Amulek

In our church a priesthood officer can choose to turn in his/her card for personal reasons. It basically means they will not function in any role as PH. Some reactivate it. Some do not. The Holy Call is always there though. Blessed, as I recall you are a CofC member correct? I was curious reading the article that Snow posted is spoke of the Conference members voting on a list of names put up by the Quorum of the Twelve. Is this normal proceedure for replacing the President of the Church? And what happended the the requirement that was so much a part of the RLDS church that the next President must be a decendant of Joseph Smith? Thanks for taking the time to reply to my posts. Amulek (Sorry about all of the duplicate threads that I asked to have deleted. I was having some problems with my computer and I kept getting an error message so I tried again. Finally I gave up and to my surprise found I had multiple posts of the same thread that did go through) ~

INDEPENDENCE, Missouri - W. Grant McMurray, president of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, resigned Monday in a letter to church leaders citing "inappropriate choices". The president and prophet of the second largest body of Latter day Saints (Mormons), the resignation is unprecedented in the faith's 174 year old history. President McMurray had served in the post for eight years. In his resignation letter dated 29 November 2004 McMurray stated that for "several years I have struggled with personal and family issues that have impacted my ability to function unreservedly in my office and calling." He went on to allude to personal failings, stating "I have made some inappropriate choices, and the circumstances of my life are now such that I cannot continue to effectively lead the church." The letter further asks that the church release McMurray from the lay priesthood of the faith. Church tradition dictates that the current president selects, with he consent of other senior leaders and the general membership, who should follow him in the office. But in a further unprecedented move McMurray has declined to take on that role saying "On the matter of succession in presidency, our tradition anticipates that I would designate a successor. In my present situation, I do not feel it is appropriate to do so." At this point there is no clear indication who might follow President McMurray. Church practice is that McMurray's two assistances, President Peter A. Judd and President Kenneth N. Robinson, will lead the faith until a successor is named. Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints also known as the Community of Christ is second largest of the Latter day Saint faiths, who are sometimes known as Mormons. Headquartered in Independence, Missouri and is independent of the larger Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the U.S. state of Utah. Both churches trace there origins to Joseph Smith, Jr. They split in the mid 19th century in a disagreement over who should succeed Smith following his murder in 1844. The RLDS Church is found world wide with it's strongest following in the U.S. states of Missouri and Iowa as well as in parts of French Polynesia.

So you reject all priesthood offices that were not in the Church in 1830 when it was first established? What does the phrase "line upon line" mean to you?Please remember when reading these questions, what I tell my wife. If something I say can be taken two ways and one way makes you mad. . . I meant the other way. I am just trying to understand your line of thinking. Can you say that the RLDS or CofC also believes the same? Thanks for enduring all of our questioning. Amulek ~

What is the criteria that you use to determine if something is "another downfall"? At this point it seems very arbitrary or more along the lines of "if Jenda disagrees with it it was 'another downfall'". Now please don't take my questioning as being rude. I am not trying to be so, but I don't know any other way to put it. I am just having a difficult time understanding how a person can believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, yet in the final years of his life he "screwed up" so many times.Amulek ~

Actually the practice of rebaptism was started in Nauvoo by Joseph Smith. In a letter of Jacob Scott from Nauvoo on 28 February 1843 he said: "Nearly All the Church have been Baptized again, for the Remission of their Sins, since they joined the Church, I have also, by the hands of Br. Joseph (as he himself has been,) & I would advise Jan and you Mary, to attend to it as soon as you can have the opportunity of an Elder or Priest of the Church to administer it." [Jacob Scott to Mary Scott Warnock, 28 February 1843, Research Library and Archives of The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Auditorium, Independence, Missouri.]Amulek ~

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE ("bizabra")</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So, tea "proper", is a "wholesome tea", as it is proven to have health benefits. Ergo, tea in all it's forms must be OK! Or are there actually UNhealthy teas? Does anyone know of any UNHEALTHY teas out there? Eh? OK! So drink up, folks! Just tell your Bish that according to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, "all wholesome herbs" are ordained by god, and since science has shown tea in general to be "wholesome", then you are not breaking the WofW to have green, or oolong, or even black tea for breakies. Except that there is one "wholesome herb" that has been altered by man by fermentation process, that the Lord through his prophets have declaired that we should not drink. Amulek ~

Perhaps for the same reason she has not answered my questions. This is not the only message board she posts on and she does have a life. Amulek ~

