LDS structure

[Guest]

Coming from the RCC I am used to a more or less defined ecclesiastical structure. Parish, Diocese, Priest, Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal, Pope, etc. The structure of the LDS Church seems a little confusing from the outside. I think I understand that the basic structure is a ward or stake and then the Temple District with the wards being overseen by a Bishop? But could it be explained on the differences between Ward, Stake, District, Temple District, Mission, etc.?

[estradling75]

Hi @Tampasteve2  welcome to the forums.

 

You have touched on three difference structure of the church each performing a different function... So it is not surprising you are a bit confused.

The three things are

Local Church Serivces

Local Temple Services

And Local Missionary Services

All these are defined geographically and depend on where you live

When we go to church on Sunday we go to a Ward lead by a Bishop.  Multiple Ward are organized into Stakes Lead by a Stake President (For units to small to fully organize they are called Branches instead of Wards and they can be part of a Stake or if things are too small for a Stake then they are into Districts)

We also have Temples.. Temple worship is not a Sunday thing and Temples are much rarer thus Many Stakes/Districts are inside a Temple District.  This Temple district is only really important for those called to serve in the temple.

Missions are for the called missionaries (aka Black Tags) it defines their area of service.

Thus I am a member.  I live with in a Ward, which is part of a Stake.  Those define my local Leadership.  If I get called to serve in the Temple I will serve in the Temple whose District I am in (usually the Closest).  If my next door neighbor wants to take the Missionary discussions the Missionaries that they talk to will be ones from the Mission that is over my area.

I hope this helps?

 

[NeuroTypical]

Hi tampasteve2!

Here are two resources:

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/topic/organizational-structure-of-the-church

https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2013-02-1040-how-the-church-is-organized?lang=eng

[Guest]

Ah, perfect, thank you! 

[Jane_Doe]

CONGREGATION ORGANIZATION:

Your local congregation = your ward.  Wards are organized/assigned geographically-- you don't 'shop' around for a ward you like, but go to the same one as rest of the people in your area.   The bishop is the head of your ward, he serves in that calling for ~5 years, and then someone else takes the mantle.  The bishop has lots of helpers, including his counselors, and each organization is your ward (like the men's groups, women's group, etc).  

Multiple wards (8-12ish) make up a stake.  It is headed by the Stake President.  

The ultimate head of the Church is President Nelson, our Prophet, who works under Christ.  He is assisted by his counselors and Quorum of the Twelve apostles.  

 

MISSIONS:

Mission organization doesn't particularly affect anyone but the missionaries themselves.  A mission consists of a large geographic area that the missionaries are assigned to (like the Greater Miami Area).  It's headed by the Mission President.  Individual missionaries will serve in a ward for a while, and then are transferred to a different ward within the mission area.  "Districts" are mini-areas within the larger mission area.  

 

TEMPLES:

The temple is headed by the Temple President.  Feel free to go to whichever temple your would like.   

Edited February 22, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Jane_Doe]

Another important organization note: no one LDS in your local area gets paid for their church service.  Everyone has a normal day job to bring home the bacon.  Almost everyone in the congregation volunteers their time and talents help making the ward run in different capacities.  A person will serve in one capacity for a while, and then a different one for a while.  For example, the bishop of my congregation had the day job of managing a Burger King.  He served as bishop for a few years, and then it was another man's turn (this guy's day job was working at a PR office).  The former bishop (Mr. Burger King manager), then served as Assistant Nursery Teacher for little bit, and then taught one of the adult Sunday Schools.  

Edited February 22, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[MrShorty]

I don't know if it will add anything to this discussion, but, having served a mission a predominantly RCC region, I learned that our wards (larger) and branches (smaller) are roughly equivalent to a Catholic parish, and our stakes (larger) and districts (smaller) are roughly equivalent to a diocese. There are a couple of additional layers between stake/district and church headquarters, but most of us average people will interact with the church mostly on those two levels. That explanation seemed to help people we talked to, so maybe it will help you, too.

