Mormon Church Structure

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

Thanks for the response. So the President is not officially known as a Prophet? Is the President then to be considered an Apostle? Or is he the Presiding High Priest and an Apostle? If the actual titles of the President are higher than that of Prophet, as given in the D&C, then why do LDS still refer to him as The Prophet?

As I said before, the title of “The Prophet” is something that has grown out of popular culture. That is how people see someone in that position. And the Church does not object to that title being applied. But that is not strictly speaking his official title.

Also, there seems to be a disconnect between Peter being the chief Apostle and President of the original Quorum of 12 Apostles, and the current President of the LDS Church. Peter was one of the 12, and was president of the 12, and of the Church. But in the LDS Church, President Monson is not one of the Quorum of 12, but is more outside of it. Therefore it doesn’t really seem to be a continuation of the Primitive Church organization in that regard.

So if the Quorum of Twelve Apostles is a continuation of the original 12, then the First Presidency (adding 3 more Apostles) is more of a new, revealed practice?

That depends on whether the Quorum of the First Presidency was revealed in the primitive church or not. If it was, as some LDS commentators have believed, then the First Presidency in the LDS Church can be regarded as a restoration of the primitive Church. If it was not (as I believe) then it is a restoration from an earlier dispensation. In the Doctrine and covenants the Lord has revealed that the First Presidency existed in the days of Adam and the most ancient patriarchs. It is a restoration of that. The fact that it may not have existed in the primitive church does not present a problem, because in the LDS Church today there are three quorums that can act as the presiding authority of the Church: the First Presidency, the Twelve, and the Seventies. When the President of the Church dies the Twelve Apostles become the presiding officers of the Church, and the President of the Twelve becomes the de facto President of the Church. In the Primitive Church, assuming that the First Presidency did not exist, then the Twelve were the presiding officers, and Peter would have been the presiding officer of the whole church.

Do the current Apostles claim to be witnesses of the Resurrection of Christ?

They are officially designated by revelation as “especial witnesses of Jesus Christ”. How they become such witnesses is between them and the Lord. It is not something that they normally like to talk about. But I would say it is not much different from being witnesses of His resurrection.

What does this mean? What I meant was that the Apostles were actual, physical witnesses of the Resurrection.

Not correct. Paul was an Apostle; but he was not one of the original Twelve, and he was not a witness of the resurrection with the original Twelve. He became a witness afterwards.

As far as pastors and evangelists, the LDS Articles of Faith claim explicitly to continue the same organization as that of the Primitive Church, including pastors and evangelists, when these “offices” (can’t think of a better term) don’t exist in the LDS Church, and the office of Patriarch includes evangelist.

The New Testament does not explain what the office of an evangelist was, therefore it cannot contradict the LDS definition of evangelist = patriarch.

I agree that much isn’t known about the original Seventy, however we do know that there actually were seventy Seventies.

The Seventies formed a quorum. A quorum need not have a full membership for it to form a quorum. There is minimum number that needs to be met.

And I guess we don’t know if they had a binding/loosing power (the sealing power in the LDS Church).

They did not. The binding and loosing power was given only to the Twelve.

zerinus

 

[Stephen168]

**Were all men in the Primitive Church ordained as Aaronic and Melchizedek priests?**No, the aaronic priesthood was abolished by Christ and there never was a Melchizedek Priesthood

Genesis 14:18-20 - A King-Priest who suddenly appears with no genealogy; no parents or children gives Abram bread and wine; then blesses Abram.

 

[majick275]

As I said before, the title of “The Prophet” is something that has grown out of popular culture. That is how people see someone in that position. And the Church does not object to that title being applied. But that is not strictly speaking his official title.

this is incorrect…he is sustained by the membership of the LDS church as prophet, seer and revelator. to get a temple recomend one must (amongst other things) confirm their belief that he is the rightful holder of those titles (as well as the rest of the 15 apostles)

That depends on whether the Quorum of the First Presidency was revealed in the primitive church or not. If it was, as some LDS commentators have believed, then the First Presidency in the LDS Church can be regarded as a restoration of the primitive Church. If it was not (as I believe) then it is a restoration from an earlier dispensation. In the Doctrine and covenants the Lord has revealed that the First Presidency existed in the days of Adam and the most ancient patriarchs. It is a restoration of that. The fact that it may not have existed in the primitive church does not present a problem, because in the LDS Church today there are three quorums that can act as the presiding authority of the Church: the First Presidency, the Twelve, and the Seventies. When the President of the Church dies the Twelve Apostles become the presiding officers of the Church, and the President of the Twelve becomes the de facto President of the Church. In the Primitive Church, assuming that the First Presidency did not exist, then the Twelve were the presiding officers, and Peter would have been the presiding officer of the whole church.

and the 70? in your example would they not have been able to maintain authority in the church in the absence of apostles? and just who comprised the “first presidency” in Adam’s time?

