The Order Of Authority

[Traveler]

One notion that is present in all religions with which I have understanding is the notion of difference between good and evil. The most consistent notion of difference is that of “Order” (considered good) as opposed to “Chaos” (considered evil). The eternal struggle between good and evil in every ancient and modern concepts is represented as the struggle between order and chaos. From the classic Jewish and Christian scripture in Genesis we learn of creation as a presentation of order coming from the declarations (word) of G-d and that G-d saw the order of his creation and recognized that it was good. I submit the idea that evil and Satan; are opposed to the order of G-d and seek to disorder G-d’s work and that disorder of Satan in the classic sense is what is called “chaos”.

I also submit that one way to identify that which is of G-d is to recognize order as opposed to recognizing that which is of Satan by recognizing his effort to establish chaos by upsetting G-d’s order. Jesus spoke of order when he indicated that his disciples are to be “one”. The oneness of which he spoke is not a “cloning” but an uniting by order into one body as the head, hands, legs, feet and so on into a single creature. Indeed the comparison of G-d’s kingdom to a living thing of many parts demonstrates the order expected by G-d within his kingdom.

This now bring me to the concept of authority. I submit again that it is the will and nature of G-d to have order in his kingdom and that such order is expressed in how he channels authority among those called to service within his kingdom. One example comes to us with Isaiah. Isaiah is shown and given explanation of a temple by G-d and then later Isaiah shows and gives explanation of that same temple to Israel and then Israel becomes the model of G-d’s expression to the world. Thus we seed the order of authority. First, G-d authorizes his servant the prophet who in turn authorizes the next level and so on and so on. This order implies a couple of things - first that the greatest authority is at the top and belongs to G-d. And second that the authority branches out giving life to all participating parts.

Jesus also used this example of authority with the concept of an olive tree. He being the main trunk, others as branches and so on. He also pointed out that without him all other branches and parts of the olive tree will die because all must receive nourishment from him and those who he chose and ordained to authority.

In contrast Satan intends to destroy the order of G-d within the kingdom of G-d. Therefore, Satan is attempting to convince man that there is no need for order in authority. One way Satan has done this is to teach that authority comes from scripture. Without order of authority there is no way or method to resolve disputes within the body of the church. One says that they believe a scripture is to be understood to mean one thing and another says that the same scripture is to be understood to mean something different. Without order for authority there is no means to settle any question or dispute - only chaos. Remember that Moses ordered authority in Israel so that he did not have to judge all the people in all matters? So we know from scripture the method used in how the kingdom of G-d is ordered. There is lower authority over which there is higher authority all the way up to the highest authority on earth under G-d. Moses was that highest authority in ancient Israel. We see the same concept of order among the disciples of Christ where the 12 apostles were overseers of authority for the whole church and Peter, James and John formed authority over the 12 apostles and Peter had authority in the presidency of three with power to seal or loose on earth that was backed by the power and authority of heaven.

Remember that Satan opposes the ordered authority of G-d (along with every thing else of G-d). Therefore his work is to separate the body of believers in Christ from the order of authority. His primary target - the authority of the apostles. Once the authorized kink to the L-rd has been severed the rest of the limbs will be cut off from the nourishment and order of heaven and will spiritually die.

The Traveler

[Sugarbay]

I find it so curious that you will spell Satans name thereby giving him "publicity" but you leave the "o" out of GOD and out of the LORD. Seems it might be backwards. IMHO. It isn't written that way in the scriptures nor in cinference talks. Hmmm.

[Traveler]

I find it so curious that you will spell Satans name thereby giving him "publicity" but you leave the "o" out of GOD and out of the LORD. Seems it might be backwards. IMHO. It isn't written that way in the scriptures nor in cinference talks. Hmmm.

Not in modern scriptures but in every ancient copy of every version of scripture the vowels are left out of the words that reference G-d.

The Traveler

[boyando]

Good thoughts: All

I feel that its is up to the indivdual to decide if they wan't to show respect too the Father and Son. I think that it is safe to say that order is one of the atributes we should emulate ( so is spelling but I don't think I have got that one figured out yet), but I was under the impression that the word good when used in the Bible, means perfected.

If no unclean thing can enter the kingdom of heaven, then disorder would be unclean. Just incase your right I think I'll go clean the basement and organise it. Hey it works in this case.

Your friend-Allmosthumble

[M98Ranger]

No unclean thing can enter the kingdom of God....hmmmmm, I wonder if you are allowed to have Obsessive Compulsive disorder in heaven, like me? Kind to think of it my wife kind of tempers my OCD so I should be alright after-all.

