Rlds Church President Resigns

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray+Dec 6 2004, 12:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Dec 6 2004, 12:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Dec 3 2004, 05:49 PM

The letter [his letter] further asks that the church release McMurray from the lay priesthood of the faith.

This is the part I don’t understand. I can understand that he didn’t feel worthy to exercise the priesthood, but to ask to be released from the priesthood is an entirely different matter. Why not continue to hold the priesthood and simply not exercise it? And why ask for these things, instead of making it known that he no longer felt worthy and then leaving the discipline up to the other priesthood leaders? Or in other words, why ask to be released, instead of simply agreeing with their possible decision that allowing himself to be released is the right thing to do?

Or in other words, shat kind of a message do you think this sends to other people who are hearing about it?

Did you overlook this post from me, Blessed. You seemed to reply to it but maybe you didn't understand what I was saying.

Ray, did you not read my post?

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jenda@Dec 6 2004, 11:10 AM

Ray, let's approach it from a slightly different POV.

When you are in the midst of sinning, can you effectively minister to others?  When you have been soooo hurt by someone or something that your spirit is in pain, can you effectively minister to others?

What Grant McMurray requested is just time away from his priesthood responsibilities to heal the broken relationships in his life that prevent him from being an effective minister.  He did not resign his priesthood, he asked for a temporary releasing, something that is not uncommon in our church while the individual struggles to get his life back in order.

Did you see this for yourself Jenda or are you citing a news article?

Reference please. :)

[Jenda]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Dec 6 2004, 12:15 PM

Call me an incorrigible gossip, but I want to know specifically what the man did. If the idea is to confess your sin, confessing to "inappropriate personal choices" doesn't cut it. If I were confessing to adultery (which, from the phrasing of Mr. McMurray's statement, I suspect is the failing at issue), confessing to "inappropriate personal choices" isn't much of a confession at all. We've all made "inappropriate personal choices."

You are an incorrigible gossip!

God is his judge, just as he is your and mine. Since he resigned as president of the church, and (temporarily) asked to be released from his priesthood, he has done everything that publically needs to be done. It is between him and God now.

[Blessed]

PD -- You first... let's see you list your most shameful sins so we can pick them apart.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray+Dec 6 2004, 12:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Dec 6 2004, 12:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Dec 6 2004, 11:10 AM

Ray, let's approach it from a slightly different POV.

When you are in the midst of sinning, can you effectively minister to others?  When you have been soooo hurt by someone or something that your spirit is in pain, can you effectively minister to others?

What Grant McMurray requested is just time away from his priesthood responsibilities to heal the broken relationships in his life that prevent him from being an effective minister.  He did not resign his priesthood, he asked for a temporary releasing, something that is not uncommon in our church while the individual struggles to get his life back in order.

Did you see this for yourself Jenda or are you citing a news article?

Reference please. :)

I believe it was this phrasing that led me to the belief that he had requested only a temporary release:

"I recognize within myself the need for a time for personal renewal and healing. In addition, I have in recent weeks been diagnosed with early onset Parkinson’s disease, which at this point is very treatable, but will require me to devote more attention to my physical health. For these reasons I would ask your forbearance in my desire to avoid participating in public gatherings around this decision, even though I realize that our church community may wish to give expression in that way. Likewise, it is not appropriate for me to function in a priesthood capacity as I work through these personal issues, and so I request to be released from my priesthood office at this time."

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jenda+Dec 6 2004, 01:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Dec 6 2004, 01:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Ray@Dec 6 2004, 12:29 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Dec 6 2004, 11:10 AM

Ray, let's approach it from a slightly different POV.

When you are in the midst of sinning, can you effectively minister to others?  When you have been soooo hurt by someone or something that your spirit is in pain, can you effectively minister to others?

What Grant McMurray requested is just time away from his priesthood responsibilities to heal the broken relationships in his life that prevent him from being an effective minister.  He did not resign his priesthood, he asked for a temporary releasing, something that is not uncommon in our church while the individual struggles to get his life back in order.

Did you see this for yourself Jenda or are you citing a news article?

Reference please. :)

I believe it was this phrasing that led me to the belief that he had requested only a temporary release:

"I recognize within myself the need for a time for personal renewal and healing. In addition, I have in recent weeks been diagnosed with early onset Parkinson’s disease, which at this point is very treatable, but will require me to devote more attention to my physical health. For these reasons I would ask your forbearance in my desire to avoid participating in public gatherings around this decision, even though I realize that our church community may wish to give expression in that way. Likewise, it is not appropriate for me to function in a priesthood capacity as I work through these personal issues, and so I request to be released from my priesthood office at this time."

