Where is God's TRUE CHURCH?

[Squirt]

If they're teaching something other than what Jesus Christ taught, they're not His church.

I'm sorry, but you really are contradicting yourself. In a previous post you said:

I'm saying that a name doesn't mean anything. For example, I attend the Franklin Church of Christ. Located close-by is the Fourth Avenue Church of Christ. Many of their teachings and practices differ greatly from my church. Yet the words "church of christ" is on the sign outside of their building.

Are you saying that your Church is teaching what Jesus Christ taught but that the Fourth Avenue Church of Christ is not? In that case, is your Church Christ's true Church and in the Fourth Avenue Church of Christ not the true Church? If they are not both teaching the same doctrines, the doctrines taught by Jesus Christ and the Apostles, then they are not both teaching true doctrines. Hence, one is not true to its name (the [such and such] Church of Christ). If the name by which a Church is known doesn't matter, it should, because it should be an accurate representation of the doctrines it teaches.

 

[Bishka]

None of the sites you gave me give me any information. I mean, there's plenty of info about what the leadership does, why it's there and there are long biographies about these guys, but nothing explains the process. THIS SERIOUSLY BOTHERS ME.

What do you want to know? The process is just like Squirt said.

 

[Squirt]

None of the sites you gave me give me any information. I mean, there's plenty of info about what the leadership does, why it's there and there are long biographies about these guys, but nothing explains the process. THIS SERIOUSLY BOTHERS ME.

I'm sorry that it SERIOUSLY BOTHERS you. I guess I just don't understand why it is such a concern to you. I'll honestly do my best to help give you an answer you'll find satisfactory, but the process certainly isn't anything that we're trying to hide. It's a simple process of faith, prayer and divine inspiration.

When a member of the Quorum of the Twelve dies, the others meet together and pray for guidance. We believe that they are led to consider the names of certain outstanding men whom the Lord would like to see appointed to the vacant position. After thought and prayer, the Holy Ghost confirms to them that the individual they have unanimously chosen is the correct one. The person is then invited to accept the calling, and is set apart by the laying on of hands by the other Apostles. It is by their authority, that they extend the keys of authority to him. Essentially, it is the same process by which the ancient Apostles were chosen, at least as long as this process continued (which wasn't long).

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I'm gonna try this one last time . I was simply pointing out that the name of you denomination does not mean anything. My church of Christ is the true church, but there will always be another congregation who call themselves the church of Christ who are teaching or practicing things not found in the Bible.

One Baptist church could be doing everything as they are supposed too, but another is not. Same thing goes for every denomination.

The point is that you should look at what's inside of a church, not what's on the sign out front. At least I think that's my point...I'm gonna go get some sleep now.

In Protestantism, you're right, to an extent. While the name of a church, in terms of their denomination, does give one some idea about what they teach, many Protestant churches of the same denomination teach totally different things. Two Baptist churches right down the street from one another may teach very different things. That's one the problems with Protestantism...Christians in the same denomination, even in the same church, can't even agree on what they believe.
In non-Protestant churches, however, that's simply not the case (e.g. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses). Churches such as these have a definitive, specific set of doctrines that one who is part of the church must acknowledge as truth...just "believing in Jesus" doesn't get you into the club.
In that way, unity is preserved within the church. It's a concept that Protestantism simply doesn't grasp.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[dorcas3000]

When a member of the Quorum of the Twelve dies, the others meet together and pray for guidance.

One thing I don't understand is why there are 12. Was this number a 'revelation from God' or was it just decided to mimic the 12 disciples? Because...there were more than 12 apostles, unless Mormon doctrine teaches otherwise.

We believe that they are led to consider the names of certain outstanding men whom the Lord would like to see appointed to the vacant position.

What I'm wondering here is-is it a give in that the spot will be filled? How long do they pray about/consider this? Is it kind of like in the Catholic church, when the pope dies they have a council and a methodology that decides this? Do they cast lots ?(after all, that's what the apostles did...lol jk) What does 'outstanding' mean? A good record of leadership? A good religious person? Powerful insights into scripture? And the just men thing, I read that one of the 'apostles' said that women were never apostles because that's how God wanted it. Are these decisions made, therefore, based on past trends? How open is the council to 'new' revelations from God?

After thought and prayer, the Holy Ghost confirms to them that the individual they have unanimously chosen is the correct one. The person is then invited to accept the calling, and is set apart by the laying on of hands by the other Apostles. It is by their authority, that they extend the keys of authority to him.

I'm also curious what the 'new apostle's' role in this is. Do they sit back and wait for the 'job offering'? Are they called by God personally or are they called by God only through the council? (For example, Paul was called by God before he was confirmed by the rest of the apostles. In fact, he was already doing some sort of ministry.)