[Traveler]

I think that it is safe to say that order is one of the atributes we should emulate ( so is spelling but I don't think I have got that one figured out yet),

It has only been the last 150 years or so that spelling has become so important. My usual line is that if you only know one way to spell a word - you are uneducated. :)

No unclean thing can enter the kingdom of God....hmmmmm, I wonder if you are allowed to have Obsessive Compulsive disorder in heaven, like me? Kind to think of it my wife kind of tempers my OCD so I should be alright after-all.

The main point about order in authorization from G-d - is the understanding that to fail to accept someone sent by G-d is a failure to accept G-d. There are those that claim to know G-d but if they really knew him they would know his servants. I submit that servants are known by their fruits and that one of the fruits is order and with order a "way" to end all disputations.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

This now bring me to the concept of authority. I submit again that it is the will and nature of G-d to have order in his kingdom and that such order is expressed in how he channels authority among those called to service within his kingdom. ... In contrast Satan intends to destroy the order of G-d within the kingdom of G-d. Therefore, Satan is attempting to convince man that there is no need for order in authority. One way Satan has done this is to teach that authority comes from scripture.

By this line of reasoning, the United States could be considered chaotic, disordered, and chaotic. We are a nation of laws, not of men. We elect our officials, often allowing them to serve limited terms. We give our judicial branch the power to overturn laws approved by the majority of men. In essence, the written rules govern us, rather than authorized people. Thus, again, by your line of reasoning, America's system of government, with its checks and balances, is Satanic.

Of course, I don't buy this line of reasoning. Nor do I buy into the notion that those Christian churches who do not embrace apostolic or priestly lineage in their governance are therefore embracing satanic disorder.

[Traveler]

By this line of reasoning, the United States could be considered chaotic, disordered, and chaotic. We are a nation of laws, not of men. We elect our officials, often allowing them to serve limited terms. We give our judicial branch the power to overturn laws approved by the majority of men. In essence, the written rules govern us, rather than authorized people. Thus, again, by your line of reasoning, America's system of government, with its checks and balances, is Satanic.

Of course, I don't buy this line of reasoning. Nor do I buy into the notion that those Christian churches who do not embrace apostolic or priestly lineage in their governance are therefore embracing satanic disorder.

Thanks for your response PC. I was somewhat surprised in your confidence that Satan has little or no influence with how authority is utilized within the government of the United States of America. Though I believe that the founding fathers were inspired somewhat by G-d, I would currently categorize agent authority as shifting somewhat more towards what Satan would inspire rather than what those founding fathers intended.

But that aside let us take a macro look at authority as it is exercised by agents of the government in our country of the good old USA. First I would point out that the law does not delegate authority directly to government agents although it does specify the manner that authority is delegated. For example; just because someone has understanding of the law does not mean that they have authority as an agent. We are all familiar with the authority that a policeman exercises as an agent of the law. As an agent a policeman can exercise some authority but there is an order in that authority.

First order of a policeman’s authority is jurisdiction. This jurisdiction is usually a geographic area. Outside the defined area the policeman cannot exercise authority as an agent. Often this jurisdiction comes into conflict in cases that cross jurisdiction boundaries between city police departments and county sheriff departments.

The second order of a policeman’s authority is rank. Within the police organization there is rank. For example a police caption has more authority than a police sergeant which has more authority than the rank and file policeman.

Any event that involves the agency of policemen is subject to their rank and jurisdiction. There is always one agent that is in charge and all other agents are subject in their authority to the proceedings. There can be situations where an agent of higher authority can over ride the authority of the one agent in charge and another agent becomes the in charge agent but this must happen according to the order of authority as specified by the law. Interesting, most people are quite surprised when they learn of the authority given to agents called federal postal inspectors in that their order of authority surpasses the authority of any policeman in both rank and jurisdiction.

But there are other agents with authority within the government of the USA. For example; there are agents to which appeals can be made if a citizen feels they have been wronged (have a dispute) with a police agent. These overriding agents are also ordered by rank and jurisdiction.

I submit again that Jesus followed the methods of order of agents within the ancient kingdom of Israel. That Jesus gave agent authority to his apostles and that others were also given authority as agents but that authority was ordered. And that all agents of Christ exercised their authority according to the order of rank and jurisdiction. Some had jurisdiction over local congregations and others had jurisdiction throughout the world and that some agents had higher rank than others. The scriptures, like the law of the USA, may specify some of the governing aspects of agent authority but like the law, scripture does not authorize agents directly – especially just because someone has knowledge of scripture or of Christ.