[Vort]

Here is my understanding of the matter.

The fundamental unit of the Church (and of eternity) is called a family, and normally consists of a husband, a wife, their children, and any "extended family" (grandparents, siblings, etc.) that may live with them. The president of the family is the husband, who presides with his wife. To clear up confusion on this point, I cite The Family: A Proclamation to the World, which states:

Quote

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.

In an ideal situation, the husband and father holds the Priesthood, thus providing Priesthood leadership at the most basic level of organization. Note that the husband need not hold the office of high priest unless he has an administrative calling in the Church that requires this. Simply being a (Melchizedek) Priesthood holder at the fundamental office of elder is sufficient for the man to fulfill all the duties of his position of service to his family; the specific office is irrelevant. (In contrast, all administrative units of the Church must be led by a man who holds the office of high priest or an office that encompasses that of high priest, including patriarch, seventy, and apostle. Two exceptions are noted below.)

The local congregation of families and individuals is called a ward, terminology that I believe originated in the wards that the city of Nauvoo was divided into. (Technically speaking, a ward is a geographic area that includes both the members and the non-members, but the term is usually used to refer to the congregants.) The leader or presiding high priest of the ward is called the bishop, a term taken from his position not only as the president of the ward, but as the president of the ward's Aaronic Priesthood priest quorum (who is called "bishop").

Six to ten or so wards form a stake, which is sort of the fundamental administrative unit of the Church. The leader or presiding high priest of the stake is called, unsurprisingly, the stake president. He is also the president of the stake high priest quorum -- as he must be, since he's the "presiding high priest" over the stake.

Missions are a bit of a different thing*. They cover geographic areas, like stakes, but are somewhat independent from the stakes. Usually, a mission is associated with one or more stakes, and missionaries within the mission are assigned to work in wards within those stakes. The leader (or presiding high priest) of a mission is called -- you guessed it -- a mission president. The mission normally consists of the president and his wife, his counselors, and all the missionaries assigned to that mission.

*In areas where stakes are not organized, the local Church membership is also under the auspices of the mission president, who functions as a de facto stake president for the members in his mission. When a location is organized under a mission rather than a stake, the local congregations are called branches** and are led by a branch president, who must hold the Priesthood but need not be a high priest. The branch president functions as a virtual bishop in his branch, including directing the Aaronic Priesthood activities, counseling members, receiving tithes, and I believe conducting temple recommend interviews. The branches in an area are organized into one of several administrative units called districts, led by a district president who likewise must hold the Priesthood but need not be a high priest. The office of high priest is thus specific to stakes; this is the reason individual ward congregations do not have their own high priest quorums, as they have their own elders quorum and Aaronic Priesthood quorums. The high priest quorum exists at the stake level, not the ward level. When a ward's high priests meet, they normally do so as a ward "group", with one among them appointed by the stake president as the group leader.

**Note that branches can also exist in stakes. A stake branch is a congregation, usually pretty small, that lacks sufficient Melchizedek Priesthood holders to organize into a regular ward. A dependent branch is a branch that is affiliated with a specific ward and normally draws much of its leadership from that ward. Dependent branches are usually created when there are far-flung areas in the stake where the members have difficulty traveling in to the regular wards. An independent branch in a stake is typically also in a remote area of the stake, but has enough Melchizedek Priesthood holders to staff its own leadership needs. I believe that the branch presidents in stake branches are high priests. (Don't quote me on any of this.)

Stakes and missions are grouped into an area, which is a region of the world, such as Europe or North America West. The leader or presiding high priest of the area is called **drum roll** an area president, and is usually appointed from among the full-time General Authorities of the Church known as "the Seventy". Stakes are often grouped into ad hoc groups for purposes of training, televised meetings, and such, but these are for convenience and not normal administrative units.

The membership in all the areas of the world together form the kingdom of God or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose (earthly) leader or presiding high priest is called the Church president, often just the Prophet. Today, that man is Russell M. Nelson.

