Elements Of The True Church?

[ChristKnight]

Recently, Tad Callister gave a CES devotional on The Blueprint of Christ's Church. https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2014/01/what-is-the-blueprint-of-christs-church?lang=eng

Whatever faith you are, if someone was looking for "the true church" today, what do you think are elements or characteristics that shoud be found in the true Church of Christ, and why?

[Duncan]

The return of Elijah!

[mfbukowski]

Recently, Tad Callister gave a CES devotional on The Blueprint of Christ's Church. https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2014/01/what-is-the-blueprint-of-christs-church?lang=eng

Whatever faith you are, if someone was looking for "the true church" today, what do you think are elements or characteristics that shoud be found in the true Church of Christ, and why?

It must be based on testimony alone because that's all we have.  And "second chances".

 

A just God who wants everyone to "receive Christ" must have some mechanism in place to have everyone who has ever lived to be able to do that, otherwise He is not just.

 

So if you lived in Borneo in 3000 BCE you should have the same shot at understanding the gospel as anyone else.  And if you live in a big sophisticated city in 2014 you should have a shot even if you are deluded by the torrent of false info out there.

 

That's one.

 

I mean who is going to save Neanderthals?  Or people who see the play "The Book of Mormon"??

Edited April 20, 2014 by mfbukowski

[wtrdog]

Respectfully to Elder Callister I think his assessment is severely flawed in a few respects.  He says:

 

Certainly, many more questions on cross-examination could be asked. There are certain questions, however, that trump and transcend all others—in essence, they form the crux of an issue. Suffice it to say, some questions are simply more important than others in discovering the truth. If you come to know that Joseph Smith restored the biblical teachings and ordinances discussed tonight, if you come to know that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the same fruits as Christ’s original Church

 

Christ spent all his time talking about service and love of our fellow man.  The scriptures are filled with commandments to feed and clothe the poor.  Where are these fruits?  Is City Creek one of those fruits?

 

Let's do some word frequency analysis.  Here's how many times the following words appear in the Bible and Book of Mormon.

 

poor 229 hungry 40 feed 133 love 419 charity 43 bishop 5 deacon 5 seventy 2

 

Maybe it's just me but I get a sense that Christ's church was maybe a little more concerned with actually doing good unto others rather than being obsessed with titles within a man-made organization.  And to be frank, let's get real.  The Book of Mormon, the "most correct" book, you know, the one which contains the fullness of the gospel and all that, doesn't describe this organization at all.  And the New Testament, come on, all it does is mention a few names in passing. There is no clear description of "Christ's church" which in any way resembles the modern LDS church.  I find it to be quite disingenuous to present things in this manner.  There is quite literally zero evidence in the scriptures (or other historical records) of a church organization in Christ's day which matches the modern LDS church structure.  And even the modern LDS church is drastically different than it was in Joseph Smith's day or later 1800s. 

 

I'm sorry, but someone reading the Bible searching for Christ's "true church" today, I don't see them at all being impressed with our hierarchy and naming conventions.

 

Instead of talking about seventies, I'd like to know why our church donates only about 0.5% of our tithes to the poor?  We give around $8 billion/year in tithing, of which around $50 million a year goes to charity.  And yet we spend around $5 billion on City Creek Mall.  Could someone maybe explain that one to me?

 

By their fruits ye shall know them.  What exactly are our fruits?

Edited April 20, 2014 by wtrdog

[The Nehor]

I do not see a lot of people obsessed with titles in the church and I see a lot of good done for the poor by members on the church, community, family, and individual levels.

Most of us are not bragging about our fruits. If you do not see any the problem may be closer to home then you may like.

[JLHPROF]

Recently, Tad Callister gave a CES devotional on The Blueprint of Christ's Church. https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2014/01/what-is-the-blueprint-of-christs-church?lang=eng

Whatever faith you are, if someone was looking for "the true church" today, what do you think are elements or characteristics that shoud be found in the true Church of Christ, and why?

 

Recognition of continuing revelation and God's continuing involvement in our lives.

 

That is the biggest necessity.  Not that the gospel changes (because that would be number 2 for me - eternal truth shouldn't change).  But that God continues to speak to man to guide us through life.

[mfbukowski]

Most of us are not bragging about our fruits. If you do not see any the problem may be closer to home then you may like.

I know what you mean. I never brag about the world's biggest watermelon in my back yard.

[The Nehor]

I know what you mean. I never brag about the world's biggest watermelon in my back yard.

