

Of late, I have been reading the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and, as it happens, I ran across a sentence from Clement that, though written in the post-apostolic, pre-Nicene Creed period, is remarkably timeless in its application:

 

I think Clement and I would have understood each other very well. Too bad we are separated by a couple of millennia.

Moi aussi

 

What's a few thousand years between friends?

 

And what was that part about "insofar as it is translated correctly?"

 

A "correct" translation should not just be about words, but especially when cultures are far separated as we are with the first century   Mediterranean milieu, it is essential that the cultural functions of the words also figure into the "translation".

 

Trying to analyze the function of what was meant by an "evangelist" then and now, or an "apostle" or a "bishop", in my opinion, is a losing proposition from the beginning.

 

I know that the real discussion here is obviously about the apostasy, and whether or not there was one, and also about whether or not the church has been "restored", yet what we are talking about is whether or not the translated WORDS have the same function today as they did then.  That's a futile effort in my opinion.

 

For me the question about the apostasy and restoration should rest more on how much Christianity was infiltrated and destroyed by Neoplatonic philosophy, not on the function of various church offices.  For me it is always about the Nicene Creed and how the theology of "substance" and "being" was used to define the Godhead. 

 

There is no question that Jesus did not preach Neoplatonism, and that it became a central way of explaining Catholic theology long before the Nicene Creed was even thought of.  THAT is the apostasy- not the change in meaning of a few words defining ecclesiastical functions.

Edited January 18, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

Joseph very well could have made a fasle assumption.  Similar to other false assumptions he made at times.  God tells him Patriarchs are part of the restoration and the only office he has left on the list that isn't used is Evangelist.  Joseph connects the dots where God never intended.

 

And his "false assumption" gets included and perpetuated for 150 years in the scriptural canon? Nope, not buying that scenario.

 

Patriarch of our dispensation is completely unrelated to evangelist in the meridian of time.

 

 

No offense, but given the choice between your personal rumination and the inspired, canonical statement of the Prophet Joseph Smith, I hold with the latter.

 

I wish we would stop teaching people they are the same because even if they got it wrong and Joseph got it right, it still isn't the same thing.

 

Have you not considered the possibility that anciently, as with apostle, there were broader and narrower senses of meaning for evangelist?

 

 

By apostle, I mean that the NT uses the word apostle loosely on several instances.  See https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/go-ye-all-world-messages-new-testament-apostles/same-organization-existed-primitive-church

 

Perhaps one more good reason, then, why the Bible translation of preference in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the King James Version, which avoids such loose usage of the term.

 

I looked at Underwood's article, and I note that he does not dispute that there is a formal, specific use of apostle, both anciently and today, to denote an office in the priesthood.

 

 

I just get tired of us always explaining away the instances we as a institution further nonsense at times simply because most members will never consider an alternative more informed meaning behind the issues.  For example we trump out Joseph leg surgery as a child to show that Joseph was the kind of person who wouldn't drink alcohol and fail to tell people he drank his share of alcohol through his life.

 

You have a tendency in these discussions to drift off the point under discussion and throw in forty-eleven other things that bug you and that you want to vent about. It's not unlike the shotgun approach I've seen used by anti-Mormon critics: Throw a bunch of stuff at the wall and see what sticks.

 

The last time I was in a setting where Joseph's leg surgery came up was in last year's gospel doctrine class in our ward. Neither the lesson manual nor our Sunday School teacher presented the story to show "that Joseph was the kind of person who wouldn't drink alcohol."

 

We need to do a much better job of letting go of the nonsense that no longer supports an informed paradigm and build our historical narrative on more accurate interpretations.

 

Yes, my ante-Nicene friend Clement spoke well: "Ye are fond of contention, brethren, and full of zeal about things which do not pertain to salvation."

Edited January 18, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

And his "false assumption" gets included and perpetuated for 150 years in the scriptural canon? Nope, not buying that scenario.

 

 

 

Kind of like John Whitmer stating 1830 years after the coming of our Lord in Section 20, and we still to this day saying that means Doctrinally Jesus was born on April 6th?   Which he may have been but it is a 1/365 chance and not 100%.  Weird how things get in the D&C and are perpetuated as truth when it was an honest mistake on the assumption of those after how such things are interpreted!