Well, while those might be his reasons for wanting to be released from his priesthood responsibilities, and for feeling unworthy, I see no reason to conclude that he was asking for only a temporary release, in light of the other quote that was given in the news article I cited.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray+Dec 6 2004, 01:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ray @ Dec 6 2004, 01:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Dec 6 2004, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by -Ray@Dec 6 2004, 12:29 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Dec 6 2004, 11:10 AM

Ray, let's approach it from a slightly different POV.

When you are in the midst of sinning, can you effectively minister to others?  When you have been soooo hurt by someone or something that your spirit is in pain, can you effectively minister to others?

What Grant McMurray requested is just time away from his priesthood responsibilities to heal the broken relationships in his life that prevent him from being an effective minister.  He did not resign his priesthood, he asked for a temporary releasing, something that is not uncommon in our church while the individual struggles to get his life back in order.

Did you see this for yourself Jenda or are you citing a news article?

Reference please. :)

I believe it was this phrasing that led me to the belief that he had requested only a temporary release:

"I recognize within myself the need for a time for personal renewal and healing. In addition, I have in recent weeks been diagnosed with early onset Parkinson’s disease, which at this point is very treatable, but will require me to devote more attention to my physical health. For these reasons I would ask your forbearance in my desire to avoid participating in public gatherings around this decision, even though I realize that our church community may wish to give expression in that way. Likewise, it is not appropriate for me to function in a priesthood capacity as I work through these personal issues, and so I request to be released from my priesthood office at this time."

Well, while those might be his reasons for wanting to be released from his priesthood responsibilities, and for feeling unworthy, I see no reason to conclude that he was asking for only a temporary release, in light of the other quote that was given in the news article I cited.

The only official statements are on the church's website. If someone else said something else somewhere else, then it doesn't bear mentioning. What I quoted was from the letter of resignation. What is it you quoted?

[Ray]

Originally posted by Jenda+Dec 6 2004, 02:20 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Dec 6 2004, 02:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Ray@Dec 6 2004, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Dec 6 2004, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by -Ray@Dec 6 2004, 12:29 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Dec 6 2004, 11:10 AM

Ray, let's approach it from a slightly different POV.

When you are in the midst of sinning, can you effectively minister to others?  When you have been soooo hurt by someone or something that your spirit is in pain, can you effectively minister to others?

What Grant McMurray requested is just time away from his priesthood responsibilities to heal the broken relationships in his life that prevent him from being an effective minister.  He did not resign his priesthood, he asked for a temporary releasing, something that is not uncommon in our church while the individual struggles to get his life back in order.

Did you see this for yourself Jenda or are you citing a news article?

Reference please. :)

I believe it was this phrasing that led me to the belief that he had requested only a temporary release:

"I recognize within myself the need for a time for personal renewal and healing. In addition, I have in recent weeks been diagnosed with early onset Parkinson’s disease, which at this point is very treatable, but will require me to devote more attention to my physical health. For these reasons I would ask your forbearance in my desire to avoid participating in public gatherings around this decision, even though I realize that our church community may wish to give expression in that way. Likewise, it is not appropriate for me to function in a priesthood capacity as I work through these personal issues, and so I request to be released from my priesthood office at this time."

Well, while those might be his reasons for wanting to be released from his priesthood responsibilities, and for feeling unworthy, I see no reason to conclude that he was asking for only a temporary release, in light of the other quote that was given in the news article I cited.

The only official statements are on the church's website. If someone else said something else somewhere else, then it doesn't bear mentioning. What I quoted was from the letter of resignation. What is it you quoted?

I quoted from the first post of this thread, which I presumed to be an accurate reflection of the letter. I just found the resignation letter on the official CoC website, and still don't see anything to state that he was seeking a temporary release from the priesthood, nor do I see any evidence to suggest that he had counseled with them before arriving at his decision.

So my question still remains... why should he quit? Why not simply ask for guidance and support from his brethren during this troubling time? Why not confess his sins and seek the help of his fellow priesthood officers to resolve his problems? He didn't even suggest that our Lord had told him that he should quit, so it appears that he is making this decision on his own. Do you think he'll also decide on his own when it is time to have his priesthood restored? Are these the standard protocols for everybody in the CoC, or is this an exception?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Jenda+Dec 6 2004, 12:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Dec 6 2004, 12:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Dec 6 2004, 12:15 PM

Call me an incorrigible gossip, but I want to know specifically what the man did.  If the idea is to confess your sin, confessing to "inappropriate personal choices" doesn't cut it.  If I were confessing to adultery (which, from the phrasing of Mr. McMurray's statement, I suspect is the failing at issue), confessing to "inappropriate personal choices" isn't much of a confession at all.  We've all made "inappropriate personal choices."

You are an incorrigible gossip!

God is his judge, just as he is your and mine. Since he resigned as president of the church, and (temporarily) asked to be released from his priesthood, he has done everything that publically needs to be done. It is between him and God now.