EDIT: I didn't mention temple districts or the temple presidency. JAG gives a good brief overview below. I'll just add that temple districts are not part of the hierarchical organization. They, like missions, are generally more of a service to Church members and others. A stake is normally assigned to a temple, and all the stakes and other geographical areas assigned to a given temple are in that temple's district. Though the temple president has no ecclesiastical authority over members, he does oversee the temple and everything that goes on therein, and he has full authority to deny someone entrance to the temple as he sees fit. (Though I have never heard of a temple president denying entrance to a holder of a valid temple recommend. But he could.)

Edited February 22, 2018 by Vort

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

Here is my understanding of the matter.

The fundamental unit of the Church (and of eternity) is called a family, and normally consists of a husband, a wife, their children, and any "extended family" (grandparents, siblings, etc.) that may live with them. The president of the family is the husband, who presides with his wife. To clear up confusion on this point, I cite The Family: A Proclamation to the World, which states:

In an ideal situation, the husband and father holds the Priesthood, thus providing Priesthood leadership at the most basic level of organization. Note that the husband need not hold the office of high priest unless he has an administrative calling in the Church that requires this. Simply being a (Melchizedek) Priesthood holder at the fundamental office of elder is sufficient for the man to fulfill all the duties of his position of service to his family; the specific office is irrelevant. (In contrast, all administrative units of the Church must be led by a man who holds the office of high priest or an office that encompasses that of high priest, including patriarch, seventy, and apostle. Two exceptions are noted below.)

The local congregation of families and individuals is called a ward, terminology that I believe originated in the wards that the city of Nauvoo was divided into. The leader or presiding high priest of the ward is called the bishop, a term taken from his position not only as the president of the ward, but as the president of the ward's Aaronic Priesthood priest quorum (who is called "bishop").

Six to ten or so wards form a stake, which is sort of the fundamental administrative unit of the Church. The leader or presiding high priest of the stake is called, unsurprisingly, the stake president. He is also the president of the stake high priest quorum -- as he must be, since he's the "presiding high priest" over the stake.

Missions are sort of a different thing. They cover geographic areas, like stakes, but are somewhat independent from the stakes. Usually, a mission is associated with one or more stakes, and missionaries within the mission are associated with wards within those stakes. The leader (or presiding high priest) of a mission is called -- you guessed it -- a mission president. The mission normally consists of the president and his wife, his counselors, and all the missionaries assigned to that mission.

(In areas where stakes are not organized, the local Church membership is also under the auspices of the mission president, who functions as a de facto stake president for the members in his mission. When a location is organized under a mission rather than a stake, the local congregations are called branches and are led by a branch president, who must hold the Priesthood but need not be a high priest. The branches in an area are organized into one of several administrative units called districts, led by a district president who likewise must hold the Priesthood but need not be a high priest. The office of high priest is thus specific to stakes; this is the reason individual ward congregations do not have their own high priest quorums, as they have their own elders quorum and Aaronic Priesthood quorums. The high priest quorum exists at the stake level, not the ward level. When a ward's high priests meet, they normally do so as a ward "group", with one among them appointed by the stake president as the group leader.)

Stakes and missions are grouped into an area, which is a region of the world, such as Europe or North America West. The leader or presiding high priest of the area is called **drum roll** an area president, and is usually appointed from among the full-time General Authorities of the Church known as "the Seventy". Stakes are often grouped into ad hoc groups for purposes of training, televised meetings, and such, but these are for convenience and not normal administrative units.

The membership in all the areas of the world together form the kingdom of God or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose leader or presiding high priest is called the Church president, often just the Prophet. Today, that man is Russell M. Nelson.

 

43 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I don't know if it will add anything to this discussion, but, having served a mission a predominantly RCC region, I learned that our wards (larger) and branches (smaller) are roughly equivalent to a Catholic parish, and our stakes (larger) and districts (smaller) are roughly equivalent to a diocese. There are a couple of additional layers between stake/district and church headquarters, but most of us average people will interact with the church mostly on those two levels. That explanation seemed to help people we talked to, so maybe it will help you, too.