Essentially, it is the same process by which the ancient Apostles were chosen, at least as long as this process continued (which wasn't long).

I'm missing where this is the process that the ancient Apostles were chosen. They were originally hand picked by Jesus himself. Paul was not chosen in this way either. The only example I can find, in Acts at least, is electing Mattias to replace Judas, because it was to fulfill prophesy. Feel free to correct me here.

 

[Squirt]

One thing I don't understand is why there are 12. Was this number a 'revelation from God' or was it just decided to mimic the 12 disciples?

There are twelve Apostles in the Quorum today because there were twelve in the Quorum anciently. We didn't just arbitrarily pick the number twelve because it coincided with the practice in the early Church. We believe it to be the organization established by Christ and restored by Christ.

Because...there were more than 12 apostles, unless Mormon doctrine teaches otherwise.

I'm not aware of there being more than twelve who acted as an authoritative body at any one time. There were, of course, thousands who called themselves Jesus' disciples, but the New Testament contains many, many instances where Jesus specifically spoke of "the twelve," meaning none other than His twelve appointed Apostles.

What I'm wondering here is-is it a give in that the spot will be filled? How long do they pray about/consider this? Is it kind of like in the Catholic church, when the pope dies they have a council and a methodology that decides this?

Yes, any vacancy will always be filled. The time frame varies. I would assume that the actual decision is made relatively quickly, perhaps within a matter of a day or so after they convene. It is generally not announced to the general Church membership until the next Semi-annual General Conference, though. I really don't know enough about the Catholic methodology to feel comfortable commenting on it, so I hope you'll understand if I don't try to compare the two. (There's no white smoke in Salt Lake City when the decision is made, though. )

What does 'outstanding' mean? A good record of leadership? A good religious person? Powerful insights into scripture? And the just men thing, I read that one of the 'apostles' said that women were never apostles because that's how God wanted it.

Oustanding in all of the ways you mentioned. We believe that God's roles for men and women are different but of equal value. In our Church, only men hold the Priesthood (which is the power and authority to act in God's name). Women do, however, hold leadership positions. They also speak and pray before the entire congregation.

Are these decisions made, therefore, based on past trends? How open is the council to 'new' revelations from God?

The Quorum is entirely open to new revelations from God. That is the whole point of a Church that is based upon a belief that the Heavens are not closed and that God is not through talking to us. As I said before, though, all new revelation initially comes through the President of the Church and is subsequently approved by the Quorum as a whole. None of the individual Apostles will ever receive a revelation for and in behalf of the Church as a whole. When the President of the Church (i.e. the Prophet) dies, the keys of authority pass to them as a united body and they collectively appoint the successor to the deceased Prophet. Traditionally, this has always been the senior Apostle (in years of service, not in age). This is not cast in concrete, but has always been the case.

I'm also curious what the 'new apostle's' role in this is. Do they sit back and wait for the 'job offering'? Are they called by God personally or are they called by God only through the council?

Most of the Apostles have jobs in the secular community before being called to the Apostleship. One of our current Apostles was previously a noted cardiovascular surgeon, another was a Utah Supreme Court Justice and another was a nuclear engineer. The two most recently called (just six months ago) were the Senior Vice President for Lufthansa Airlines and the President of BYU-Idaho. So, no, I don't think any of them were just sitting back waiting for the call when it came. They are called by God through revelation to His previously appointed Prophet and Apostles. Since the Church has a lay ministry, it would be safe to say that all of them were serving in other positions of Church leadership at the same time as they pursued their various careers. Church Bishops and State Presidents (presiding over the LDS equivalent of parishes and diocese) are non-paid positions which a person fills while supporting a family through a non-Church related career.

I'm missing where this is the process that the ancient Apostles were chosen. They were originally hand picked by Jesus himself. Paul was not chosen in this way either. The only example I can find, in Acts at least, is electing Mattias to replace Judas, because it was to fulfill prophesy. Feel free to correct me here.

The process by which Matthias was chosen and ordained is probably representative of the normal pattern in the ancient Church. The fact that Paul's ordination is not recorded does not mean that it did not take place. We believe that it did. Additionally, Barnabas was called to the Apostleship as was Jesus' brother, James. We believe the actual ordination process was the same in each instance, although Paul's conversion and subsequent role as an evangelist was definitely unique.

 

[dorcas3000]

There are twelve Apostles in the Quorum today because there were twelve in the Quorum anciently.

an ancient Quorum? *is confused*

I'm not aware of there being more than twelve who acted as an authoritative body at any one time. There were, of course, thousands who called themselves Jesus' disciples, but the New Testament contains many, many instances where Jesus specifically spoke of "the twelve," meaning none other than His twelve appointed Apostles.