I suppose. On the other hand, because a public figure's postion gives him greater influence, I think it's appropriate that the public figure receive greater scrutiny than an ordinary person. With great power comes great responsibility (great line from the "Spiderman" movie.

Relatively few people would care about what I confessed to my bishop as a teenager, because I'm an official nobody. Whether what I say has any influence on others depends not on my position, but on whether I have anything convincing to say. On the other hand, if I were to allow myself to be set up as an authority on moral matters (as does a religious leader), I would have a broader audience, and receive greater deference, solely as a result of my public persona as a person uniquely qualified to give counsel on those matters. If I were to engage in conduct inconsistent with my position, my influence should then go back to the level of an ordinary person -- one whose ideas stand or fall based on their underlying value.

Thus, I don't believe William Bennett's gambling, or Paul Dunn's tall-talespinning, or Jimmie Swaggart's whoremongering are completely personal matters and none of our business. Aspects of their respective messages may still be true and valuable, but their indiscretions should decrease the level at which everything they say should be taken as absolute truth, just because they are the ones that say it.

(As an aside, I'm not all that keen on the idea that anything should be accepted as absolute truth because of the identity of the person promoting it, but it's true that we all evaluate many things based on the credibility of the person we hear them from.)

So yes, I do want to know what Mr. McMurray did. If President Hinckley were ever to resign, I would want to know why, too. If it is my business to know good things about a person (which it apparently is; Church magazines give detailed profiles of Church leaders), it's my business to know bad things as well.

Blessed -- Since nobody really much cares about who I am one way or the other, I'll let the bad be as anonymous as the first. Should I ever by some unlikely event become a high Church leader and have to resign publically, I'll let you know the reason why.

[Blessed]

Well, I am a no one to who has had their dirty laundry aired in public. Nothing is more heartbreaking than this... it isn't only about you it is about your family, it is about how the public reacts... it is about a lot more than you could ever, ever imagine.

But hey, try it and let's see.

[Ray]

Blessed,

It seems like you’re trying to make this a complicated matter, and it’s not. When we make mistakes we should confess our sins to the Lord and repent, and most of the time that’s all that is required, but when we make serious mistakes, we should also confess our sins to our priesthood leaders, who are or at least should be His authorized servants, to receive their help in overcoming our weaknesses. We shouldn’t just quit our other responsibilities so that we can work on our problems on our own, because we need support and counsel from our priesthood leaders to help us get back on track.

Or in other words, in our moments of special weakness, we need to receive special counsel from our priesthood leaders and give them reports to help them know how we’re doing, while they continue to give us counsel and encouragement until we get back on track. That’s why we should seek counsel and support from our priesthood leaders. And you’re right, nobody else really needs to know about our problems, because such things are very personal, except maybe in cases where someone is a leader of others and they should help their followers understand what is happening to them, to set an example for them even in moments of weakness.

And that’s all that I’m really trying to say.

Everybody makes mistakes and has moments of weakness, so I’m not saying that President McMurray is a bad, bad man who should never be placed in a position of leadership over other people, but if he has made certain serious mistakes, he needs help resolving those issues. But President McMurray seems to be side-stepping those procedures and that help, deciding instead that he thinks it’s better to have more time to work on these problems by himself. Or in other words, he didn’t seek counsel and support from his fellow priesthood authorities, he basically just said that he needs to quit so that he can work on his problems all by himself, and his fellow priesthood leaders have simply said “okay, that sounds right to me”.

Heh, is it just me or does anyone else think that's weird, and not a good way for leaders to set an example for others who have problems? Would you really want people who have made serious mistakes to simply write letters to their priesthood authorities saying they’d like to be released from their responsibilities so that they can work out their problems on their own?

[Blessed]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 6 2004, 05:31 PM

he didn’t seek counsel and support from his fellow priesthood authorities, he basically just said that he needs to quit so that he can work on his problems all by himself, and his fellow priesthood leaders have simply said “okay, that sounds right to me”.

Ray,

You are the only one who is making this complicated. You have NO idea and I repeat NO IDEA exactly what Grant has done and with whom he has discussed this with. You simply do not understand how my church chooses to operate under stressful situations. There is nothing wrong with what he has done.

Did you not see my post about a person who is sick shouldn't lead unless he infect the whole body.

He made the right choice, now, will you just drop it?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 6 2004, 04:31 PM

Blessed,

It seems like you’re trying to make this a complicated matter, and it’s not. When we make mistakes we should confess our sins to the Lord and repent, and most of the time that’s all that is required, but when we make serious mistakes, we should also confess our sins to our priesthood leaders, who are or at least should be His authorized servants, to receive their help in overcoming our weaknesses. We shouldn’t just quit our other responsibilities so that we can work on our problems on our own, because we need support and counsel from our priesthood leaders to help us get back on track.