 

Bad news on that front. I was walking down the alley behind your house carrying my trusty ice pick and it was just sitting there. I couldn't resist. Sorry.

[cinepro]

FWIW, we talked about it here:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62621-elder-callisters-ces-devotional-blueprint-of-christs-church/

Edited April 21, 2014 by cinepro

[ChristKnight]

It must be based on testimony alone because that's all we have.  And "second chances".

 

A just God who wants everyone to "receive Christ" must have some mechanism in place to have everyone who has ever lived to be able to do that, otherwise He is not just.

 

So if you lived in Borneo in 3000 BCE you should have the same shot at understanding the gospel as anyone else.  And if you live in a big sophisticated city in 2014 you should have a shot even if you are deluded by the torrent of false info out there.

 

That's one.

 

I mean who is going to save Neanderthals?  Or people who see the play "The Book of Mormon"??

 

Would it really be a "second chance", or more of a first chance for everyone? 

 

I find it interesting that both the Catholic Church and the LDS Church have beliefs surrounding what happens to those that don't hear the fulness of the Truth in this life, with Catholics having baptism of desire and LDS having baptism for the dead.

[ChristKnight]

FWIW, we talked about it here:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62621-elder-callisters-ces-devotional-blueprint-of-christs-church/

 

Thank you, however this thread isn't about the devotional points specifically as that thread was about.  This thread is about what others, of whatever faith, see as essential elements for the true Church, with the devotional given as an example.

[mfbukowski]

Would it really be a "second chance", or more of a first chance for everyone? 

 

I find it interesting that both the Catholic Church and the LDS Church have beliefs surrounding what happens to those that don't hear the fulness of the Truth in this life, with Catholics having baptism of desire and LDS having baptism for the dead.

So babies who die without baptism now get into heaven anyway?

[ChristKnight]

Recognition of continuing revelation and God's continuing involvement in our lives.

 

That is the biggest necessity.  Not that the gospel changes (because that would be number 2 for me - eternal truth shouldn't change).  But that God continues to speak to man to guide us through life.

 

I'd be curious to know if there are churches that believe that God isn't involved in our lives, and/or doesn't speak to man to guide us through life.

[JLHPROF]

I'd be curious to know if there are churches that believe that God isn't involved in our lives, and/or doesn't speak to man to guide us through life.

 

I doubt there are any that go that exact route, but there are many that don't accept any additional revelation, prophets or scripture.  They kind of remind me of the pharisees from the days of Christ with their limitiations placed on scripture, gospel and often near obsession with a creed.

But I am sure they believe God is with them and involved in their lives.

[Ran]

Adherents of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed would profess that the true Church possesses a one, holy, catholic and apostolic character.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church goes so far as to propose that these qualities have "historical manifestations" that "speak clearly to human reason" (812), so that "the Church herself" is "a great and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefutable witness of her divine mission" (Ibid., cf. Vatican I, Dei Filius 3).

[Calm]

So babies who die without baptism now get into heaven anyway?

I believe their fate is left in the hands of God with heaven being one of the possibilities.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

"However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261"

Edited April 21, 2014 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

Respectfully to Elder Callister I think his assessment is severely flawed in a few respects.  He says:

 

 

Christ spent all his time talking about service and love of our fellow man.  The scriptures are filled with commandments to feed and clothe the poor.  Where are these fruits?  Is City Creek one of those fruits?

 

Let's do some word frequency analysis.  Here's how many times the following words appear in the Bible and Book of Mormon.

 

poor 229 hungry 40 feed 133 love 419 charity 43 bishop 5 deacon 5 seventy 2

 

Maybe it's just me but I get a sense that Christ's church was maybe a little more concerned with actually doing good unto others rather than being obsessed with titles within a man-made organization.  And to be frank, let's get real.  The Book of Mormon, the "most correct" book, you know, the one which contains the fullness of the gospel and all that, doesn't describe this organization at all.  And the New Testament, come on, all it does is mention a few names in passing. There is no clear description of "Christ's church" which in any way resembles the modern LDS church.  I find it to be quite disingenuous to present things in this manner.  There is quite literally zero evidence in the scriptures (or other historical records) of a church organization in Christ's day which matches the modern LDS church structure.  And even the modern LDS church is drastically different than it was in Joseph Smith's day or later 1800s. 

 

I'm sorry, but someone reading the Bible searching for Christ's "true church" today, I don't see them at all being impressed with our hierarchy and naming conventions.