They are officially designated by revelation as “especial witnesses of Jesus Christ”. How they become such witnesses is between them and the Lord. It is not something that they normally like to talk about. But I would say it is not much different from being witnesses of His resurrection.

their own statements seem to indicate otherwise. they certainly have not served with Christ during his earthly ministry and a you would be hard pressed to find ones that claim an experience like Paul’s

Not correct. Paul was an Apostle; but he was not one of the original Twelve, and he was not a witness of the resurrection with the original Twelve. He became a witness afterwards.

he did on fact witness Christ earthly ministry and he DID see the risen Christ for himself.

The New Testament does not explain what the office of an evangelist was, therefore it cannot contradict the LDS definition of evangelist = patriarch.

and argument form silence? please…the definition of evangelist was quite clear then.

 

[Erich]

The Twelve Apostles form a Quorum of whom there are always Twelve. There is never more than twelve in the Twelve!

So then, according to Mormon theology, the “Great Apostasy” occurred almost immediately (i.e. as if Jesus didn’t know what he was doing when he built His Church upon Peter the Rock in Matthew 16:18)? Because already in the early Church there were at least 5 apostles in addition to the Twelve!

From By What Authority:

Scripture shows that only the Apostles are “entrusted” with the care of the Gospel message:

St. Paul
“…they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised.”(Gal. 2:7)
“…in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” (2 Cor. 5:19)
“…in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.” (1 Tim. 1:11)

St. Timothy
“Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel.” (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:4)
“O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.” (1 Tim. 6:20)
“…guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.” (2 Tim. 1:14)

You may object at this point that St. Timothy was not an apostle. I will concede that he was not an “Apostle,” with a capital “A,” but you must concede that Scripture clearly calls St. Timothy an apostle, thereby attesting to his apostolic authority:

“Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… nor did we seek glory from men, whether from you or from others, though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ.” (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:6)

It is not only St. Timothy who is called an apostle by Sacred Scripture, but also St. Barnabus, Apollos, and St. Titus:

**St. Barnabus **
“But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out among the multitude…” (Acts 14:14)

Apollos
“I planted, Apollos watered… He who plants and he who waters are equal.” (1 Cor. 3:6, 8)
“I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren… For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death.” (1 Cor. 4:6,9)

The objection will be raised: Titus is nowhere in Scripture explicitly called an apostle. I reply, it is implicit in what kind of authority is accorded to the apostles. Scripture testifies that only apostles are given full authority. Compare what is said of St. Paul and St. Timothy (both of whom are called “apostles”) with what is said of St. Titus:

**St. Paul **
“…nor did we seek glory from men, whether from you or from others, though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ.” (1 Thess. 2:6)

**St. Timothy **
“As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine…” (1 Tim. 1:3)
“Command and teach these things.” (1 Tim. 4:11)
“Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.” (2 Tim. 2:14)

St. Titus
“This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you.” (Tit.1:5)
“Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you.” (Tit. 2:15)
“…our boasting before Titus has proved true. And his heart goes out all the more to you, as he remembers the obedience of you all, and the fear and trembling with which you received him.” (2 Cor. 7:14-15)

Scripture also shows that only the Apostles refer to the Gospel message as their own personal possession:
“…when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” (Rom. 2:16)
“Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ…” (Rom. 16:25)
“Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descended from David, as preached in my gospel.” (2 Tim. 2:8)
“Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… for our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.” (1 Thess. 1:1 & 5)
“Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel…” (2 Thess. 1:1 & 2:13-14)

 

[Finrock]

Belittle the Spalding theory if you would like to, but it is a better explanation than Joseph Smith ever provided. And of course the falsity of the Book of Mormon does not rest on whether or not the Spalding theory is true or false. The Book of Mormon has been shown to be false by modern scientific discoveries in archeology, genetics, linguistics and other branches of science. It’s absolutely proven beyond a shadow of doubt – it’s a 19th century creation which is a plagiarism of the Bible and other 19th century sources. Even B.H. Roberts understood that. Modern Mormons need to repent of their false God and accept the truth of the Trinity as found in the Bible and Church tradition.

Hi Catholic20064! You’ve been on a posting frenzy today. I’m seeing your name all over the place!

My first point is pretty minor, and I understand what you probably meant, but I think you have confused the connection between B.H. Roberts and View of the Hebrews, with Solomon Spaulding’s “Manuscript Found”. B.H. Roberts outlined the parallels of View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon in his essays, not Solomon Spaulding’s work.