 

Even the Church seems to acknowledge that they are completely different in how they were used in each time period

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/evangelist?lang=eng

Evangelist

In popular usage throughout Christendom, an evangelist is one who proclaims the gospel. The idea of traveling to preach is also associated with current usage. In the popular sense, the writers of the four Gospel records are called evangelists, as also are Philip (Acts 21:8) and Timothy (2 Tim. 4:5). Paul lists the office of evangelist in the organizational structure of the Church (Eph. 4:11).

However, in latter-day revelation an evangelist is defined as a patriarch (D&C 107:39–53). Joseph Smith taught that “an Evangelist is a Patriarch, even the oldest man of the blood of Joseph or of the seed of Abraham. Wherever the Church of Christ is established in the earth, there should be a Patriarch for the benefit of the posterity of the Saints” (HC 3:381).

 

D&C 107 is not Cut and Dry either in how one can read that long and bulky passage

Edited January 18, 2014 by DBMormon

[Bikeemikey]

Seems a little silly to claim on the one hand we are the only true church because we have a prophet and on going revelation that allows us to change when needed but then on the other claim we are the only true church because we are the same as a church 2000 yard old (a structure that resulted in apostasy no less).

Talks like this really do nothing for me at all.

If anything they expose an immaturity of thought on the institutional vs religious nature of our LDS world.

[DBMormon]

BikeeMikey, I totally agree. 

 

Also I find Mormons are some of the worst at balking at additional truth if it doesn't come from a prophet seer and revelator

 

We too often confuse belief with truth, thinking that because something makes sense or is convenient, it must be true. Conversely, we sometimes don’t believe truth or reject it—because it would require us to change or admit that we were wrong. Often, truth is rejected because it doesn’t appear to be consistent with previous experiences.

When the opinions or “truths” of others contradict our own, instead of considering the possibility that there could be information that might be helpful and augment or complement what we know, we often jump to conclusions or make assumptions that the other person is misinformed, mentally challenged, or even intentionally trying to deceive.

 

 

Elder Uchtdorf here describes us to a T and he knows it.  We see any truth that may challenge our assumptions and we come up with reasons to turn it away and put walls up against it.

[Bikeemikey]

BikeeMikey, I totally agree.

Also I find Mormons are some of the worst at balking at additional truth if it doesn't come from a prophet seer and revelator

Elder Uchtdorf here describes us to a T and he knows it. We see any truth that may challenge our assumptions and we come up with reasons to turn it away and put walls up against it.

That is a great Uchtdorf quote.

[DBMormon]

sure got quiet.  It is a great quote

[juliann]

Seems a little silly to claim on the one hand we are the only true church because we have a prophet and on going revelation that allows us to change when needed but then on the other claim we are the only true church because we are the same as a church 2000 yard old (a structure that resulted in apostasy no less). 

I wouldn't use the word silly but I agree that it is a very contradictory position which is why I don't find it useful at all...or necessary.  I am very glad that we are becoming more comfortable in using Christian history, however.  When I started my study of it I was taken by complete surprise that there was such a vast reservoir of useful information that I never heard of in church.  Perhaps there has to be a learning curve as we incorporate more of it in an accurate and helpful manner.

[Duncan]

Seems a little silly to claim on the one hand we are the only true church because we have a prophet and on going revelation that allows us to change when needed but then on the other claim we are the only true church because we are the same as a church 2000 yard old (a structure that resulted in apostasy no less). Talks like this really do nothing for me at all. If anything they expose an immaturity of thought on the institutional vs religious nature of our LDS world.

 

 

I dunno, but I find it zany to think that Churches today deny revelation, disagree on the various points of doctrine, don't have the same Bibles, a Pope, Cardinals, archibishops, etc. if you are looking for a Church that resembles at least the early one that may have only existed for 30 years anyways,you won't look far past our Church. I can totally see why Christ wanted to put new wine into new bottles. I say this as one who thinks highly of reformers and those who came before to set the stage for the restoration

Edited January 18, 2014 by Duncan

[Tiki]

Kind of like John Whitmer stating 1830 years after the coming of our Lord in Section 20, and we still to this day saying that means Doctrinally Jesus was born on April 6th?   Which he may have been but it is a 1/365 chance and not 100%.  Weird how things get in the D&C and are perpetuated as truth when it was an honest mistake on the assumption of those after how such things are interpreted!

 

Even the Church seems to acknowledge that they are completely different in how they were used in each time period

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/evangelist?lang=eng

Evangelist

In popular usage throughout Christendom, an evangelist is one who proclaims the gospel. The idea of traveling to preach is also associated with current usage. In the popular sense, the writers of the four Gospel records are called evangelists, as also are Philip (Acts 21:8) and Timothy (2 Tim. 4:5). Paul lists the office of evangelist in the organizational structure of the Church (Eph. 4:11).