Paul was not in the original twelve - was he an apostle? If he was (and I consider him an apostle), did he replace someone?

The Quorum is entirely open to new revelations from God. That is the whole point of a Church that is based upon a belief that the Heavens are not closed and that God is not through talking to us. As I said before, though, all new revelation initially comes through the President of the Church and is subsequently approved by the Quorum as a whole. None of the individual Apostles will ever receive a revelation for and in behalf of the Church as a whole. When the President of the Church (i.e. the Prophet) dies, the keys of authority pass to them as a united body and they collectively appoint the successor to the deceased Prophet. Traditionally, this has always been the senior Apostle (in years of service, not in age). This is not cast in concrete, but has always been the case.

I'm assuming this 'senior Apostle' extends from Peter's apostleship. He's my most likely candidate to be the original senior apostle, that is. If that is the case, what is your take on the Gentile church, since this revelation did NOT originate through Peter, it originated through Paul? Peter in fact took awhile before he accepted this revelation. If I am completely wrong in my assumptions, I'm curious where this idea comes from and how you back it up biblically.

Most of the Apostles have jobs in the secular community before being called to the Apostleship. One of our current Apostles was previously a noted cardiovascular surgeon, another was a Utah Supreme Court Justice and another was a nuclear engineer. The two most recently called (just six months ago) were the Senior Vice President for Lufthansa Airlines and the President of BYU-Idaho. So, no, I don't think any of them were just sitting back waiting for the call when it came. They are called by God through revelation to His previously appointed Prophet and Apostles. Since the Church has a lay ministry, it would be safe to say that all of them were serving in other positions of Church leadership at the same time as they pursued their various careers. Church Bishops and State Presidents (presiding over the LDS equivalent of parishes and diocese) are non-paid positions which a person fills while supporting a family through a non-Church related career.

My question was more along the lines of, do they know they're being considered for apostleship by the council? Do these men recieve individual revelations from God prior to being confirmed by the council? Or are they completely clueless until they get the phonecall from the senior apostle?

The process by which Matthias was chosen and ordained is probably representative of the normal pattern in the ancient Church. The fact that Paul's ordination is not recorded does not mean that it did not take place. We believe that it did. Additionally, Barnabas was called to the Apostleship as was Jesus' brother, James. We believe the actual ordination process was the same in each instance, although Paul's conversion and subsequent role as an evangelist was definitely unique.

So....it is an assumption that this method was used in every case? And additionally, Barnabas and James were not in the original twelve. Did they replace people?

 

[Squirt]

an ancient Quorum? *is confused*

Okay, use a different word if that one confuses you. How about group? I can go with that. The twelve Apostles assumed leadership of the Church after Christ's death. Can we agree on that point?

Paul was not in the original twelve - was he an apostle? If he was (and I consider him an apostle), did he replace someone?

I'd say yes. The fact that we don't have the particulars of his ordinantion, or Barnabus' or James' does not, in and of itself, really prove anything. Jesus Christ called twelve individuals to this position and they are consistently referred to as "the twelve." He stopped with twelve, even though He obviously continued to seek disciples. He also gave them specific responsibilities and roles to fill.

I'm assuming this 'senior Apostle' extends from Peter's apostleship. He's my most likely candidate to be the original senior apostle, that is. If that is the case, what is your take on the Gentile church, since this revelation did NOT originate through Peter, it originated through Paul? Peter in fact took awhile before he accepted this revelation. If I am completely wrong in my assumptions, I'm curious where this idea comes from and how you back it up biblically.

You're right. We believe that Peter was the senior Apostle. Christ gave him all of the keys of authority when He said, "And upon this rock I shall build my Church..." We follow the same tradition.

My question was more along the lines of, do they know they're being considered for apostleship by the council? Do these men recieve individual revelations from God prior to being confirmed by the council? Or are they completely clueless until they get the phonecall from the senior apostle?

I can't really say. My guess -- and that's the best I can do -- is to say that they don't know in advance, at least not through official channels. It's not something a person bids on or campaigns for or anything like that. On the other hand, I think it would be safe to assume that they have a close enough relationship with God that He may very well prepare them in some way in advance of the official "phone call" (if that's what happens). Maybe another Latter-day Saint knows something about some of their individual situations I don't.

So....it is an assumption that this method was used in every case? And additionally, Barnabas and James were not in the original twelve. Did they replace people?

Yes and yes. We believe that it was Christ's intention that there always be twelve Apostles leading His Church. In Ephesians 4:11-14, Paul is recorded as having said, "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 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: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive..."

In other words, not only did Jesus appoint prophets and apostles, this organization was to exist until all came into the unity of faith in and knowledge of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Without prophets and apostles (and the other offices named), we would be at a loss as to what we should believe. We would be at the whims of men, left to interpret the doctrines they taught without knowing for sure how they should be understood and interpreted.