Now, I know that in almost every website that is opposed to the LDS church you will find the claim that B.H. Roberts lost his faith and believed the book of Mormon to be a work of fiction, so I understand why you would believe it. But, did you know that this isn’t actually true? Yep, B.H. Roberts didn’t lose his faith in the Book of Mormon. Not that it is impossible for a General Authority to lose his testimony, many did, for instance, in 1838. However, there isn’t any reason to believe B.H. Roberts did. He maintained a strong testimony in the church and the Book of Mormon as witnessed by his writings and speeches in public and private. I just wanted to point this out to you.

The Spaulding theory started a long time ago and essentially rest on the presumption that Rigdon somehow “…conveyed the [Spaulding] manuscript to Joseph Smith without being detected, and then pretended to be converted when the missionaries brought the Book of Mormon to Kirtland in 1830” (Bushman, J.S. Rough Stone Rolling). Suffice it to say, the “downfall of the Spaulding theory begain in 1884 when - ‘Manuscript Found’ - still never published and subsequently lost - turned up in Hawaii and came into the hands of James Fairchild, president of Oberlin College. in an article on the Spaulding theory, Fairchild concluded that…evidence for any Spaulding manuscript coming into the hands of Rigdon and thence to Smith was tenuous. Although conservative in his judgment, Fairchild concluded that the theory did not hold water” (Bushman, J.S. Rough Stone Rolling). Fawn Brodie, a critical biographer of Joseph Smith, “…explicitly rebutted the Spaulding theory, noting chronological inconsistensies, dubious testimonies, and the absence of evidence for a link to Rigdon” (Bushman, J.S. Rough Stone Rolling).

I hope this post has been useful to you and to anyone else to dispel some of the misperceptions that exist about the Book of Mormon. Take care and be well, Catholic20064!

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[majick275]

So then, according to Mormon theology, the “Great Apostasy” occurred almost immediately (i.e. as if Jesus didn’t know what he was doing when he built His Church upon Peter the Rock in Matthew 16:18)? Because already in the early Church there were at least 5 apostles in addition to the Twelve!

From By What Authority:

the current LDS church has 15 ordained apostles

 

[Catholic20064]

Hi Catholic20064! You’ve been on a posting frenzy today. I’m seeing your name all over the place!

My first point is pretty minor, and I understand what you probably meant, but I think you have confused the connection between B.H. Roberts and View of the Hebrews, with Solomon Spaulding’s “Manuscript Found”. B.H. Roberts outlined the parallels of View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon in his essays, not Solomon Spaulding’s work.

Now, I know that in almost every website that is opposed to the LDS church you will find the claim that B.H. Roberts lost his faith and believed the book of Mormon to be a work of fiction, so I understand why you would believe it. But, did you know that this isn’t actually true? Yep, B.H. Roberts didn’t lose his faith in the Book of Mormon. Not that it is impossible for a General Authority to lose his testimony, many did, for instance, in 1838. However, there isn’t any reason to believe B.H. Roberts did. He maintained a strong testimony in the church and the Book of Mormon as witnessed by his writings and speeches in public and private. I just wanted to point this out to you.

The Spaulding theory started a long time ago and essentially rest on the presumption that Rigdon somehow “…conveyed the [Spaulding] manuscript to Joseph Smith without being detected, and then pretended to be converted when the missionaries brought the Book of Mormon to Kirtland in 1830” (Bushman, J.S. Rough Stone Rolling). Suffice it to say, the “downfall of the Spaulding theory begain in 1884 when - ‘Manuscript Found’ - still never published and subsequently lost - turned up in Hawaii and came into the hands of James Fairchild, president of Oberlin College. in an article on the Spaulding theory, Fairchild concluded that…evidence for any Spaulding manuscript coming into the hands of Rigdon and thence to Smith was tenuous. Although conservative in his judgment, Fairchild concluded that the theory did not hold water” (Bushman, J.S. Rough Stone Rolling). Fawn Brodie, a critical biographer of Joseph Smith, “…explicitly rebutted the Spaulding theory, noting chronological inconsistensies, dubious testimonies, and the absence of evidence for a link to Rigdon” (Bushman, J.S. Rough Stone Rolling).

I hope this post has been useful to you and to anyone else to dispel some of the misperceptions that exist about the Book of Mormon. Take care and be well, Catholic20064!

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Did you read the Criddle paper? There is even more evidence now than there was when he wrote that paper. That comes via the Jockers word study which claims there is a strong pattern of Spalding-Rigdon writing in the Book of Mormon:

llc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/23/4/465?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=jockers&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

It of course doesn’t prove the Spalding-Rigdon theory, but it gives it new legs and new reason to continue to investigate it. You can believe the “orthodox” historians if you like, but I would hardly call Bushman an unbiased source. Fawn Brodie didn’t have near as much evidence as we have today – she’s rather out of date.