However, in latter-day revelation an evangelist is defined as a patriarch (D&C 107:39–53). Joseph Smith taught that “an Evangelist is a Patriarch, even the oldest man of the blood of Joseph or of the seed of Abraham. Wherever the Church of Christ is established in the earth, there should be a Patriarch for the benefit of the posterity of the Saints” (HC 3:381).

 

D&C 107 is not Cut and Dry either in how one can read that long and bulky passage

 

Well everyone knows a Stake Patriarch does not declare the gospel of Jesus Christ. Correct?

[Tiki]

I wouldn't use the word silly but I agree that it is a very contradictory position which is why I don't find it useful at all...or necessary.  I am very glad that we are becoming more comfortable in using Christian history, however.  When I started my study of it I was taken by complete surprise that there was such a vast reservoir of useful information that I never heard of in church.  Perhaps there has to be a learning curve as we incorporate more of it in an accurate and helpful manner.

 

The concept of "Restoration" seems to be lost on some.

[DBMormon]

Well everyone knows a Stake Patriarch does not declare the gospel of Jesus Christ. Correct?

except it is in scripture and been there for 150 years and several leaders have stated it as Doctrine....... so all scripture is not scripture? and certainly all scripture is not true?  and completely trustworthy?

 

Tiki, Thanks for making my point for me.  I don't mean that rudely either.  My point is that the scriptures don't remove the debate.  I absolutely can't see new testament evangelist as Restoration Patriarch.  Is there more going on?  maybe and I have faith there is, but my faith lead me to to believe that the thing going on is different then them being the same.  And scholars including some LDS scholars agree but we still hold our ground anyway, cuz no way we the church could be wrong on something and having interpreted the information wrongly for 150 years (race theories, april 6th and there are others but they would strike tangents of debate)

Edited January 19, 2014 by DBMormon

[Bob Crockett]

church could be wrong on something and having interpreted the information wrongly for 150 years

 

Nope.  The information about the patriarch was revelation, not "information."   I doubt Joseph Smith heard the Lord wrongly.   

 

The word "evangelist" was very well known during Joseph Smith's day.   It was commonly known to be an itinerant preacher.  For the Lord to say it is a Patriarch certainly seems to be the Lord's province.

 

I'm trying to determine what a "strike tangents of debate" and when I do I'll get back to you.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Tacenda]

except it is in scripture and been there for 150 years and several leaders have stated it as Doctrine....... so all scripture is not scripture? and certainly all scripture is not true?  and completely trustworthy?

 

Tiki, Thanks for making my point for me.  I don't mean that rudely either.  My point is that the scriptures don't remove the debate.  I absolutely can't see new testament evangelist as Restoration Patriarch.  Is there more going on?  maybe and I have faith there is, but my faith lead me to to believe that the thing going on is different then them being the same.  And scholars including some LDS scholars agree but we still hold our ground anyway, cuz no way we the church could be wrong on something and having interpreted the information wrongly for 150 years (race theories, april 6th and there are others but they would strike tangents of debate)

I read on another board that we use to have a 3 day General conference that was held on April 6th to commemorate the Saviour's birth!  I never knew this!  But then they changed it to two days and the weekend.         

[Bob Crockett]

More like the Church's organization.

[cinepro]

I read on another board that we use to have a 3 day General conference that was held on April 6th to commemorate the Saviour's birth!  I never knew this!  But then they changed it to two days and the weekend.         

 

It appears the last three-day conference was October 1975.  It was my impression that the first day was focused on welfare, or was for Bishops only, or something like that.  Maybe someone older than me can clarify.

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/sessions/1975/10?lang=eng

 

But it's on April 6 because that's the day the Church was organized in 1830.  The whole thing about Jesus' birth being on that day doesn't have much support.

[mfbukowski]

It appears the last three-day conference was October 1975.  It was my impression that the first day was focused on welfare, or was for Bishops only, or something like that.  Maybe someone older than me can clarify.

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/sessions/1975/10?lang=eng

 

But it's on April 6 because that's the day the Church was organized in 1830.  The whole thing about Jesus' birth being on that day doesn't have much support.

I joined the church in 1980 and recall some Friday evening sessions- maybe Priesthood?

