**I am seeking a complete and authoritative explanation of this issue.** Who presides at Sacrament meeting (common Sunday services) when the bishop of a ward (pastor of a local congregation) is unavailable? There are several circumstances that should be considered when answering this question. The best answer will cite both the handbook of instructions and scripture to justify the explanation. Linking back to Church resources is appreciated. * **When any higher authority is easily accessible and...** * When the Bishop (perhaps due to illness) is suddenly unavailable. * When the entire bishopric is unavailable, but the absence was expected. * When the entire bishopric is unavailable, but the absence was unexpected. * **When all higher authorities are also unavailable and...** * When the Bishop (perhaps due to illness) is suddenly unavailable. * When the entire bishopric is unavailable, but the absence was expected. * When the entire bishopric is unavailable, but the absence was unexpected. *A bonus would be an explanation of what priesthood keys (or priesthood authority) is NOT available when any or all of these circumstances take place. As an example (and as a hint), if the bishop and all higher authorities are unavailable, non-priesthood disciplinary councils cannot be convened.*

Knowing how important genealogy research is to LDS leads me to wonder how far back any of us could trace our family tree. Have any LDS members been able to trace back to any biblical characters?

I am looking for a reference to St. Augustine that seems archaic and doesn't correspond to what I'm finding in my search. The reference is from Fr. James L. Meagher's 1906 book *How Christ Said the First Mass*, reprinted by TAN in 1984, [p. 17, footnote #2](https://archive.org/details/howchristsaidfir00meag/page/16/mode/2up?view=theater) : > 2 S. Augustine, In Epist. Joan, ad Parthos, Tracts 11, n. 111. As you might guess, it's the last part that is giving me grief: "Tracts 11, n. 111." This reference is provided in a footnote to Fr. Meagher's statement that > ... the Temple story and worship carried their [the Jewish faithful's] minds, down to the days of Christ, to his Last Supper, to his atrocious death, to the Catholic Church with her Pontiff, her bishops, her priests, her sacraments and her millions of redeemed souls.

I'd imagine that if Christ directly taught the doctrine of the Real Presence, then one of the Gospels would have recorded it. So given that fact that it isn't directly taught, **let us assume for the sake of argument that Christ did not explicitly teach this doctrine.** If this is the case, **why did the early Christians seem to universally assume this doctrine to be true?** Most notable example of this is St. Justin Martyr's First Apology. (I also say it seems to be "universally" assumed because nobody argued against the idea. This implies people thought of it as a typical Christian teaching.) The typical proofs I hear from Catholic apologists are: - a certain reading of John 6 - an insistence that the Words of Institution should be taken literally - a long proof of the mass as a *propitiatory* sacrifice (not merely a sacrifice of praise) thus implying the victim of this sacrifice must be Christ But I cannot find any of these arguments in the early Christian writings. Further, it seems implausible that early Christians would even mount some of these arguments. i.e. it seems unlikely that St. Justin Martyr argued for the Eucharist as a *propitiatory* sacrifice considering that he hardly quotes the NT (he vaguely references the Gospels and Revelation). He displays little to no knowledge of the Apostolic letters. If you know of any early Christians making one of these three arguments, let me know. Now, the fourth argument Catholic apologists make is from the testimony of the early Christians! So this leads me to my question. **On what basis did the early Christians get this idea of the Real Presence in the first place? More specifically, if Christ didn't teach the doctrine of the Real Presence explicitly, where did the apostles/early Christians supposedly get the idea?** Update: Some on another forum have simply asserted that the Apostles themselves verbally taught the early Christians the doctrine of the Real Presence. However, this just pushes the question one step further. Where did the Apostles get the idea from if Jesus did not explicitly teach it? Did the Apostles simply take the Words of Consecration literally at the Last Supper? Any theory is welcome (though citing a scholar who proposes a theory is best). This is indeed a very speculative question. Update 2: Some users are trying to close this question on the basis that I “falsely” assume that Christians from the 2nd century onward generally believed in the Real Presence. I would hope people’s personal theological beliefs are not driving this movement, as it is indeed historically factual that Christians from the 2nd century onward believed Christ was truly present in the Eucharist. This is a theoretical question about the development of the belief in the Real Presence, not an apology for Catholicism or Protestantism. Please base your answers in history, not personal theological opinions.