A generalized summary of the rough equivalent (there are major differences, of course) of the RCC and LDS episcopal polities are as follows:

RCC -> LDS

1.) All power come from Christ -> same thing.

2.) Episcopate led by the Bishop of Rome having primacy - > Led by the First Presidency with the President of the Church (called the Prophet) having primacy and his appointed first and second counselors (there are always 3 people in a Presidency).

3.) College of Cardinals elect the Pope - >  Quorum of 12 Apostles elect the Prophet.

4.) Archidiocese/Metropolitans led by the Archbishop - Areas led by the Area President (who also has 2 counselors). 

5.) Diocese led by the Bishop - Stakes led by the Stake President (with 2 counselors)

6.) Parish led by the Parish Priest - Wards led by the Bishop (with 2 counselors)

 

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, Tampasteve2 said:

Coming from the RCC I am used to a more or less defined ecclesiastical structure. Parish, Diocese, Priest, Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal, Pope, etc. The structure of the LDS Church seems a little confusing from the outside. I think I understand that the basic structure is a ward or stake and then the Temple District with the wards being overseen by a Bishop? But could it be explained on the differences between Ward, Stake, District, Temple District, Mission, etc.?

Here's how I usually conceive of it, ecclesiastically (although I should note I don't have a Catholic background):

Catholic Parish = LDS "Ward"

Catholic Diocese = LDS "Stake"

Catholic Priest = LDS Bishop (presides over an LDS ward)

Catholic Bishop = LDS "Stake President" (presides over an LDS Stake)

Catholic Archbishop = LDS "Seventy" (administers a collection of LDS stakes known as an "Area" and, in that capacity, will also be called an "Area President".)  (A "Seventy" is also a member of a group called a "Quorum of Seventy" which, confusingly enough, almost never has exactly seventy members.)

Catholic Cardinal = LDS "Apostle" (there are twelve who, acting together, form a governing council over the entire church)

Catholic Pope = LDS "Prophet, Seer and Revelator", aka "President" or "Presiding High Priest"

Onto this rough equivalence, overlay the following:

LDS "Mission":  This has two roles.  First and fundamentally, it is a geographical unit that administers all of the Mormon missionaries serving in a particular area.  These missionaries generally have no ecclesiastical authority over rank-and-file church members; but they should be working with and in support of members.  And so mission boundaries will typically be drawn to include a fixed number of stakes, and you might see the local "mission president" offering sermons at a "stake conference".  Second--in areas where there are not enough Mormons to warrant the organization of a full-fledged ward or stake, local congregations of members (called "branches" and overseen by a "branch president") will be administered through the mission rather than through a stake.  

LDS "Temple":  An LDS temple is a special house of worship that Mormons may visit as their own schedules permit to participate in specialized rituals not performed elsewhere.  It is overseen by a "temple president".  Sometimes, individual congregations will agree to all go to the temple together at the same time (a "ward temple day" or "stake temple day").  To prevent overcrowding, each temple has its own "district" and congregations within a particular temple district will have their "ward temple days" at that particular temple.  (Though as individuals, if we feel like attending a particular temple on a particular day, we are free to do so whether or not we happen to live in that temple's district.)  Also, if a temple is short-staffed, the temple administrator (or "Temple President") will first look to the congregations within that temple's district to fill those staffing needs.  Temple presidents, like mission presidents, see themselves as playing a supporting role to local congregations and may be found offering sermons at stake conferences; but they don't really wield ecclesiastical authority over church members.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[NeuroTypical]

On-topic joke:

The Pope is infallible, when speaking ex-cathedra, but nobody believes it.

The LDS prophet is fallible, even when speaking in general conference, but nobody believes it.