It is important to realize that this order or authority of Christ was given that the government of kingdom of the church could act as “one”. I would also point out that Jesus claimed to act as an “agent” of his Father, that Jesus claimed was ordered “Greater than” himself thereby showing that the order of authority even exist among the G-ds that make up what is known to Christians as “The G-dhead” – yet even though the G-dhead is ordered, Jesus still made claim that they exercised that authority as one united (in the same manner a husband and wife should be united as one family) and that all that exercise authority as an agent (regardless of rank or jurisdiction) within the kingdom of G-d must act as the same united oneness with them.

The Traveler

[Christos]

I believe that there is no true authority on Earth.

Only apparent authority.

All men are sinners.

No man is higher than another.

The Patriarch of the Orthodox church has the title "First among equals", not "supreme head of church" or "President of Orthodox church" but quite the opposite.

To acknowledge your sin is something that we are very unwilling to do. It requires submission and humility, two things that we as humans are not used to. We prefer to fight against them in an attempt to be better than our brother.

[Traveler]

I believe that there is no true authority on Earth.

Only apparent authority.

All men are sinners.

No man is higher than another.

The Patriarch of the Orthodox church has the title "First among equals", not "supreme head of church" or "President of Orthodox church" but quite the opposite.

To acknowledge your sin is something that we are very unwilling to do. It requires submission and humility, two things that we as humans are not used to. We prefer to fight against them in an attempt to be better than our brother.

Your term confuse me. For example "I believe that there is no true authority on Earth." to me means that G-d has authorized no agent anywhere on earth - ever. This contridicts scripture that says Jesus ordained apostles and gave them authority. Without authority no one has been authorized to do anything.

Second the quote "First among equals" is not logical. If there are true equals there is no order of first.

Lastly we are not talking about any man being "above" another - we are talking about order of authorization or authority. If there is authority there must be order - otherwise there is chaos. And we know that G-d authorized (gave more authority to) Moses over Aaron in order.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler explains in some detail that U.S. law enforcement agents follow a chain of command, and a clearly dilineated line of authority.

My response is, sure, but these agents are charged with enforcing the law, not the whims of our politicial leaders. On those occasions when agents cross the line, and work for the person rather than the Constitution, we end up with Watergates, Iran-Contra, and we'll see what comes out of the post-9/11 anti-terrorism actions. However, in a system in which the authorities themselves trumped the authority of the written word--the Law--there would have been no exposes.

The scriptures, like the law of the USA, may specify some of the governing aspects of agent authority but like the law, scripture does not authorize agents directly – especially just because someone has knowledge of scripture or of Christ.

Christ's agents, whether they be volunteer bishops, or church-sponsored ministers, are considered "ordained by God." But, yes, they are vetted through already established "agents." This is why, while embracing the "priesthood of all believers," I would never deny that God has called SOME to be teachers, SOME to be overseers, etc. And, the testing of these callings is carried out by others whom God has called and the churches have recognized.

It is important to realize that this order or authority of Christ was given that the government of kingdom of the church could act as “one”. I would also point out that Jesus claimed to act as an “agent” of his Father, that Jesus claimed was ordered “Greater than” himself thereby showing that the order of authority even exist among the G-ds that make up what is known to Christians as “The G-dhead” – yet even though the G-dhead is ordered, Jesus still made claim that they exercised that authority as one united (in the same manner a husband and wife should be united as one family) and that all that exercise authority as an agent (regardless of rank or jurisdiction) within the kingdom of G-d must act as the same united oneness with them.

You make good arguments for the appropriateness of church creeds (statements of faith), for denominations to have a chain of leadership, much like Israel, which had leaders for 10, for 50, for 100, for 1000 etc. On the other hand, if you are arguing for a human organization to have the authority to serve as a gatekeeper between humanity and Christ, or that reconciliation with the Father must be processed through a single human organization, me thinks your argument stretches too thin.

[Traveler]

Traveler explains in some detail that U.S. law enforcement agents follow a chain of command, and a clearly dilineated line of authority.

My response is, sure, but these agents are charged with enforcing the law, not the whims of our politicial leaders. On those occasions when agents cross the line, and work for the person rather than the Constitution, we end up with Watergates, Iran-Contra, and we'll see what comes out of the post-9/11 anti-terrorism actions. However, in a system in which the authorities themselves trumped the authority of the written word--the Law--there would have been no exposes.