 

[ParkerD]

Did you read the Criddle paper? There is even more evidence now than there was when he wrote that paper. That comes via the Jockers word study which claims there is a strong pattern of Spalding-Rigdon writing in the Book of Mormon:

llc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/23/4/465?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=jockers&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

It of course doesn’t prove the Spalding-Rigdon theory, but it gives it new legs and new reason to continue to investigate it. You can believe the “orthodox” historians if you like, but I would hardly call Bushman an unbiased source. Fawn Brodie didn’t have near as much evidence as we have today – she’s rather out of date.

Catholic20064,
I am supposing that you know that the Spalding writing is on the internet. Here are excerpts:

"As it is possible that in some future age this part of the Earth will be inhabited by Europeans & a history of its present inhabitants would be a valuable acquisition, I proceed to write one & deposit it in a box secured - - - - so that the ravages of time will have no effect upon it that you may know the author I will give a succinct account of his life and of the cause of his arrival which I have extracted from a manuscript which will be deposited with this history.

My name was Fabius The family name I sustain is Fabius, being descended from the illustrious general of that name. I was born at Rome & received my education under the tuition of a very Learned Master. At the time that Constantine arrived at that city and had overcome his enemies & was firmly seated on the throne of the Roman empire I was introduced to him as a young Gentleman of genius and learning & as being worthy of the favourable notice of his imperial majesty. He gave me the appointment of one of his secretaries, & such were the gracious intimations which he frequently gave me of his high approbation of my conduct that I was happy in my station.

One day he says to me Fabius you must go to Britain & carry an important - - - - to the general of our army there - - - - sail in a vessel & return when she returns. Preparation was made instantly and we sailed - - - The vessel laden with provisions for the army - - - Cloath – knives and other impliments for their use had now arrived near the coasts of Britain when a tremendous storm arose & drove us into the midst of the boundless Ocean. Soon the whole crew became lost & bewildered. They knew not the direction to the rising Sun or polar Star, for the heavens were covered with clouds; & darkness had spread her sable mantle over the face of the raging deep. Their minds were filled with consternation and despair. & unanimously agreed that What could we do? How be extricated from the insatiable jaws of a watery tomb? Then it was that we felt our absolute dependence on that Almighty & gracious Being who holds the winds & floods in - - - hands. From him alone could we expect deliverance. To him our most fervent desires assended. Prostrate & on bended nees we poured forth incessant Supplication & even Old Ocean appeared to sympathize in our distress by returning the echo of our vociferos cries & lamentations. After being driven five days with incridable velocity before the furious wind the storm abated in its violence. but still the wind blew strong in the strong as I now believe in the same direction. Doubtful whether the wind had not changed her point we gave the ship full sail & let her drive. On the sixth day after, the storm wholly subsided, the sun rose clear and the heavens once more appeared to smile. Inexpressible was the consternation of all the crew. they found themselves in the midst of a vast Ocean. No prospect of returning. All was lost. The wind blowing westwardly, & the presumption was that it had been blowing in that direction during the whole of the storm. No pen can paint the dolorous cries & lamentations of the poor mariners, for the loss of friends for the loss of everything they held most - - - - At length a Mariner stept - - - - the midst and proclaimed. Attend O friends & listen to my words. A voice from on high hath penetrated my soul & the inspiration of The Almighty hath bid me proclaim. Let your sails be wide spread & the gentle winds will soon waft you into a safe harbor. a Country where you will find hospitality. Quick as the lightnings flash joy sparkled in every countenance. A Hymn of Thanksgiving spontaneously burst forth from their lips.
…
A DESCRIPTION OF THE OHONS, & MANNER OF
PROCURING A LIVING.

I am now to describe A SOECIES nation who have but little resemblance to those to those innumerable tribes of savages who live along the coasts of the Atlantic. Their complexion, the form & construction of their bodies, their customs manners laws government & religion all demonstrate that they must have originated from some other nation & have but a very distant affinity with their savage neighbors. As to their persons they were taller on an average than I had ever seen in any nation, their bones were large limbs strait & shoulders broad. Their eyes rather small & sunk deep in the head. Their foreheads were prominent & the face below tapering in such a manner that the chin that was formed nearly to a point. As to their complexion it was bordering on an olive tho’ of a lighter shade. Their eyes were generally of a dark brown or black. Their hair of the same color, tho’ I have sometimes seen persons whose hair was of a reddish hue.

They clothed themselves in choath which was manufactured among themselves from the hair of the Mammoons & from Cotton, which was transported from the South west ward. The men wore shoes & long stockings wide trousers, a waistcoat & a garment with wide short sleaves, which came down to their nees, & in cold weather a cloak over the whole."

…