From my perspective, the true Church must operate under the same authority and organization as the Church Jesus Christ himself established. He built His Church on a foundation of prophets and apostles. These men alone held the authority to officiate in the ordinances of His gospel after His death. From Paul's statement, we learn that this organization was intended to last until we all come in the unity of the faith. The true Church, therefore, cannot exist without prophetic guidance and apostolic authority. Apostolic authority cannot exist in the absence of apostles, and prophesy ceases to exist without a living prophet. To assume that it can is, in my opinion, flawed reasoning.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

Are you saying that your Church is teaching what Jesus Christ taught but that the Fourth Avenue Church of Christ is not? In that case, is your Church Christ's true Church and in the Fourth Avenue Church of Christ not the true Church?

Yes! Thank you. I believe that my church is following strictly what's in the Bible, but the other church (I'm gonna stop saying names) isn't.

 

[Squirt]

Yes! Thank you. I believe that my church is following strictly what's in the Bible, but the other church (I'm gonna stop saying names) isn't.

So your Church is "the true Church." How many other "true Churches" are there? Keep in mind that if they are different denominations, they are teaching at least some different doctrines from each other.

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

Keep in mind that if they are different denominations, they are teaching at least some different doctrines from each other.

Not neccesarily. There's got to be a few "Baptist" churches out there that don't use musical instruments in their worship service. I'm sure there's some Nazarene churches that don't eat a huge meal inside their auditorium every other Sunday. I know that not everyone believes it is wrong to use musical instruments/eat in the church, but that's another thread. There's always going to be a supposedly methodist church that is more like a completely differant denomination. Do you see where i'm going with this? The name does not always have to matter.

I'm just going to say that the true church is one that follows God's word completely and exactly to the best of their ability, and I'll leave it at that. I'm sorry if I haven't been perfectly clear!

 

[LaSal]

Mono-theism is relatively new as time frames go. Actual historical credit goes to Abraham as the father of belief in one God. Prior to that time there is not historical record, what we have is based upon Jewish/Islam to Christian history. So is the current beliefs cultural ledgens that have been cannonizes, or as Voltaire indicated: If God did not exist, man would have created him.

 

[Squirt]

Not neccesarily.

Of course necessarily! Baptists don't have all of the same doctrines as Methodists do, and Methodists don't have all of the same Doctrines that Lutherans do, and Lutherans don't have all of the same doctrines that Presbyterians do. If they all had exactly the same doctrines, they would be the same Church.

Do you see where i'm going with this?

Around in circles?

I'm just going to say that the true church is one that follows God's word completely and exactly to the best of their ability

I'm sorry but "completely and exactly is one thing." "To the best of their ability" may, in fact, be something else entirely.

 

[LaSal]

Mono-theism is relatively new as time frames go. Actual historical credit goes to Abraham as the father of belief in one God. Prior to that time there is not historical record, what we have is based upon Jewish/Islam to Christian history. So is the current beliefs cultural ledgens that have been cannonizes, or as Voltaire indicated: If God did not exist, man would have created him.

 

[Squirt]

LaSal,

I've heard some pretty unusual religious combinations, but Stoic-LDS has got to be one of the odder ones. Would you mind explaining how Stoicism and Mormonism fit together and what it is about each of these belief systems that you feel is insufficient without the other? Thanks. (And welcome to the forum.)

I see you're from Central Utah. Would that be near the LaSal Mountains?

Squirt

 

[LaSal]

I was from around La Sal, however I've moved to central utah recently.

 

[LaSal]

The stoic's taught, among other things, that doing right is the correct thing to do, simply because it is the right thing to do. Much like stage 6 of Kolberg's stages of moral development. The traditional Christian approach since Cain killed Able and Enoch time has been the reward system, Classical Conditioning if you will. Prior to that time the teaching was just that, doing what is right simply it is the right thing to do. The rewards system provides a multiple arena of actions based upon the wrong motivators.

 

[the truth be with us]

what is Stoicism lds i this is one that i haven't heard of?

 

[the truth be with us]

how was it founded?

 

[Squirt]

The stoic's taught, among other things, that doing right is the correct thing to do, simply because it is the right thing to do. Much like stage 6 of Kolberg's stages of moral development. The traditional Christian approach since Cain killed Able and Enoch time has been the reward system, Classical Conditioning if you will. Prior to that time the teaching was just that, doing what is right simply it is the right thing to do. The rewards system provides a multiple arena of actions based upon the wrong motivators.

I'm assuming that you are philosophically a Stoic then, but accept the religious doctrines of Mormonism. Would that be correct?