Page 1 of 1
evangelists = patriarchs?
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 6:22 am
by _asbestosman
In Priesthood on Sunday we talked about the organization of the church. They asked what evangelists are and I gave the answer they were looking for (patriarch), but I also mentioned and wondered about the actual meaning of the word evangelist. The word conveys the idea of one (-ist) who either evangelizes, or somehow is a messenger (angel) of good (ev/eu). Why does the LDS church say that evangelists are patriarchs? Is there a particular reason to draw this conneciton to patriarchs instead of missionaries or any other member?
Re: evangelists = patriarchs?
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 9:59 am
by _ludwigm
asbestosman wrote:In Priesthood on Sunday we talked about the organization of the church. They asked what evangelists are and I gave the answer they were looking for (patriarch), but I also mentioned and wondered about the actual meaning of the word evangelist. The word conveys the idea of one (-ist) who either evangelizes, or somehow is a messenger (angel) of good (ev/eu). Why does the LDS church say that evangelists are patriarchs? Is there a particular reason to draw this conneciton to patriarchs instead of missionaries or any other member?
The members and the leaders of the church are laymans.
This means:
1. They are not paid (I don't care if this is true or not)
2. They don't know what they are talking about - on being laymans
- and this is the key. In the beginning ( 1830 --> ) a lot of religiously uneducated people - called prophets and apostles - have said a lot of religious thing. They called it doctrine, gospel, whatever. Their descendants should repeat ( and explain away and defend) that sentences, because any deviation would mean apostasy.
Have the words they used different meanings? Don't care, they can be redefined. Horse is tapir.
That is it.
Re: evangelists = patriarchs?
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 2:54 pm
by _Mercury
asbestosman wrote: Is there a particular reason to draw this conneciton to patriarchs instead of missionaries or any other member?
Because stupid pedantic titles and designations are religions bread and butter, used to designate a human as above the rabble. Its a silly game that does nothing to further humanity.
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:51 pm
by _NorthboundZax
I had wondered about the evangelist=patriarch notion as well. Patriarchs don't behave in any typical evangelistic way, as far as I can see.
The only answer that makes much sense to me is that because evangelists are listed in the articles of faith and patriarchs aren't, and we have the latter but not the former, the latter fills in for the other in a space filling exercise - not really because they are equivalent in any way.