According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, the most "official" statement that I have found on herbal teas states: "The revelation has not been interpreted as proscribing herbal teas, for it states that "all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the Constitution, nature, and use of man" (D&C 89:10)."Amulek ~

Jenda: As the Nauvoo temple was being built, each room was dedicated as it was finished, so there were multiple little dedications as the work continued, but the temple was never finished. Let me just say first of all, thank you Jenda for you willingness to answer our questions, even though some of them seem a bit discourteous. As has been pointed out, if you do a google search you will find that some workers were left behind and finished the temple and the final public dedication was on May 1-3, 1846, by Orson Hyde, the senior Apostle in Nauvoo at that time. There were various dedications held at the temple. See: http://users.marshall.edu/~brown/nauvoo/de...dedication.html The dedicatory prayer by Elder Hyde was recorded as follows: "Holy and Everlasting Father, before Thee this morning we present ourselves and acknowledge Thy mercy that has been extended to us since we have been on Thy footstool, and for this opportunity of dedicating this house. We thank Thee that Thou hast given us strength to accomplish the charges delivered by Thee. Forgive us our sins and the sins of thy people. Thou hast seen our labors and exertions to accomplish this purpose. By the authority of the Holy Priesthood now we offer this building as a sanctuary to Thy Worthy Name. We ask Thee to take the guardianship into Thy hands and grant that Thy Spirit shall dwell here and may all feel a sacred influence on their hearts that His Hand has helped this work. Accept of our offering this morning, and that soul that blesses this temple let blessings rest on his posterity to the latest generation, and that soul that shall practice evil against this temple and Thy House, set Thy face against him and let evil take the portion of his inheritance. Administer to Thy people and let Thy honor and glory fall on our heads, not in the eyes of men but in the day when the world shall become Thy dominion. May we have the honor to tune the lyre that Thou hast redeemed us from every nation and made us holy and pure and that we have washed our robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. It must needs be that offenses come, we offer it as the fruit of our labors and may the oppression under which they groaned be to our good. We ask that the angel of mercy may be round about this temple and that light may descend upon us and let us pass to the courts of the heavenly. Let Thy Spirit rest upon those who have contributed to the building of this temple, the laborers on it that they may come forth to receive kingdoms and dominions and glory and immortal power. Accept of us we pray Thee, inspire every bosom to do Thy will, cause that truth may lead them for the glorious coming of the Son of God when you come in the name of the King, the Lord of Hosts shall be the King. Gather us in Thy Kingdom through Jesus Christ, our Lord, Amen." (Thomas Bullock, Minutes of the Dedication of the Nauvoo Temple. Historic Sites File. Church Historical Library, Salt Lake City, Utah.) Jenda: BY said so in the Journal of Discourses. If you have a set handy and want to check it out, the reference is vol. 18, page 303. He states that the temple at St. Georges is the first temple completed since the time of Adam that the ordinances can be performed in. What Brigham stated was that the St. George temple was the first one completed that the Saints could enjoy. They were driven from Nauvoo and never got the privledge of enjoying it. I am looking forward to your replys to my posts yesterday. You partially replied to one which brought up the issue of the completion of the Nauvoo temple. Thank you. Amulek ~