The law does not give authority but defines from where the authority comes. In all cases there must be authority (agent or agents of the law) that must act and that agent must be of higher authority to act. In the case of Watergate no congressman could act as an agent but must apply to an agent or agents of higher authority. In the case of impeachment of a president the agents must be both congress and the supreme court. Although the law defines authority it is not the authority. For example John Q Citizen could not read the law and say that the Constitution gives them the authority to impeach the president - even if the president had broken the law. This is because the Constitution does not have authority - it only defines authority. Like wise the authority is not in scripture - scripture defines authority that comes from G-d and gives examples of how G-d calls and establishes order among his agents.

Christ's agents, whether they be volunteer bishops, or church-sponsored ministers, are considered "ordained by God." But, yes, they are vetted through already established "agents." This is why, while embracing the "priesthood of all believers," I would never deny that God has called SOME to be teachers, SOME to be overseers, etc. And, the testing of these callings is carried out by others whom God has called and the churches have recognized.

The agents of Christ do not take that honor unto themselves but they are called of G-d as was the apostles or as the apostles (they did not choose to be agents of Christ but were chosen to be his agenst by him) or called the agents that were ordered under them. Believeing in Christ does not an agent make (see Matt7:21-23) BTW many scholars believe that the word "knew" in verse 23 is better translated as "authorized".

On the other hand, if you are arguing for a human organization to have the authority to serve as a gatekeeper between humanity and Christ, or that reconciliation with the Father must be processed through a single human organization, me thinks your argument stretches too thin.

It is not a human organization that is authorized by G-d. The other point is that G-d's organization is one. It is my belief that G-d does not create chaos in his organization(s) by having competing agents and orders of authority. I believe Jesus said "if you are not one - you are not mine." This is in fact my point - that there is only one order of authority. Any human organization that is not authoritized by G-d has no authority.

Perhaps you can help me here. Why do you believe that G-d authoritizes conflicting human organizations with no means (or order) for settelling disputes so that they can be "one"?

Thanks for your input

The Traveler

[Christos]

Second the quote "First among equals" is not logical. If there are true equals there is no order of first.

Lastly we are not talking about any man being "above" another - we are talking about order of authorization or authority. If there is authority there must be order - otherwise there is chaos. And we know that G-d authorized (gave more authority to) Moses over Aaron in order.

The Traveler

First among equals. I don't fully understand this concept yet but I think it means that although as a man this person is no greater than anyother BUT as there is a need for some form of structure to the church there must be an eventual spiritual father which which the others commune. Obviously God is the father of the church but the Patriarch in this case is the first among equals as all humans are equal, we are all sinners, born of the race of Adam.

One of the things I find so attractive about the Mormon religion is the idea of authority, wanting to get up the ladder, first it is Aaronic then Melchezadik (forgive my spelling, it is late here) and then so on. People by their nature want to be higher than other people, yet when we are possessed with humility and convicted we realise how pathetic and feeble we are. We do not deserve anything, not even Earth, not even air. If we did not serve a mercyful benevolent God we might as well be destroyed at first sin.

Yes there is a need for clergy in a church otherwise it is a meeting. Yes there is a need for ordination otherwise the sacrament/eucharist cannot be shared. This doesn't mean that a Bishop is more holy than a Priest or that a Priest is more holy than a lay man, it means that different people have different vocations.

There is no true heirarchy on Earth.

[Traveler]

Second the quote "First among equals" is not logical. If there are true equals there is no order of first.

Lastly we are not talking about any man being "above" another - we are talking about order of authorization or authority. If there is authority there must be order - otherwise there is chaos. And we know that G-d authorized (gave more authority to) Moses over Aaron in order.

The Traveler

First among equals. I don't fully understand this concept yet but I think it means that although as a man this person is no greater than another BUT as there is a need for some form of structure to the church there must be an eventual spiritual father which which the others commune. Obviously God is the father of the church but the Patriarch in this case is the first among equals as all humans are equal, we are all sinners, born of the race of Adam.

One of the things I find so attractive about the Mormon religion is the idea of authority, wanting to get up the ladder, first it is Aaronic then Melchezadik (forgive my spelling, it is late here) and then so on. People by their nature want to be higher than other people, yet when we are possessed with humility and convicted we realize how pathetic and feeble we are. We do not deserve anything, not even Earth, not even air. If we did not serve a mercyful benevolent God we might as well be destroyed at first sin.

