- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
First presidency of the Church were Peter, James and John? I have a handout from a Gospel Doctrine class awhile back. Is it a case of making them be like us? Just sounds odd. Ref D&C 13. It is an assumption, but it is a reasonable one, based on the Biblical accounts. Kipper wrote:First presidency of the Church were Peter, James and John? I have a handout from a Gospel Doctrine class awhile back. Is it a case of making them be like us? Just sounds odd. Ref D&C 13.
Yes, I think so. It is not out of the question that they could be the 1st Presidency as we have a first presidency, but it seems more likely people are trying to go back and proof text things that were never the same in history as they are now.You never hear the bible talk of 15 members of the Q12 in the early church, with 3 acting as the 1st Presidency. No…it is just different. As it should be.
I came back to this thread to say pretty much what Heber said. Clearly the early church had some leadership and from scripture accounts we have (much of which attributed to the three in question, BTW) these three were in some way leaders (especially Peter). Nevertheless, there is no evidence they acted as a modern day first presidency and they seems to have been agents to themselves for the most part. They did and taught what they wanted to do and teach. Understanding the culture and technology of the time, it would have been much more difficult to act as their modern equivalents would anyway. For that matter, it is not at all clear that the modern first presidency acts like those of Joseph Smith’s or Brigham Young’s days, either. I have certainly heard of Peter, James and John being referred to as the first presidency before – but I think it is another instance of trying to put something very old in a modern frame that doesn’t really fit. The caveat here is that I do not believe the modern church is organized like the ancient church and it bears only a slight resemblance at best. It is reasonable to read into the record we have that Peter, James and John were the top leaders in the early discipleship and later church. It actually is kind of hard to argue otherwise. Does that translate into how our modern FP functions? I doubt it, but I understand completely the comparison and don’t think it is crazy or extreme.
I see them more as being Senior Apostles, not a 1st Presidency unit with separate responsibilities as the other apostles. I could accept they held keys as senior apostles.
It doesnt have to look like our current church for it to work. I just think people prefer consistency and certainty when that seems completely unrealistic to me. Same goes for the temple.
I agree, Heber – completely. We look to the existing record for both inspiration and validation. Thanks for the replies. It seems to me to be a self validation attempt but then I have been more skeptical about teachers recently. I always thought the three members of the first presidency symbolized the Godhead. When Christ was here, He represented all three members of the Godhead above the 12 apostles. I suppose when Christ left, three of the 12 could have taken His place. Peter, James, and John were specifically mentioned as being present with Christ when He was transfigured, and also those three went with Him to Gethsemane, so they appear to have had some special calling. Three of the twelve apostles in the Americas also were singled out with a higher calling so there seems to be a pattern there though it’s not explicitly spelled out as being a first presidency as it is today. There are many symbols of the Godhead with 12 below them: Abraham (Father), Isaac (Sacrificed, Christ), Jacob (Holy Ghost) -> Israel then 12 tribes; the tree of life with 12 types of fruit symbolizing the love of God (Charity having 12-ish attributes); etc. Good point, rcronk. I also wonder if it develops into tradition because there is a symbolism to draw from. Could the church setup 17apostles…sure…but there is some meaning to keeping it representative of prior biblical references. Seeing things in 3s helps remind us of certain things. We create stories and create symbols to add meaning to life.
Thanks for welcoming me to the site. I actually think there is deep meaning behind the numbers of things contained in different parts of the gospel that aren’t just symbolic for the sake of familiarity, but that actually symbolize eternal truths. A lot of the numeric symbolism in the gospel is mirrored in our bodies as well from the number of knuckles on each hand to the number of knuckles and gaps between knuckles in each hand to which finger has a wedding ring on it to the fact that we have two eyes that mask out each other’s blind spots (think witnesses), etc. For some reason, I see patterns in these things that I think can reveal profound truths. In fact, perhaps those profound truths caused us to be formed as we are and caused the organization of the “body of Christ” (the church) to be formed as it is. I’ll stop going on about this now. 🙂 One of the biggest gaps n Christian understanding of the Bible, generally, is our utter lack of understanding of ancient numerology, since that understanding would make the symbolic nature clearer for things we tend to take literally. For example, 3 represents numerical completion and fullness – 1/3 meaning a minority (“a third part” of any size) and 2/3 meaning a majority. For example, did Jesus ministry take 3 years – or was it modified in the record to match the powerful symbolism of a three year ministry? We don’t know, but, **either way**, the symbolism adds depth and meaning to the overall story.
12 and 7 represent fullness, as well – with a particular focus on unity and repetitive cycles.
40 means “many” – which can make stories of 40 days, 40 years, etc. much richer and plausible.
Given all of that, it makes perfect sense for Jesus’ following of disciples and the early church to organize into presidencies of three, leadership groups of twelve, area congregations of seven, etc.
40 also is symbolic of trials. We seem to agree on most of this. I think I’m just saying that I think the symbolism isn’t circular (let’s pick 12 apostles because people have chosen 12 to mean completeness) but is rooted in eternal truth (there are 12 distinct characteristics of the type of pure love required to raise children most efficiently that is inherent in reality). It ultimately doesn’t matter, but I’d like to think everything has a cause and a source and ties back to the foundational characteristics of truth and reality itself. It makes me feel more fuzzy that way.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.