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Here's how I usually conceive of it, ecclesiastically (although I should note I don't have a Catholic background):

Catholic Parish = LDS "Ward"

Catholic Diocese = LDS "Stake"

Catholic Priest = LDS Bishop (presides over an LDS ward)

Catholic Bishop = LDS "Stake President" (presides over an LDS Stake)

Catholic Archbishop = LDS "Seventy" (administers a collection of LDS stakes known as an "Area" and, in that capacity, will also be called an "Area President".)  (A "Seventy" is also a member of a group called a "Quorum of Seventy" which, confusingly enough, almost never has exactly seventy members.)

Catholic Cardinal = LDS "Apostle" (there are twelve who, acting together, form a governing council over the entire church)

Catholic Pope = LDS "Prophet, Seer and Revelator", aka "President" or "Presiding High Priest"

Onto this rough equivalence, overlay the following:

LDS "Mission":  This has two roles.  First and fundamentally, it is a geographical unit that administers all of the Mormon missionaries serving in a particular area.  These missionaries generally have no ecclesiastical authority over rank-and-file church members; but they should be working with and in support of members.  And so mission boundaries will typically be drawn to include a fixed number of stakes, and you might see the local "mission president" offering sermons at a "stake conference".  Second--in areas where there are not enough Mormons to warrant the organization of a full-fledged ward or stake, local congregations of members (called "branches" and overseen by a "branch president") will be administered through the mission rather than through a stake.  

LDS "Temple":  An LDS temple is a special house of worship that Mormons may visit as their own schedules permit to participate in specialized rituals not performed elsewhere.  It is overseen by a "temple president".  Sometimes, individual congregations will agree to all go to the temple together at the same time (a "ward temple day" or "stake temple day").  To prevent overcrowding, each temple has its own "district" and congregations within a particular temple district will have their "ward temple days" at that particular temple.  (Though as individuals, if we feel like attending a particular temple on a particular day, we are free to do so whether or not we happen to live in that temple's district.)  Also, if a temple is short-staffed, the temple administrator (or "Temple President") will first look to the congregations within that temple's district to fill those staffing needs.  Temple presidents, like mission presidents, see themselves as playing a supporting role to local congregations and may be found offering sermons at stake conferences; but they don't really wield ecclesiastical authority over church members.

The Catholic Church also has Missions.  Missions are usually run by Religious Orders - Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, etc. etc.  Each Religious Order has their own process of running the mission.  Usually, Religious Orders would go to an area that is not covered by a parish and establish a parish and a Catholic school.  Things progress from there until the parish becomes big enough to split into more parishes and a diocese is formed.

[Guest]

Thank you for the clarification everyone, that really helps a lot.

It actually seems to match the structure written in the Didache pretty closely. Would the Didache (1st century) predate the great apostasy?

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Tampasteve2 said:

Thank you for the clarification everyone, that really helps a lot.

It actually seems to match the structure written in the Didache pretty closely. Would the Didache (1st century) predate the great apostasy?

Interesting.

The Great Apostasy was not a single event, but a very long and drawn out process over many centuries.  As of the 1st Century, Christianity was still pretty intact, though leadership was starting to unravel with the death of the Apostles and local churches began losing direction - this is probably around the time that some slight doctrinal "mutations" began creeping in.  Over centuries, more and more truth was lost, and Christianity had morphed into something quite different from what it originally had been by the middle ages.

Edited February 22, 2018 by DoctorLemon

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Tampasteve2 said:

Thank you for the clarification everyone, that really helps a lot.

It actually seems to match the structure written in the Didache pretty closely. Would the Didache (1st century) predate the great apostasy?

My impression is that the great apostasy took place surprisingly early, certainly by the early second century and possibly even by the end of the first. In any case, the Didache that we have today contains problematic elements, such as approving of baptism by "affusion" (sprinkling) where immersion is impractical -- a practice we know to be heretical, and which is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. So the Didache cannot be relied on as pure primitive Christian doctrine.

The Didache was originally thought to be a late second-century work, but many scholars now believe it to be of first-century origin. I wonder if it's possible that the was in fact a first-century composition that was added onto over the following century. There are some specific doctrinal problems (e.g. the baptism thing), but on the whole the Didache certainly smells and tastes a lot like LDS restorationist theology.