Yes there is a need for clergy in a church otherwise it is a meeting. Yes there is a need for ordination otherwise the sacrament/eucharist cannot be shared. This doesn't mean that a Bishop is more holy than a Priest or that a Priest is more holy than a lay man, it means that different people have different vocations.

There is no true heirarchy on Earth.

Thank you for your response. The LDS have a different view concerning priesthood authority and agency than most religions. The highest priesthood is Melchizedek - which in Hebrew means king of rightiousness. This is the priesthood that Jesus held when he was on earth and dates back to the king of Salam in the days of Abraham. Every male that is worthy is ordained to the priesthood and all serve on a volunteer basis without pay. The order in the priesthood is according to office and not person. Usually a person holds an office for a few years and is released for another to take their place - Only apostles are called to their office for life but there is no pay for the office, although some receive help, some apostles serve at their own expense.

When I served a 2 year mission at the age of 19 I used my own money and received no monies from the Church. This is not uncommon. Most missionaries receive some help from their families.

This concept of priesthood order has produced some interesting situations. For example: When I lived near Washington DC one of the members of a congregation had the rank of general in the military and was presided over in the priesthood order by a fellow that worked construction and had never been to college. There were no problem of the general being directed by the construction worker. I will not say that there are never those that wish to rise but there is so little benefit in serving other than a wish to help that such things usually do not last long.

I am so glad to see that the Eastern Orthodox have respect for individuals and avoid the world aclaim of high office. At initial understanding it would appear we have much in common.

The Traveler

PS. I thought I would add that for a male to marry and attend the temple they must be ordained to the higher Melchizedek priesthood. It is intended that every home be presided over with the Melchizedek priesthood. In addition every home (family or single member) is to be visited every month by to priesthood holders one of which must be Melchizedek. This priesthood teacher review the needs and sits in council with the individual or family - every Melchizedek priesthood holder is expected to serve as a "home teacher".

One last thought - the highest office and position in the LDS faith is that of father and mother. To be a Father is the highest and most important call for a male and mother is the highest and most important call of a woman. It is doctrine that no other success can comphensate for failure in the home. In the LDS faith the call of husband - wife and parent is believed to extend beyond earth into eternity. It is the only office that remains in effect after death.

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler's main point is that the Law (be it the U.S. Constitution or the Scriptures) is not authority in itself. Rather, God or government, grants authority to agents who interpret the written word.

I see this as a good argument for honoring the teachers, overseers, bishops, etc. that God has called to serve us through leadership and instruction. Additionally, your point might be a good argument for denominations vs. independent works (I'll discuss this more further down--you ask about competing organizations). However, your argument does not necessarily prove the superiority of strongly hierarchical church governments, such as your own and the Roman Catholic Church.

The agents of Christ do not take that honor unto themselves but they are called of G-d as was the apostles or as the apostles (they did not choose to be agents of Christ but were chosen to be his agenst by him)

This is what I meant when I said they were ordained of God. We call this "being called." For example, I sensed my calling to the ministry while I was doing volunteer work in Korea. God opened my spiritual eyes to see that I was to move beyond helping out, and to take on the greater burden of ordained ministry.

or called the agents that were ordered under them. Believeing in Christ does not an agent make (see Matt7:21-23) BTW many scholars believe that the word "knew" in verse 23 is better translated as "authorized".

Okay, we both agree. Becoming a minister, bishop, or other "fulltime" church worker is not a career decision, nor is it something believers can just decide to do. God must call them. My understanding is that most Christian churches operate with this understanding, and the vetting process helps both the Church and the candidate "test" their calling.

It is not a human organization that is authorized by G-d. The other point is that G-d's organization is one. It is my belief that G-d does not create chaos in his organization(s) by having competing agents and orders of authority. I believe Jesus said "if you are not one - you are not mine." This is in fact my point - that there is only one order of authority. Any human organization that is not authoritized by G-d has no authority. Perhaps you can help me here. Why do you believe that G-d authoritizes conflicting human organizations with no means (or order) for settelling disputes so that they can be "one"?

So, what does it mean to be one? Does it mean there must be one human organization that all Christians belong to? Or, perhaps, that Christian churches must cooperate with each other to further the gospel? I see tremendous cooperation between most churches. Promise Keepers, Billy Graham crusades, local Christian radio stations, bookstores, etc.--all these are interdenominational. Even our Bibles--the NIV was translated by a committee of scholars from Christian traditions that vary from Catholic to mainline to Pentecostal to Baptist. For a New Testament example, just look at the 7 churches in Revelation 2-3, or at Paul's various letters to different churches. There are clear indications of different worship styles, personalities, struggles, and doctrinal issues. We are one in the Spirit, we are one in the Lord. Our salvation is in Christ, not in the label on our church buildings.