Two Sundays of each month, the adult men in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints meet as an Elder's Quorum. At each meeting they discuss one of the most recent General Conference talks. I'm confused about what that meeting is supposed to be though. As a discussion meeting, it seems pointless. I haven't been to tons of different ones, but from the handful I've been to over the years I've learned: -there's no format to the discussion. Some teach, some instruct, some facilitate, and more. Some lead the discussion, some follow the discussion. -the point of each meeting seems to be left up to the local leaders. Some don't assign a point, some do. Some don't make a point, some do. -there isn't necessarily a topic. Some assign a single topic from the assigned talk, some don't -the room is usually set up like a class (one person up front, everyone facing that person), everyone acts like it's a class, yet we're told it's a discussion -some of the discussion leaders are obviously more skilled because of experience or education as a some sort of school system teacher, but in general, that's not the case Basically, the discussion is usually a mess of points that are hard to follow. That's not the issue though. Any religious discussion among a large group of members of any church can become that sort of a mess. To compare to other churches I've seen. Often men have things like "men's breakfast" (for example), where the men meet for breakfast weekly or monthly or something and to discuss a Bible reading. I haven't been to many meetups like this, but it seems that the discussion probably tends to go the same way. **The difference** here though is that the *purpose of the meeting* is inherently clear: to casually spend time together, eat a meal, and discuss Christianity in some way. Whether or not the discussion is good, there's something clear that anyone can get from the meeting (food and fellowship). Another comparison, I've been to a few 12-step meetings in my life including AA. They're usually full of Christians where I live, so it seems appropriate to mention as a comparison. Despite the shares there being relatively all over the map, there's always a topic to try and cover. The **strictly facilitated format** of the meetings makes it so that even if the shares are completely unconnected and you can't follow what anyone is talking about, you can walk away knowing that you aren't stupid or unspiritual for not being able to follow what people were discussing - because you know people are trying to authentically trying to share their story or recovery advice. A last comparison, from the LDS Church, is the monthly testimony meeting. It has format and structure, and there's a definition for what a "testimony" should be. Again, even if the testimonies are weird, you know what you were supposed to hear, so you don't end up feeling out of place or like you're wasting time. Even if you don't connect with what anyone is sharing, you can connect with the fact that they're trying to share a testimony of something related to the Church's teachings. So, back to an Elder's Quorum meeting, what is it? And if I'm not connecting with the week's discussion, and don't have any comments to give to it, what am I supposed to get from the meeting? It seems to have gotten less clear in the past couple of years.

I understand that the LDS church institutes that Aaronic Priesthood. In the Old Testament, this was specifically reserved to the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron. > and you shall gird **Aaron and his sons** with sashes and bind caps on > them. And the **priesthood shall be theirs by a statute forever**. Thus > you shall ordain Aaron and his sons. Exodus 29:9 ESV In the LDS Church, is this the same priesthood? If so, what is the doctrinal precedent where people other than Jews from the tribe of Levi and the family of Aaron can be given that priesthood? Who receives that Aaronic priesthood today and how long is it held?

In Jewish history around 150 years before Christ came Jews began taking the name Jehovah out of the Bible. In the book of Mormon, the record of the bible is on brass plates claimed from Laban 600 BC. Why is it that in the 600 BC version the name Jehovah only appears once when quoting the Bible, when in the old testament manuscripts it appears over 7,000 times? My question is relating mainly to when books of the old testament are quoted in the Book of Mormon. Mostly in 2 Nephi.

Ephesians 4:11ff reads: >And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. (Ephesians 4:11–13, American Standard Version ) I have been attempting to view the NT early church as an expression of the DNA of Christ instead of a clear blueprint of what the church should look like today. This is one example of the kind of passage that I have been struggling to understand correctly. Is there an author anyone knows of that might give me this perspective or can anyone tell me from this passage and the context if there does seem to be a very specific blueprint?

The handbook of instructions published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is a two volume work. Handbook 2 is published on lds.org, but Handbook 1 is only given to leadership. Are members allowed to read it if they have access to it? Or are they "honour bound" not to read it unless directed or authorized by a church leader?

So I've read 1 John a lot and I understand that I cannot continue to sin if I want to be a child of God's. > **1 John 1:6** (NIV) > > 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the > darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. But then at the same time, if we accomplish the call to be holy and to be righteous and to be free of sin then we are not children of God. > **1 John 1:8** (NIV) > > 8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth > is not in us. I'm personally struggling with this very line in my own life. I don't hate people, because I know that I'm commanded to love. But when it comes to my own desires of the flesh I continually fail. I have no self control, I cannot even get out of bed when my alarm goes off. Where does God draw this line? Does He give us any more insight into the battle with sin through scripture? So I ask again, where does God draw the line when it comes to sin?