 

Instead of talking about seventies, I'd like to know why our church donates only about 0.5% of our tithes to the poor?  We give around $8 billion/year in tithing, of which around $50 million a year goes to charity.  And yet we spend around $5 billion on City Creek Mall.  Could someone maybe explain that one to me?

 

By their fruits ye shall know them.  What exactly are our fruits?

 

Ah, the old refrain rears its most righteous and benevolent head.  This is where we should also ask of those so moved with charity toward their fellow man:  have you sold all you have and given it all to the poor in order to follow  Him?  If not all, how about half of what you have?  Okay, not half, how about 25% of all you earn; is it given to the poor?  And what organization do you give it to when assisting the poor?  Or maybe you should sell all you have and then find some poor soul on the street and give it away?  Have you done any of these things?  If not, it seems a bit of removing the beam from one's own eye before discussing the possible mote in another's.

 

Additionally, should we outlaw all private investing by any organization?  If not all organizations, how about all religious organizations; that's it, we declare all forms of investing to be illegal and demand that all funds should be given promptly to the poor.  Would that achieve your understanding of scripture?  

 

Then if we did this, please explain how it helps the poor?  What would it do to help these individuals?  What would be the impact on society? Would poverty cease to exist?  

 

Let me be clear, I am not a blind supporter of the Church of Jesus Christ.  I am a natural skeptic of all things; particularly the feigned righteousness of my fellow man.  If we each did all that the Church teaches us to do in a faithful manner, how would we not be charitable towards all?  

 

If anyone reads the New Testament it is absolutely clear that there was an organization instituted to guide the saints. We do not have a record of all that Christ said, but what we do have is most focused on what the individual should do to obtain salvation. If we are going to begin judging others, including the Church, then let us remember that we will be judged by the same standard.  To judge from ignorance seldom leads to wise choices or actions. 

[halconero]

- The belief that salvation is dependent on good deeds and belief in Christ, both being empowered by God's divine favour. The "good deeds count for nothing" crowd has a profound misunderstanding of Paul, Greek and Historiography.

 

- A belief in binding covenants

 

- A belief in esoteric mysteries

 

- A belief in an ecclesiastical hierarchy (this does not signify salvific hierarchy, merely organization)

 

- A belief in continuing revelation where commandments of old prophets maybe superseded by commandments from new prophets

 

- The gifts of the spirit

 

- Continuing epistles and missionary work conducted by leadership 

[mfbukowski]

I believe their fate is left in the hands of God with heaven being one of the possibilities.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

"However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261"

Wow.  Quite a change from what the nuns taught me circa 1956.  Sensus fidelium in action I suppose, not that I object to that particularly.  Just a major departure.

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/12/09/sensus-fidelium-doesnt-mean-majority-opinion-francis-tells-theologians/But I am sure there is an explanation that the church has always really believed this

 

The Pope said the Magisterium, the Church’s teaching authority, has the “duty to pay attention to what the Spirit tells the church through authentic manifestations of the ‘sense of the faithful’.”

But he told the theologians this sense “must not be confused with the sociological reality of majority opinion. That is something else. It is therefore important, and it is your task, to elaborate the criteria that permit discernment of authentic expressions of the ‘sense of the faithful.’”

I am sure that would be a hard distinction to make.

Edited April 21, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I'd be curious to know if there are churches that believe that God isn't involved in our lives, and/or doesn't speak to man to guide us through life.

That's a good point, but then there becomes a potential conflict between public and private revelation and whether or not God can or will tell you which church is true.

 

It would seem to me you can't have it both ways.  If He communicates to us individually surely he would tell us the answer to the most important question: "Which church should I join?"

[canard78]

Respectfully to Elder Callister I think his assessment is severely flawed in a few respects.  He says:

 

 

Christ spent all his time talking about service and love of our fellow man.  The scriptures are filled with commandments to feed and clothe the poor.  Where are these fruits?  Is City Creek one of those fruits?

 

Let's do some word frequency analysis.  Here's how many times the following words appear in the Bible and Book of Mormon.

 

poor 229 hungry 40 feed 133 love 419 charity 43 bishop 5 deacon 5 seventy 2

 

Maybe it's just me but I get a sense that Christ's church was maybe a little more concerned with actually doing good unto others rather than being obsessed with titles within a man-made organization.  And to be frank, let's get real.  The Book of Mormon, the "most correct" book, you know, the one which contains the fullness of the gospel and all that, doesn't describe this organization at all.  And the New Testament, come on, all it does is mention a few names in passing. There is no clear description of "Christ's church" which in any way resembles the modern LDS church.  I find it to be quite disingenuous to present things in this manner.  There is quite literally zero evidence in the scriptures (or other historical records) of a church organization in Christ's day which matches the modern LDS church structure.  And even the modern LDS church is drastically different than it was in Joseph Smith's day or later 1800s. 