[Ray]

…I sensed my calling to the ministry while I was doing volunteer work in Korea. God opened my spiritual eyes to see that I was to move beyond helping out, and to take on the greater burden of ordained ministry.

I think I agree with your concept of you being able to receive assurances of revelation from God, but simply receiving an assurance from God assuring you that He wants you to become a minister, or a person who helps to declare His gospel to others, does not "ordain" you as a minister of God... in and of itself.

Becoming a minister, bishop, or other "fulltime" church worker is not a career decision, nor is it something believers can just decide to do. God must call them. My understanding is that most Christian churches operate with this understanding, and the vetting process helps both the Church and the candidate "test" their calling.

I also think I agree with your concept of other people also being able to receive assurances of revelation from God, but simply receiving an assurance from God assuring you or others that He wants you or others to help declare His gospel to others also does not "ordain" you as a minister of God... in and of itself.

Or in other words, along with being called by God, you must also be ordained by God or others who have His authority to ordain you, and that ordination always comes by the laying on of hands.

Or in other words, either our Lord must lay His hands upon your head, or other people who have had our Lord lay His hands upon their head must lay their hands upon your head, or other people who have had other people who have had our Lord lay His hands upon their head must lay their hands upon your head, (or in short, you must be ordained by someone who has at least one of the keys of the kingdom), and to simply receive a “feeling” or assurance from God does not in itself confer any keys.

And btw, if you doubt that what I have said is true, show me one instance in the scriptures where it clearly states that the “laying on of hands” is not a requirement for someone who claims to be authorized by God and has received any of the "priesthood keys".

Our salvation is in Christ, not in the label on our church buildings.

Yes, but not every church or group of people claiming to be a church of Christ is actually a church of Christ.

Or in other words, people who simply believe they are following Christ while calling themselves Christians and trying helping to help Him establish His kingdom does not mean that those people are actually following Christ or helping to establish His church.

Or in other words, all of us can’t be right if we are teaching conflicting doctrines, and the only ones of us who have the right or authority to speak for God are those who are authorized by God to teach and share the truth.

But please feel free to continue to share what you believe, while believing you know the truth, while understanding that there are others of us who know better than to believe what you think or beleive about this. :)

[Guest MrsS]

I see this as a good argument for honoring the teachers, overseers, bishops, etc. that God has called to serve us through leadership and instruction. Additionally, your point might be a good argument for denominations vs. independent works (I'll discuss this more further down--you ask about competing organizations). However, your argument does not necessarily prove the superiority of strongly hierarchical church governments, such as your own and the Roman Catholic Church.

PC - I don't think it has been clarified yet the differences in how you and the LDS view callings in the Church.

LDS don't feel called personally by God - independent of any one else, and then go and become Bishops, Apostles, Teachers, Missionaries, etc.

Let me give you an example okay.

The Primary President needs a few teachers and a music director. She prays first for guidance, then she goes through the membership list. She writes down the names of the women or men that maybe don't have a posistion in the Ward yet. She then asks her own councilors to fast on a particular day and then they all meet the next day and they all go over the list she has made. Removing some names, adding a few more maybe.

Then the Primary President turns this list over to the Bishopric. They in turn, fast and pray, seeking spiritual guidance from Heavenly Father as to who He wants to be His teachers and music director in His primary. The names are selected, and then one of the councilors contacts them and talks with the selected person. Perhaps one of those that were selected has just had her Mother-In-Law moved in with her and will be her care giver until a room can be found in a nursing home. The councilor may still ask her if she would be music director ~ and she may accept. Or she may say that now just is not the right time.

We are called to a posistion in the Church by God, through the line of authority that has been established by Jesus Christ. Primary President to one of the Councilors in the Bishopric, to the Bishop. Then it is announced in Sacrament Meeting and the Ward members are asked to vote for sustaining this person in this "calling".

When I was called as Branch Librarian, the 1st Councilor interviewed me first and then asked if I would be the Librarian. I said yes ~ then he went to the Bishop and told him. That following Sunday it was announced in Church, and I was sustained by the Branch Membership. Had even one person voted Nay ~ they would not have Set-Me-Apart, until that person was heard, privately, by the Bishopric.