To clarify what I mean by *private revelations*, I'm referring to revelations by God through extra-biblical means, such as prophecies, dreams, and visions. Is the Westminster Confession's doctrine of *Sola Scriptura* incompatible with a continuationist view on private revelations? Some appear to think that the two are incompatible. For example, [Mike Riccardi writing at The Cripple Gate](https://thecripplegate.com/strange-fire-the-puritan-commitment-to-sola-scriptura-steve-lawson/) affirms: > Think of a magnificent, ancient temple and a foundation upon which everything rests. That’s *sola Scriptura*. Everything that we believe, obey, embrace, and hold dear in the convictions of our soul is based upon this foundation of *sola Scriptura*. Rome said, “We accept Scripture, but it is Scripture *and*. Scripture *and* church tradition; Scripture *and* ecclesiastical hierarchies; Scripture *and* the church councils; Scripture *and* papal authority. And the Reformers said, coming back to the Bible, “No, it is *sola Scriptura*: Scripture alone.” And if anything else is added to the foundation of the church, there will be cracks in the foundation and it will not hold up the teaching and the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. **At the same time, they said no to the Anabaptists and the libertines who wanted to add their dreams and visions and new revelations. They said no; it is Scripture *alone***. > > ... > > And what I want you to note is in [WCF] chapter 1 section 1, **they begin with a statement on the cessation of any new revelation. They were determined to state that they will believe only the Bible**. So please note, in the first section of chapter 1, they saw it necessary for the preserving and propagating of truth that would make the Holy Scripture to be most necessary. In other words, it has to be written down, so the message would be preserved and propagated far and wide with a uniformity of statement. > > **“Those former ways of God’s revealing His will unto His people being *now ceased*.”** This is front-loaded at the very outset. No wiggle room. These Puritan divines who gathered perhaps the greatest generation of believers in the UK, began with this cessationist statement. > > ... > > In the sixth section [WCF 1.6], we read of its sufficiency. **“The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life is in Scripture.” No need to look anywhere else. No need to have anything else added. No appendices needed**. They affirm the Scriptures that I have already read to you, that all things necessary for salvation and sanctification, for the glory of God is found in our Bible. In this sixth section also is another cessationist statement: **“Nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men.”** Do not be bringing your “Thus says the Lord” into this house if it’s not found in chapter and verse. > > ... > > Number 10 [WCF 1.10] is a final summation of the authority of the Scripture. “The supreme judge by which all controversies are to be determined and…examined…can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” **Not speaking in your revelations, in your dreams and visions, in your tongues. Speaking in the Scripture *alone*.** And the Word of God will be the highest arbitrator in all matters in the life of the church. > > ... > > ### Sola Scriptura: Deluded by the Quakers > > Whenever God opens the windows of heaven to bless his people, the devil opens the gates of hell to blast. While the Puritans were meeting in Westminster in the 1640s, at exactly that same time virtually across town, the devil was doing his work. There arose a fringe group that would come to be known as the Quakers, also known as the Religious Society of Friends. **They claimed to be receiving new revelations, prophecies. And with that they were being led astray into hyper-emotionalism and mysticism**. > > ... > > And out of this commitment to be “open and uncautious” to **continuing revelation by the Spirit, they were led into all kinds of mystical experiences and bizarre patterns**, not the least of which was going naked as a sign. > > He was the person al chaplain to Oliver Cromwell. John Owen Addressed Parliament. This brilliant man gave himself to **combat this Charismatic emotional departure from *sola Scriptura* with its new revelations**. And Owen affirmed the deeper issue, which was *sola Scriptura*. --- I got the inspiration to ask this question from: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101344/61679 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/101366/61679

As we know, Good Friday falls on March 25 (2016) this year. In Catholic and Orthodox Churches, March 25 is also the Feast of the Annunciation . A priest friend of mine, told me there was once a popular belief in the Middle Ages that the Annunciation coincided with Passion of Our Lord. Can anyone point out to any other sources that support such a popular belief did in fact exist? I have found two sources that seem to support this idea. The 2nd-century writer Irenaeus of Lyon regarded the conception of Jesus as 25 March coinciding with the Passion . The second piece to support this idea comes from the Liturgical Calendar of the Sarum Rite .One can see on page 3 that Annunciation and Good Friday are on March 25th. The Sarum Rite is a variation of the Roman Liturgy in use in England, up to 1559. **Addendum:** The Roman Martyrology commemorates the Feast of St Dismas on the 25th of March! St Dismas is the traditional name given to the Good Thief, who died on the cross next to Jesus at Golgotha.