[Tacenda]

More like the Church's organization.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=3a5bd2b9ae76b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

 

Below I C/P a portion of this conference talk by Harold B. Lee out of the Ensign:

 

"This is the annual conference of the Church. April 6, 1973, is a particularly significant date because it commemorates not only the anniversary of the organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in this dispensation, but also the anniversary of the birth of the Savior, our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith wrote this, preceding a revelation given at that same date:

 

“The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, it being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April.” (D&C 20:1.)

 

Traditionally since that time, the spring conferences of the Church are held on the days of each year which include April 6."

 

 

(bold emphasis mine)

Edited January 20, 2014 by Tacenda

[DBMormon]

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=3a5bd2b9ae76b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

 

Below I C/P a portion of this conference talk by Harold B. Lee out of the Ensign:

 

"This is the annual conference of the Church. April 6, 1973, is a particularly significant date because it commemorates not only the anniversary of the organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in this dispensation, but also the anniversary of the birth of the Savior, our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith wrote this, preceding a revelation given at that same date:

 

“The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, it being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April.” (D&C 20:1.)

 

Traditionally since that time, the spring conferences of the Church are held on the days of each year which include April 6."

 

 

(bold emphasis mine)

 

Your barking up the wrong tree Tacenda.  This Doctrine is not Doctrine, but all other Doctrine is Doctrine except those Doctrines that are not true.  And while all Doctrine is revealed truth, not all of it is.  Hence all Scripture is Scripture and is true except that Scripture which isn't true but it is still scripture.  Am I clear?

[cinepro]

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=3a5bd2b9ae76b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

 

Below I C/P a portion of this conference talk by Harold B. Lee out of the Ensign:

 

"This is the annual conference of the Church. April 6, 1973, is a particularly significant date because it commemorates not only the anniversary of the organization of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in this dispensation, but also the anniversary of the birth of the Savior, our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith wrote this, preceding a revelation given at that same date:

 

“The rise of the Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, it being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April.” (D&C 20:1.)

 

Traditionally since that time, the spring conferences of the Church are held on the days of each year which include April 6."

 

 

(bold emphasis mine)

 

 

Sorry Tacenda, but President Lee was basing his theory on inaccurate information.  Joseph Smith didn't write that.  As explained in the Deseret News article I linked to above:

 

 

The date of April 6 comes from the date that the LDS Church was originally organized in 1830. D&C 20 begins with this introductory verse: "The rise of The Church of Christ in these last days, being one thousand eight hundred and thirty years since the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the flesh, it (the church) being regularly organized and established agreeable to the laws of our country, by the will and commandments of God, in the fourth month, and on the sixth day of the month which is called April."

 

Steven C. Harper, a BYU assistant professor of church history and a volume editor of the Joseph Smith Papers, said in a phone interview that some people, including Elder Talmage, have read this verse as if it is the Lord speaking and revealing precisely that Christ was born 1,830 years before that day and that the revelation was given on April 6, 1830.

 

The recent discovery of the Book of Commandments and Revelations manuscript of D&C 20, however, showed that the verse was actually an introductory head note written by early church historian and scribe John Whitmer — something he did for many of the revelations, Harper said. "So those are separate from the texts that Joseph produces by revelation."

 

The manuscript, published as part of the Joseph Smith Papers, also shows that the revelation was given on April 10 — not April 6. So although it references the organization of the church a few days earlier, the revelation — which topically has nothing to do with the birth date of Christ — and its introductory verses "shouldn't be read as if it is a revelation of the birth date of Jesus Christ," Harper said. "The interpretation that has been most popular over time is very much subject to question; that's all I'm saying."

 

And this wasn't the only time that John Whitmer would identify a date with similar language. Another time he wrote, "It is now June the twelfth, one thousand eight hundred and thirty one years, since the coming of our Lord and Savior in the flesh."

 

In other words, this type of language was merely a fancy 19th-century way of saying the date.

Edited January 20, 2014 by cinepro

[DBMormon]

Sorry Tacenda, but President Lee was basing his theory on inaccurate information.  Joseph Smith didn't write that.  As explained in the Deseret News article I linked to above:

Cinepro - But we must also state a theory taught as official Doctrine for a long time and likely still believed even today by most leaders as Doctrine as even President Hinckley referenced it a decade ago or so.

[omni]

Sorry Tacenda, but President Lee was basing his theory on inaccurate information. Joseph Smith didn't write that. As explained in the Deseret News article I linked to above:

What's odd is that this has been taught for decades by leader after leader, but apparently The Spirit never thought it pertinent to inform our leaders that they were teaching false doctrine.