When I was called as Primary 1st. Councilor ~ I was approached by the 1st Councilor again, and asked. I said yes, and then I was taken to the Primary President and she was told that I had said yes. I was "sustained" and "set apart" the following Sunday.

President Hinckley is voted as The President, Prophet, Seer and Revelator of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints during the Conference in April every year. Then during each Stake Conference (I believe it is the Stake Conference), all of the members are then asked again to vote to sustain ALL of the church's leaders.

[prisonchaplain]

Or in other words, along with being called by God, you must also be ordained by God or others who have His authority to ordain you, and that ordination always comes by the laying on of hands. Or in other words, either our Lord must lay His hands upon your head, or other people who have had our Lord lay His hands upon their head must lay their hands upon your head, or other people who have had other people who have had our Lord lay His hands upon their head must lay their hands upon your head, (or in short, you must be ordained by someone who has at least one of the keys of the kingdom), and to simply receive a “feeling” or assurance from God does not in itself confer any keys.

Great. Yes, that happened to me. The bretheren laid hands on me and commisioned me for the work. This happened when my missionary work was recognized, when I was ordained, and again when I was commissioned as a chaplain. At the last one, our General Superintendent (similar to your President) laid hands on me. Of course, the ordination by God was most important, but having the concurrence of fellow ministers was and is a great encouragement.

Yes, but not every church or group of people claiming to be a church of Christ is actually a church of Christ.

Okay, here's a sidebar. A sociological definition of faith groups.

1. If you see a different church and say, "Most of those people are my brothers and sisters in the faith," you belong to a denomination.

2. If you say, "There may be a few believers in that bunch," you belong to a sect.

3. If you say, "Those heathen will all burn in hell," you belong to a cult.

Not a totally accurate criteria, but somewhat useful. I have some disagreements with the teachings of many churches outside my own particular fellowship. Nevertheless, I generally go with the #1 response. Most churches that say they are Christian, mostly are. A few are on unstable ground, and a very few are dangerous imposters.

Or in other words, people who simply believe they are following Christ while calling themselves Christians and trying helping to help Him establish His kingdom does not mean that those people are actually following Christ or helping to establish His church.

Perhaps. But, I'd argue that most of them are indeed Christians helping to establish Christ's kingdom. A few aren't doing a very good job, and a very few are actually countering Christ's work. But, most are yielding harvest.

Or in other words, all of us can’t be right if we are teaching conflicting doctrines, and the only ones of us who have the right or authority to speak for God are those who are authorized by God to teach and share the truth.

This isn't Scripturally supported, so, like Paul, this particular teaching is "of me, not necessarily of the LORD." I'd argue that 90% of Christian agree with 90% of other Christians 90% of the time. We sometimes get bound up on that 10% that we think makes us more right than the others. I'll simply suggest that unless a church is NOT truly Christian, then it does have authority. If JS' restored gospel teaching is correct, then the LDS alone holds the authority. I'm guessing that is the matter you are driving at.

[prisonchaplain]

PC - I don't think it has been clarified yet the differences in how you and the LDS view callings in the Church. LDS don't feel called personally by God - independent of any one else, and then go and become Bishops, Apostles, Teachers, Missionaries, etc. MrsS goes on to explain the process of those who have a need for workers seeking God's direction, then giving a list to overseers (bishopric) for further spiritual direction, who then go to the individuals with their calling. The individuals then can except or reject the offer brought to them, without fear of condemnation. (I hope I got that right--wanted to shorten it up a bit).

When it comes to seeking out church workers for Sunday school, midweek family programs, deacons, etc. our process is quite similar. However, for evangelists, ministers, missionaries the process is reversed. God speaks directly to the heart of the candidate, often during private devotions, or during a religious program. The individual will usually share his/her sense of calling with a trusted senior (often a pastor or trusted deacon). After gaining a sense of confirmation that the call is authentic, and after finding concurrence from church leaders, the candidate will begin a vetting process with the district office. An application is filled out, interviews are held, written tests are given, and often, the candidate is encouraged to engage in some formal studies. The successful candidate will eventually be credentialed, but must then serve for two years, before s/he is again vetted, and ordained.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

Or in other words, along with being called by God, you must also be ordained by God or others who have His authority to ordain you, and that ordination always comes by the laying on of hands. Or in other words, either our Lord must lay His hands upon your head, or other people who have had our Lord lay His hands upon their head must lay their hands upon your head, or other people who have had other people who have had our Lord lay His hands upon their head must lay their hands upon your head, (or in short, you must be ordained by someone who has at least one of the keys of the kingdom), and to simply receive a “feeling” or assurance from God does not in itself confer any keys.