**Formalized Ministry** The constituency of the Early Church was listed as **saints, elders, and deacons** in Philippians 1:1. And we know that the early Christians were familiar with the Synagogue style of congregating with a leadership of **archisynagogos, hazzars, and almoners**. So they would have considered some type of formal spiritual leadership necessary in the fledgling Church. And we see in Ephesians 4:11 a list of ministers given by the Apostle Paul "that were for the edification of the congregations." **Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastor/Teachers** But were ministries formalized into leadership roles by this time in church history? Or were these, as some contend, just descriptions of ministering done at that time? If they were "formalized" in New Testament times and functioning in those churches, do Evangelical Protestants consider them as also legitimate ministry **with a leadership role** in modern Local Congregations? Do they consider the N.T. listing ***a pattern for modernity***? Should the modern local church, or denominations, expect there to be room for all of these ministries to exist and flourish---or just the pastor? >*Jesus Christ has abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the **Evangel** whereunto I am appointed a **Herald, an Apostle, and a Teacher** to the nations.* (2 Timothy 1:10,11) >*And He (God) gave **some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers**, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the Body of Christ.* (Ephesians 4:11-12)

Is it part of the LDS religion to remove your hat during prayer? Or is that just part of western culture as a sign of respect? Are LDS required to remove their hats when they pray? Or can they pray with hats on?

Since some biblical characters, like Kings David and Solomon did exist, but others didn't ( I am assuming that Noah didn't,for instance, although some people think he really lived a lot of years ago) I was wondering ... Did Cain really exist ?? Is he really buried in Kabul ?? The story goes like this : Cain travelled to the actual Iran, and somehow he found redemption for his great sin. Nowadays he is buried in a cemetery in Kabul beneath a mosque of Muslim religion. https://www.mitele.es/programas-tv/cuarto-milenio/temporada-19/top-videos/tumba-cain-kabul-40_012353011/player/

I am looking for where we are told that the Holy Ghost gets a physical body. I thought it was doctrine that He will get a physical body during the Millennium. However, I am not able to find a reference. I went through every verse which has the phrase "Holy Ghost" in the scriptures and did not find it. Maybe I missed it. Maybe I need to look at the verses which reference the Holy Ghost with a different name (e.g. the Spirit). I could not find a reference on https://lds.org ... maybe I did not look long enough. I see a few discussions on the Internet but no references. Can you provide a reference which says when the Holy Ghost gets a physical body? I am assuming that everyone (including the Holy Ghost) which chose Heavenly Father's plan will receive a physical body. D&C 130:22 shows us that He cannot perform his functions with a physical body. Perhaps, I am totally wrong and the Holy Ghost will never receive a physical body. If that is correct, please show me a reference.

I understand the Book of Mormon has a list of witnesses. However, I have heard that these witnesses may not have actually ever seen the gold plates that contained the original manuscripts for the Book of Mormon, but were witnesses in a different sort of way. So, just how many people physically saw and/or touched the gold plates from which Joseph Smith is said to have translated the Book of Mormon? *Note: Martin Harris, one of the witnesses, later explicitly denied seeing the plates with his physical eyes. See article. .*

What is the LDS practice of *home/visiting teaching*? Are they the same thing? Where did this originate, as I don't know of other sects which have the same practice... at least with those terms.

I understand that LDS members are encouraged to build and maintain a long-term supply of food and other essentials. From where did this teaching originate and what is the reasoning behind this practice? What is the prevalent "target" that one is encouraged to achieve? Does this have anything to do with LDS end-times theology?

The LDS church sponsors scouting programs for their boys, and I understand that many LDS young men attain the rank of Eagle, the highest rank in Boy Scouts. Regardless of the possible implications of the imminent decision of the BSA related to gays in scouts, what is the LDS Church's affiliation with scouting? What religious significance does the Boy Scouts have with Mormon young men? **Update:** The LDS Church recently issued this statement about their partnership with the Boy Scouts . **Another Update:** One more statement by the LDS Church regarding the Boy Scout membership policy decision .