 

I'm sorry, but someone reading the Bible searching for Christ's "true church" today, I don't see them at all being impressed with our hierarchy and naming conventions.

 

Instead of talking about seventies, I'd like to know why our church donates only about 0.5% of our tithes to the poor?  We give around $8 billion/year in tithing, of which around $50 million a year goes to charity.  And yet we spend around $5 billion on City Creek Mall.  Could someone maybe explain that one to me?

 

By their fruits ye shall know them.  What exactly are our fruits?

 

If the church really does get $8bn in tithing/year then they probably give around $0.5-0.8bn/year to the poor and needy via fast offering*. Is that enough or would you want the entire tithe to be given to the poor? I suppose if we met in houses and bought our own manuals it would be possible. But a bit unrealistic!

 

*This is a rough estimate based on a few sources where fast offering is in the range of being around 0.5-1% of income (or about 5-10% of the tithing contribution). The UK charities return would suggest this amount for example.

Edited April 21, 2014 by canard78

[3DOP]

The first requirement of "the True Church" is that it would not be hesitant about teaching its own mission as "the True Church" with all that that entails. Most visible churches have such interrrupted historical claims that the whole idea of "the True Church" would be absurd. Apart from Restoration theories how does one explain an interruptions from the time of the Apostles that ordinarily last for centuries and longer? So these kinds of churches don't make any claim to being "the True Church", and so they speak of an invisible church that exists throughout history. But we still need to be baptized, we are still apparently instructed to observe a remembrance of the Last Supper and to know who among us qualifies to receive of its elements, we still need to know whose disciplinary authority comes from God and whose doesn't. 

 

There are many many practical reasons why people must be able to identify a visible church to which they are bound in doctrine and practice. Otherwise, the Christian can just hop around whenever they are disciplined or find themselves in disagreement about the church's teaching. So firstly, "the True Church" cannot be one of those which denies that it is the "True Church". This step alone eliminates thousands of different churches which have larger or smaller numbers of followers and makes the number of "competitors" for our attention much more managable. Nobody who is looking for the True Church in any area of the world needs to consider the whole phone book. Most "churches" will deny, at least implicitly, that they are "the True Church".   

 

Good night, I'm losing my mind. Somebody help me. How in the world do you spell "managible"? I've tried several combinations and they all look wrong and "spell check" doesn't like them either.

 

3DOP

Edited April 21, 2014 by 3DOP

[Calm]

Manageable

[why me]

Recently, Tad Callister gave a CES devotional on The Blueprint of Christ's Church. https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/ces-devotionals/2014/01/what-is-the-blueprint-of-christs-church?lang=eng

Whatever faith you are, if someone was looking for "the true church" today, what do you think are elements or characteristics that shoud be found in the true Church of Christ, and why?

You take on it forgets about the book of mormon which is basically a second witness that christ lived. And then we have the restoration of the priesthood through the john the baptist and 3 of the original apostles. And a stress on chasity before marriage and obeying the commandments to the best of one's ability without wavering. This should all be apart of christ's church. And a stress on love both within the church community as existed at the time of Paul and love of one's neighbor as a fellow child of god. All taught as a touchstone in how members should live.

 

I know of no church that does this better than the lds church. And although I do love the catholic church, it bothers me that people go to confession, take the communion and continue with the same sin ad nauseum,  repeating confession when they feel like taking the eucharist. I don't remember it being that way when I was a good catholic boy being taught by nuns.

Edited April 21, 2014 by why me

[ChristKnight]

So babies who die without baptism now get into heaven anyway?

 

I see this in the Catechism:

 

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."⁶³ Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

 

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"⁶⁴ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

 

Now from this, we see that there really is no definitive dogma on where unbaptized infants go (presumably because there is no definitive revelation saying that they are or aren't saved, meanwhile it is known that baptism is necessary for salvation), however there is cause to hope that there is a way for them to be saved without baptism (and the document that paragraph 1261 comes from goes into reasons why).  Today, Catholics are free to believe that they indeed are saved into the eternal presence of God, or that they go to the Limbo of Infants.

 

I wonder how old the baptism of desire (not necessarily for infants) teaching is.

 

But anyway, my point was just that it is interesting that both Catholicism and Mormonism have teachings surrounding what happens to those that never hear the Gospel.

Edited April 21, 2014 by ChristKnight