[NeuroTypical]

From our Gospel Principles manual: 

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-16-the-church-of-jesus-christ-in-former-times?lang=eng

Quote

Throughout history, evil people have tried to destroy the work of God. This happened while the Apostles were still alive and supervising the young, growing Church. Some members taught ideas from their old pagan or Jewish beliefs instead of the simple truths taught by Jesus. Some rebelled openly. In addition, there was persecution from outside the Church. Church members were tortured and killed for their beliefs. One by one, the Apostles were killed or otherwise taken from the earth. Because of wickedness and apostasy, the apostolic authority and priesthood keys were also taken from the earth. The organization that Jesus Christ had established no longer existed, and confusion resulted. More and more error crept into Church doctrine, and soon the dissolution of the Church was complete. The period of time when the true Church no longer existed on earth is called the Great Apostasy.

Soon pagan beliefs dominated the thinking of those called Christians. The Roman emperor adopted this false Christianity as the state religion. This church was very different from the church Jesus organized. It taught that God was a being without form or substance.

These people lost the understanding of God’s love for us. They did not know that we are His children. They did not understand the purpose of life. Many of the ordinances were changed because the priesthood and revelation were no longer on the earth.

The emperor chose his own leaders and sometimes called them by the same titles used by priesthood leaders in the true Church of Christ. There were no Apostles or other priesthood leaders with power from God, and there were no spiritual gifts. The prophet Isaiah had foreseen this condition, prophesying, “The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant” (Isaiah 24:5). It was the Church of Jesus Christ no longer; it was a church of men. Even the name had been changed. In the Americas, apostasy also occurred (see 4 Nephi).

 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Vort said:

I wonder if it's possible that the was in fact a first-century composition that was added onto over the following century. There are some specific doctrinal problems (e.g. the baptism thing), but on the whole the Didache certainly smells and tastes a lot like LDS restorationist theology.

That seems entirely possible, especially with the time periods we are talking about. Added to that the fact that Jewish beliefs for using a Mikvah do not allow for sprinkling of water, it must be a full immersion. 

[Just_A_Guy]

Other Mormons may take issue with me on this; but IMHO when our sixth article of faith talks about how we believe in the “same organization that existed in the primitive church”; it’s talking about ecclesiastical offices (apostles, prophets, pastors/bishops, teachers, evangelists/patriarchs); not geographical administrative units.  And even then, the practical duties of each ecclesiastical officer have evolved somewhat even in modern LDS history.  

So yes, assuming the Didache to be authentic and reliable; I would expect to see a lot of overlap in the enumerated offices; but I wouldn’t expect the LDS Church to be an exact organizational clone.  Scholars tell us, for example, that early Christianity grew up on a “house-church” model that is pretty much foreign to the Mormon (or indeed, mainstream Christian) experience today.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Jane_Doe]

An important note about the Great Apostasy: this was the organization of believers loosing Christ's authority (aka priesthood) and corruption of some important beliefs.  It was not a light-bulb overnight instantaneous event, but gradual over many years.   It's an institutional thing.   Yes, the LDS Church does indeed believe it is the restoration of that priesthood and Christ's one True Church on this earth.  

Now, talking about individuals: a non-LDS person can indeed have a be a wonderful Christian (aka a follower of Christ), doing the best they know to love and follow Him.  This relationship is a wonderful thing to be celebrated!  It is never of any LDS person to destroy that treasure-- rather to love and nurture it.  Of course, we would be thrilled to have a person's love and knowledge of Christ be increased.  For example, teaching that baptism by immersion was Christ's way, and we likewise should be baptized by immersion.  

[Jane_Doe]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Other Mormons may take issue with me on this; but IMHO when our sixth article of faith talks about how we believe in the “same organization that existed in the primitive church”; it’s talking about ecclesiastical offices (apostles, prophets, pastors/bishops, teachers, evangelists/patriarchs); not geographical administrative units.  And even then, the practical duties of each ecclesiastical officer have evolved somewhat even in modern LDS history.  

