LDS structure

[bytebear]

10 hours ago, Tampasteve2 said:

Interesting, I was aware of the parish/county division naming in Louisiana, but I had not put together the ward division.

Yep, I think the church's use of wards was simply calling a congregational ward by the governmental ward it was in.   Nauvoo was set up like this since it was a self made city, and when the Saints moved to Utah, they followed suit setting up both religious and governmental geographic areas called wards.  Your bishop was also your town representative, since Utah (Deseret) was a planned city built from scratch, with Brigham Young as church leader and territorial governor, it makes sense.  So the term "ward" stuck, even though it has no religious meaning, but it is a lot easier to say than "congregation".  I guess they were making up for having such a long church name.

[Vort]

10 hours ago, Tampasteve2 said:

This makes sense. For some reason in the past I thought of it as a quick, maybe 10 year, time frame.

If the great apostasy didn't happen overnight, it seems to have happened very quickly. Maybe more than a decade, but probably not more than a generation. At the death of the last apostle (other than John, who had a special mission), the keys of the kingdom might well have been taken and the apostasy dated from that event. That would likely be early in the second century, if not toward the end of the first; I doubt the apostles were able to ordain any significant number of replacements as they began to be killed off.

[Guest]

On 2/23/2018 at 6:00 PM, Vort said:

If the great apostasy didn't happen overnight, it seems to have happened very quickly. Maybe more than a decade, but probably not more than a generation. At the death of the last apostle (other than John, who had a special mission), the keys of the kingdom might well have been taken and the apostasy dated from that event. That would likely be early in the second century, if not toward the end of the first; I doubt the apostles were able to ordain any significant number of replacements as they began to be killed off.

I believe definitions are in order (Yey!  Semantics).

If we define the great apostasy as the period of time that the priesthood was not found on the earth, then we have to say it happened after the events of the Book of Mormon since Moroni held the priesthood at least as late as 421 AD.  And who knows how long he tarried after that.  And who knows if there were no others unknown to Moroni who may have lived a bit longer.

But we can also define the great apostasy as the period where there was no authorized formal organization on the earth.  This would have been somewhat earlier and if bits and pieces of the Church were being persecuted and even executed, then how much is required to call it a formal organization?  The Twelve?  How many?  A stake level organization?  Possibly.  Where two or three are gathered together in the Lord's name?  Maybe, but I'm not really buying that one.

But these are all questions of degrees.  So, if this is the definition, then it is a gradual process.

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I believe definitions are in order (Yey!  Semantics).

If we define the great apostasy as the period of time that the priesthood was not found on the earth, then we have to say it happened after the events of the Book of Mormon since Moroni held the priesthood at least as late as 421 AD.  And who knows how long he tarried after that.  And who knows if there were no others unknown to Moroni who may have lived a bit longer.

But we can also define the great apostasy as the period where there was no authorized formal organization on the earth.  This would have been somewhat earlier and if bits and pieces of the Church were being persecuted and even executed, then how much is required to call it a formal organization?  The Twelve?  How many?  A stake level organization?  Possibly.  Where two or three are gathered together in the Lord's name?  Maybe, but I'm not really buying that one.

But these are all questions of degrees.  So, if this is the definition, then it is a gradual process.

Also worth considering is the status of the Nephite Twelve, who were not apostles but who functioned as virtual apostles to the Nephites. They acted under the authority of the Twelve in Jerusalem, and we have reason to believe that the structure of the Church endured in the Americas until around AD 200, probably later. The Church as an entity must have existed into the fourth century (remember that Mormon was born in 311), so we're talking more like a fourth-century apostasy. That's incredibly late, surely many centuries past the apostasy of the Jerusalem-based Church.

So what was the authority that the Nephites traced to? If Jesus' Church was in apostasy by the early second century (which seems all but certain), how did the Nephite Church operate for at least two centuries past that point? For the record, I don't have an answer.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Also worth considering is the status of the Nephite Twelve, who were not apostles but who functioned as virtual apostles to the Nephites. They acted under the authority of the Twelve in Jerusalem, and we have reason to believe that the structure of the Church endured in the Americas until around AD 200, probably later. The Church as an entity must have existed into the fourth century (remember that Mormon was born in 311), so we're talking more like a fourth-century apostasy. That's incredibly late, surely many centuries past the apostasy of the Jerusalem-based Church.

So what was the authority that the Nephites traced to? If Jesus' Church was in apostasy by the early second century (which seems all but certain), how did the Nephite Church operate for at least two centuries past that point? For the record, I don't have an answer.

I'm not familiar with the idea that they operated under the authority of the twelve in Jerusalem.  Where does that come from?

I don't know if it is implausible to consider a fourth-century apostasy.  In fact, a sixth century apostasy would confirm the 1260 day/year prophecy applying to the great apostasy until 1820 or 1829/1830.

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 10:45 AM, Carborendum said:

I'm not familiar with the idea that they operated under the authority of the twelve in Jerusalem.  Where does that come from?

I don't know if it is implausible to consider a fourth-century apostasy.  In fact, a sixth century apostasy would confirm the 1260 day/year prophecy applying to the great apostasy until 1820 or 1829/1830.

I believe it is the idea that the Twelve in Jerusalem are the Twelve directly to the Lord.  Under them are other twelve.  Each of these twelve are over a particular tribe (for example, the ones in America I believe are the ones assigned to the Tribe of Manasseh).  This does not mean they reported to the twelve in Jerusalem while on this earth (an almost impossibility at that time), but in the hierarchy of the hereafter, where there is order to everything, the twelve that served with the Lord in Jerusalem take precedence over all the other twelve apostles that have been set up.  Hence, those who are in the Americas were sent to the Nephites and are those judges over them, but they themselves (the nephrite twelve) will be judged by those twelve who were from Jerusalem.

[bytebear]

Hmm... I just assumed each "fold" would have their own set of 12 apostles.  We know of two folds whom Christ established, but there were other lost tribes who Christ visited, and I assumed he established His church with them as well, knowing all of them would eventually fall into apostasy or be destroyed by outside forces, needing a universal and singular restoration, one that could establish the church at a time prepared for global communication and growth.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 2/22/2018 at 5:16 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

Other Mormons may take issue with me on this;

Not sure why they would. I've never seen a mention of an ancient ecclesiastical order called a "ward".