Why is Biblocality So Important?

[lvdyou]

The reason why biblocality is so important is because God is saying even believers their flesh can rise up at anytime so the teaching says consider the unit of the church a locality instead of a denomination or a congregation. Don't say "I of Cephas" or "I of Apollos" for that is like saying I am of this or that denomination; don't say "I of Christ" because that's like saying I am of a particular congregation exalting that congregation above the Scriptural locality.

For a primer on biblocality, read here,

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/whichchurch.htm

Apostles, directly commissioned by God, work for a region of church localities to appoint Elders of each locality who in turn approve the Elders of each meeting place. So for example, the Apostles of Texas appoint Elders of Dallas and the Elders of Dallas approve the Elders of each meeting place within Dallas. Or the Apostles of Alberta appoint the Elders of Edmonton who in turn approve the Elders of the many meeting places in Edmonton. Just like in the Bible the church of Antioch was in the churches of Syria or the church of Israel in the churches of Judea, etc.

There is no Archbiship of United States or Pope of the Planet or Murderous Protestant Pope of Geneva. For such an arrangement feeds their flesh.

The proper organizing the Church as discussed herein is training ground or rehersal for what is to come when Jesus steps down Aug. 7, 2022 as this is how He will arrange authority and submission harmoniously in His kingdom on earth for 1000 years.

[dianaiad]

The reason why biblocality is so important is because God is saying even believers their flesh can rise up at anytime so the teaching says consider the unit of the church a locality instead of a denomination or a congregation.

For a primer on biblocality, read here,

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/whichchurch.htm

Apostles, directly commissioned by God, work for a region of church localities to appoint Elders of each locality who in turn approve the Elders of each meeting place. So for example, the Apostles of Texas appoint Elders of Dallas and the Elders of Dallas approve the Elders of each meeting place within Dallas. Or the Apostles of Alberta appoint the Elders of Edmonton who in turn approve the Elders of the many meeting places in Edmonton. Just like in the Bible the church of Antioch was in the churches of Syria or the church of Israel in the churches of Judea, etc.

There is no Archbiship of United States or Pope of the Planet or Murderous Protestant Pope of Geneva. For such an arrangement feeds their flesh.

The rather obviously biased language here ("Murderous Protestant Pope of Geneva?" ) tells me that the above is some sort of challenge to theists...Christians especially. The problem is (and perhaps I am exposing my own stupidity here, but...)

I haven't the foggiest notion what you are talking about.

Could you explain to me what your point is?

[lvdyou]

You're correct, you have no idea what was just said exposing your own stupidity as you said.

[dianaiad]

You're correct, you have no idea what was just said exposing your own stupidity as you said.

OK.

Care to cure it?

My 'stupidity,' that is? Your reply, though it may have relieved your feelings, didn't help me understand your post any better.

Tell you what: pretend that I am, not 'stupid,' but merely 'ignorant.' Ignorance is curable, where stupidity may not be. Use monosyllabic words if you must, but please; what in the world are you talking about?

What's the problem with having an organizational hierarchy in a church?
One based upon geography...or any other 'phy' you want to name?
IS there one? A problem, that is?

[lvdyou]

There is no problem of having an organization hierarchy of the Church. I just described how it works.

[dianaiad]

There is no problem of having an organization hierarchy of the Church. I just described how it works.

Yes.

I am aware of how it works.

It is a standard, and effective, way to organize all sorts of things, including religions. However, if there is 'no problem' with doing it that way, what IS the problem?

Is there something controversial in the notion? If so, what is it? If not, what is the question you want to discuss?

OP's generally do have some sort of question, or proposal, to discuss. Yours, as far as I can see, does not.

[lvdyou]

There are no denominations organized this way. That's the point. God's way is not their way.

[dianaiad]

There are no denominations organized this way. That's the point. God's way is not their way.

Let me get this straight:

You are claiming that the 'proper' way to organize a church is from the top down: that is, Apostles appoint leaders, who appoint leaders, who appoint leaders, down to the leaders of single congregations, all congregations assigned according to geographical locations. Do I have that about right?

As in...say...single congregations, whose leaders report to (and are appointed by) leaders who are in charge of several congregations...and they in turn report to leaders of several of those...who report to apostles?

That about how it's supposed to go?

[lvdyou]

No. Apostles work regionally. There is none above them but God. And the meeting place has an Elder that is approved by the Elder of a locality who was appointed by an Apostle. There is just these 3 levels, not the many more you propose. This is the biblical way of organizing the Church.

What you are missing is the fact that the Apostle directly commissioned by God is limited to his region of churches such as a state or a province or a small county, thus between the Apostle and God there is no archdiocee of a country like USA or continent like Africa nor a pope of the planet.

But you don't have the humility to accept this, because you are possessed by a denom.

[dianaiad]

No. Apostles work regionally. There is none above them but God. And the meeting place has an Elder that is approved by the Elder of a locality who was appointed by an Apostle. There is just these 3 levels, not the many more you propose. This is the biblical way of organizing the Church.

What you are missing is the fact that the Apostle directly commissioned by God is limited to his region of churches such as a state or a province or a small county, thus between the Apostle and God there is no archdiocee of a country like USA or continent like Africa nor a pope of the planet.

But you don't have the humility to accept this, because you are possessed by a denom.

I'm possessed by a denom?

Well, you are quite right. I am..a denomination. The denomination I'm "possessed" with is called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and it is organized thusly:

One: Prophet and President of the church, who is an Apostle (the president of the Quorum of Apostles) and the Apostles that form that quorum.
These men administer the church as a whole, and are responsible for regional leaders..Stake presidents (who are, by the way, High Priests and ELDERS) who are in charge of groups of "Wards," seven to ten of 'em. Each ward is led by a Bishop (who is also a High Priest and Elder).

I read your article, by the way. Interesting that you claim that no church is organized the way you claim it should be, given what I just told you, isn't it?

But don't mind me, I'm possessed by a denom.

......and you still haven't explained what your point of discussion is.