Jenda: I would like to answer the "secondly" first, so......... I believe that there were a number of factors influencing Joseph Smith, among them, his own ego. But also among them, I believe that he got caught up in the "charismatic" nature of BY, and by doing so, let (at least) one practice into the church that was not of God. So, having said this, with his eyes focusing more on men and their worldly pleasures, along with his own ego coming into play, I do believe that he became a "fallen" prophet. However, I believe that, right towards the end, that he recognized what was happening, and tried to free the church from the wickedness that had overtaken it. As I have read Church history, (and I will admit, I have not read extensively RLDS versions) I don't find BY all that "charismatic" in Nauvoo. Certainly you could say that about him afterwards, but it seems to me that when Joseph was around, he was pretty much a humble follower. Perhaps you can give us some historical evidence to support your assertion. Section 43 (LDS) verse three says in speaking of Joseph, "And this ye shall know assuredly—that there is none other appointed unto you to receive commandments and revelations until he be taken, if he abide in me." Are you suggesting that since Joseph became a "fallen" prophet and was not abiding in the Lord, that the ability to "receive commandments and revelations" were taken from him and given to another? If so, who? If not, why not? Jenda: Having said that, back to your "firstly".......... Secret temple ordinances which started making their appearance in the late Kirtland era. These weren't bad, they were fairly limited, i.e.--washing of feet, and they were not intended to "exalt" one, they were for worship only. However, they paved the way for other secret temple ordinances--baptism for the dead, endowments, sealings, etc. Secret [sacred] temple ordinance do not, in and of themselves, seem "evil" Particularly with the research that is being conducted that seems to demonstrate that the Early Christians also had secret rituals that were given to the apostles and passed down to a select few. Why do you find these things "evil" Jenda: The use of blood-atonement practices, i.e.--the Whistling Whittling Brigade, among others, which started making their appearances in Missouri (Far West(?) I believe). Could you please provide me with a link to read more about the "Whistling Whittling Brigade". What "others," meaning blood-atonement practices did you have in mind? Jenda: The Council of Fifty, which was a secret group of men that was supposed to lead the church/city when Joseph Smith was crowned king (or something like that (I have to read up on it more to understand it better)). They were the select ones that "pre-tested" the waters (so to speak) of things like polygamy, etc. I think that perhaps you need to read more about the history of the Council of Fifty. May I suggest an article entitled, "The Council of Fifty and Its Members, 1844 to 1945" by D. Michael Quinn. If you cannot find a copy, email me and I will send you a copy. Jenda: Polygamy (that's a given.) Why do you find that a given. It was practiced in the OT apparently under the command and approval of God. Jenda: Masonry (another given.) I don't understand. Why do you find Masonry another "given" Thank you for taking the time to reply. Amulek ~

Jenda: You asked why the RLDS felt justified removing a couple sections from the D&C, I asked why the LDS felt justified doing the same exact thing. How is that different? Jenda: I guess that maybe God didn't feel it was needed. It seems, from reading church history, and Section 107, that Joseph had petitioned God more than once regarding this issue, and never received confirmation that it was something God wanted him to pursue. Finally God gave Joseph permission to practice it, but clearly stated that at the end of the designated time, the church would be rejected, with it's dead. That seems clear enough to me. I apologise. I can see that in my haste, I am not wording my questions very well. I did not mean "justified" in that way, but as "what was their reasoning for doing such . . . what was their justification?" The reasoning for the LDS Church for removing the section on Marriage could certainly be "justified" by them on the basis of the new commandment of Plural marriage. I gather you (they) feel justified because the Nauvoo temple was not completed on time, correct? Are there any other reasons? What was the "acceptable"or sufficient time frame to complete the Nauvoo temple in your opinion? I did not see the Lord in scripture give a specified deadline or timeframe, nor do I find one in Church history. Maybe you could help me out here. Amulek ~

That reminded me of another question I was going to ask. What was this supposed "inherant evil" you keep speaking of?Thanks Amulek ~

Jenda: They are my own beliefs, but generally held among many of the RLDS. The CoC/RLDS doesn't make anyone believe anything specific about anything. Interesting. Thank you. Jenda: I am curious as to what basis the LDS felt that they could remove section 111 from the 1844 D&C. (Actually, I'm not, I know why, I just wanted to know who gave them the authority.) I could get into a discussion of why, but that would distract from my question that you did not answer. Why do you believe that the RLDS/CofC felt they could remove these sections from the D&C? Jenda: I am not following you. There was no cessation of the ordinance in the LDS church. The RLDS believe that there is no need for it, so why do it? Sorry for not being clear. There was not cessation of the ordinance within the LDS Church, but there was in the RLDS. Why do the RLDS feel that there is no need for Baptism for the Dead, when apparantly Joseph Smith did? Thanks again. Amulek ~

Thank you for your reply. I hope you don't mind a few more questions?Is this the general view of RLDS (CofC, Restoration Branches) or yours personally? I am curious as to what basis the RLDS felt that they could remove sections 107, 109 and 110 from the 1844 Doctrine and Covenants? On the issue of Baptism for the Dead. It was obviously practiced durring Joseph Smith's lifetime. Was it wrong, was JS just mistaken (fallen)? What do you believe the reason for the cessation of this ordinance? Thanks again. Amulek ~

Jenda, If you don't mind, I would like to step in here and ask you a question or two. As I have tried to read through these posts, you have stated words to the effect that you believe that the "Church" made some changes while in Nauvoo that God did not approve of. Would you mind listing what those changes are so that I can see specifically what you are talking about? And secondly, if you believe that Joseph Smith was involved in these changes, was he in your opinion a "fallen" prophet as some have accused him of or was he simply led astray? If you do not believe that JS was involved in any of these changes, then how did they come about under his watchcare?Thank you for your time in responding. Amulek ~