So yes, assuming the Didache to be authentic and reliable; I would expect to see a lot of overlap in the enumerated offices; but I wouldn’t expect the LDS Church to be an exact organizational clone.  Scholars tell us, for example, that early Christianity grew up on a “house-church” model that is pretty much foreign to the Mormon (or indeed, mainstream Christian) experience today.

I don't think anyone would argue with the fact that we're not an exact clone-- after all in ancient times they didn't watch prophets speak via international broadcasts received on your iPhone  .   Logistics of life are just so different.  

[bytebear]

Dup

Edited February 23, 2018 by bytebear

[bytebear]

It might be interesting to note that the term "ward" is in reference to governmental electoral subdivisions, and parish an administrative division, also governmental (similar to counties).   Louisiana has parishes, not counties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_(electoral_subdivision)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parish_(administrative_division)

So both Mormons and Catholics use governmental terms for geographic regions.  The term "stake" comes from Isaiah 54:2
 

Quote

enlarge the place of thy tent; stretch forth the curtains of thine habitation; spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stake_(Latter_Day_Saints)

Edited February 23, 2018 by bytebear

[Guest]

7 hours ago, bytebear said:

It might be interesting to note that the term "ward" is in reference to governmental electoral subdivisions, and parish an administrative division, also governmental (similar to counties).   Louisiana has parishes, not counties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_(electoral_subdivision)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parish_(administrative_division)

So both Mormons and Catholics use governmental terms for geographic regions.  The term "stake" comes from Isaiah 54:2
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stake_(Latter_Day_Saints)

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

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

An important note about the Great Apostasy: this was the organization of believers loosing Christ's authority (aka priesthood) and corruption of some important beliefs.  It was not a light-bulb overnight instantaneous event, but gradual over many years.   It's an institutional thing.   Yes, the LDS Church does indeed believe it is the restoration of that priesthood and Christ's one True Church on this earth.  

Now, talking about individuals: a non-LDS person can indeed have a be a wonderful Christian (aka a follower of Christ), doing the best they know to love and follow Him.  This relationship is a wonderful thing to be celebrated!  It is never of any LDS person to destroy that treasure-- rather to love and nurture it.  Of course, we would be thrilled to have a person's love and knowledge of Christ be increased.  For example, teaching that baptism by immersion was Christ's way, and we likewise should be baptized by immersion.  

This makes sense. For some reason in the past I thought of it as a quick, maybe 10 year, time frame. But a gradual shift makes much sense. Honestly one of the points that lead me in this direction is the Aaronic Priesthood. The OT is quite clear that it is a covenant that is forever, and most Protestant and RCC churches pretty much either ignore this fact or say it was canceled. But, if I understand LDS point of view, it has been renewed in the Church. 

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Tampasteve2 said:

This makes sense. For some reason in the past I thought of it as a quick, maybe 10 year, time frame. But a gradual shift makes much sense. Honestly one of the points that lead me in this direction is the Aaronic Priesthood. The OT is quite clear that it is a covenant that is forever, and most Protestant and RCC churches pretty much either ignore this fact or say it was canceled. But, if I understand LDS point of view, it has been renewed in the Church. 

Yes, both Priesthoods have.  The Aaronic Priesthood was the preparatory priesthood to prepare the was for the higher priesthood, the Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God (which we usually refer to as the Melchizedek Priesthood, as to not over use the special name).  In OT times the Aaronic Priesthood prepared the sacrifice of animals in foreshadowing of Christ's great sacrifice.  Nowadays, the Aaronic Priesthood prepares the Lord's Supper in remembrance of Christ's great sacrifice.  

Rather than priests being a special class of celibate men, almost all LDS men are priests.  A person first receives the  Aaronic Priesthood as a youth, in preparation for receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood as an adult.  They in priesthood capacities in the church, but also (ideally) in each home, ministering to their family.