Great. Yes, that happened to me. The bretheren laid hands on me and commisioned me for the work. This happened when my missionary work was recognized, when I was ordained, and again when I was commissioned as a chaplain. At the last one, our General Superintendent (similar to your President) laid hands on me. Of course, the ordination by God was most important, but having the concurrence of fellow ministers was and is a great encouragement.

So you’re saying that you believe the people who laid their hands upon your head either had our Lord lay His hands upon their heads, individually, or they had other people lay hands upon their heads and those other people trace their authority back to our Lord and the laying on of His hands?

And btw, I don’t think that is what you are saying, because you said you don’t believe in that type of “succession”, and I am saying that those “keys” must be given by people with have received authority from God.

For instance, simply believing God wants you and other people to believe something, and then believing and teaching other people to believe what you and those other people believe God wants you and them to believe, does not constitute a transmission of knowledge or authority from God or from those who have God’s authority. So, if you want to receive knowledge or authority from God, you must either receive knowledge and authority from God or from other people who have His authority to teach you, by the laying on of hands, in an uninterrupted chain of succession.

I generally go with the #1 response, <that if you see a different church and say, "Most of those people are my brothers and sisters in the faith," you belong to a denomination.>

Your perception of the church of Christ is a little different than how His church actually is.

And to try to say this simply, I will say there is only one organization on Earth who has authorization from our Lord and His appointed and authorized servants, and any other group who consider themselves to be a church of Christ does not have authority from God.

But I will agree that there are all kinds of groups of people which are actually doing some good.

I'd argue that most of them are indeed Christians helping to establish Christ's kingdom. A few aren't doing a very good job, and a very few are actually countering Christ's work. But, most are yielding harvest.

Yes, other churches are sharing some truths, but they have no authority from God, so they are not doing anything to establish His kingdom because they aren't authorized to do anything for Him.

For instance, all of the ordinances of baptism done by other churches are of no efficacy in the church of Christ, because anyone who wants to become a member of His church must be baptized by someone who has His authority.

And btw, it isn’t enough to know how to baptize someone else and that our Lord wants us to be baptized.

I'd argue that 90% of Christian agree with 90% of other Christians 90% of the time. We sometimes get bound up on that 10% that we think makes us more right than the others.

Being a "Christian", in and of itself, has nothing to do with having authority from God, because being a Christian is simply about trying to become “like” Him, and we can all do that without having any authority... although we can all do even better when we have leaders who have His authority.

I'll simply suggest that unless a church is NOT truly Christian, then it does have authority. If JS' restored gospel teaching is correct, then the LDS alone holds the authority. I'm guessing that is the matter you are driving at.

Yes, that is the point I was making, since this thread is about the order of authority, because I do believe and know for a fact that our Church is the only one with our Lord’s authority.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

PC - I don't think it has been clarified yet the differences in how you and the LDS view callings in the Church. LDS don't feel called personally by God - independent of any one else, and then go and become Bishops, Apostles, Teachers, Missionaries, etc. MrsS goes on to explain the process of those who have a need for workers seeking God's direction, then giving a list to overseers (bishopric) for further spiritual direction, who then go to the individuals with their calling. The individuals then can except or reject the offer brought to them, without fear of condemnation. (I hope I got that right--wanted to shorten it up a bit).

When it comes to seeking out church workers for Sunday school, midweek family programs, deacons, etc. our process is quite similar. However, for evangelists, ministers, missionaries the process is reversed. God speaks directly to the heart of the candidate, often during private devotions, or during a religious program. The individual will usually share his/her sense of calling with a trusted senior (often a pastor or trusted deacon). After gaining a sense of confirmation that the call is authentic, and after finding concurrence from church leaders, the candidate will begin a vetting process with the district office. An application is filled out, interviews are held, written tests are given, and often, the candidate is encouraged to engage in some formal studies. The successful candidate will eventually be credentialed, but must then serve for two years, before s/he is again vetted, and ordained.

Even if every member of a church believed everything their leaders taught them, those teachings wouldn't necessarily be acknowledged and authorized by God. So to get knowledge and authority from God and from what His servants can teach us, we need more than the approval of "a" church.

Or in other words, we all need to learn the truth from Him or His authorized servants, and His servants are members of "His" church.

And if you still don't agree with me, and the teachings of "our" Church, I've still got nothing but love for you, truly. :)