Or in other words, in our moments of special weakness, we need to receive special counsel from our priesthood leaders and give them reports to help them know how we’re doing, while they continue to give us counsel and encouragement until we get back on track. That’s why we should seek counsel and support from our priesthood leaders. And you’re right, nobody else really needs to know about our problems, because such things are very personal, except maybe in cases where someone is a leader of others and they should help their followers understand what is happening to them, to set an example for them even in moments of weakness.

And that’s all that I’m really trying to say.

Everybody makes mistakes and has moments of weakness, so I’m not saying that President McMurray is a bad, bad man who should never be placed in a position of leadership over other people, but if he has made certain serious mistakes, he needs help resolving those issues. But President McMurray seems to be side-stepping those procedures and that help, deciding instead that he thinks it’s better to have more time to work on these problems by himself. Or in other words, he didn’t seek counsel and support from his fellow priesthood authorities, he basically just said that he needs to quit so that he can work on his problems all by himself, and his fellow priesthood leaders have simply said “okay, that sounds right to me”.

Heh, is it just me or does anyone else think that's weird, and not a good way for leaders to set an example for others who have problems? Would you really want people who have made serious mistakes to simply write letters to their priesthood authorities saying they’d like to be released from their responsibilities so that they can work out their problems on their own?

Ray, I think you are jumping to conclusions that have not been articulated.

I believe that, while this is sudden to us, the people of the church, that it has been in the works for, at least, a little while. (It would have had to have been to have gotten the media and internet coverage it did at a moment's notice.)

Anyway, I am sure the other members of the 1st Presidency have spoken with him about whatever the problem is, and/or, he has a favorite pastor that he is in contact with. I highly doubt he is doing this on his own.

[Ray]

I'm not jumping to conclusions, I'm basing my understanding on the information that is available to me. And if someone with knowledge of these events has more information, I think that somebody should make that known. Why should I give someone credit for something they haven't said anything about?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Dec 6 2004, 03:31 PM

Blessed,

It seems like you’re trying to make this a complicated matter, and it’s not. When we make mistakes we should confess our sins to the Lord and repent, and most of the time that’s all that is required,

Ray,

You seems to be in never never land. If you are an ordained Elder and committed adultery, they'd probably ex you or at least disfellowship you at best, even if you had repented.

[EmmaLeigh]

I havent read all five pages.... but....

I'm trying to control myself and not go off the deep end. I came to this board because I'm looking for some sort of stance on things that I believe in.

First of all, if Linda Booth IS choosen as the next prophet, there will not only be another falling away, it will be finished. I was so happy when Grant was ordained to the office of prophet, but then he stopped BEING a prophet... I love and respect the man, but...

The only name I've heard thrown around is Steve Veazey... which would be good because he is nice and conservative... but I dont really see him that way (as a prophet)... He was baptized by my grandfather, too, so that is kewl...

Let me address some things:

President Mcmurray did not ask for a temporary release from the preisthood... he walked away from it. Noone in the public is sure of why, nor should we know. I dont agree with his publically walking away from priesthood, but that is his choice. There are more private ways of doing things - noone would have batted an eye if he would have stepped down for 'personal and family reasons, including health" and left it at that... but hey, i'm no leader.... right??

There is a set system for naming of a new president/prophet and I pray that the PERSON the 12 bring to conference is someone not shy about being a prophet. The 12 will bring the name, with the aggreement and support of the WCLC (world church leadership council) and some of the other quorums. The name will be released in enough time for prayerful consideration to be made prior to that conference.

Let me vent for a moment. I know it is a 'privledge' to name a successor... not a responsibility... but ... he could have been killed in a car accident or any type of accident any time int the past 8 years, yet there was no letter naming a successor. We would have been in the same place we are in now...

The language the church decided to use has led people to think conspiracy... i think it was HORRID the language they used. To respect his privacy but use words like they did is just crazy...

ANd i'm not some sheltered CofC member... my family is quite active... very active... in CofC things... But i'm horridly upset at the handling of this - and the whole situation... but who am I??

Anyway - know this is a bad way to join a board, but i needed somewhere that at least stands by some very standard beliefs...

[Snow]

Originally posted by EmmaLeigh@Dec 7 2004, 09:57 PM

First of all, if Linda Booth IS choosen as the next prophet, there will not only be another falling away, it will be finished.

There is a set system for naming of a new president/prophet and I pray that the PERSON the 12 bring to conference is someone not shy about being a prophet. The 12 will bring the name, with the aggreement and support of the WCLC (world church leadership council) and some of the other quorums. T

Hi there EmmaLeigh,

Who chose Linda Booth, when and how did you find out about it?

Is the one of the major stances of the CoCC that the 12 can't choose a new prophet else Brigham Young would have been the prophet?

[Jenda]

EmmaLeigh, it is only your personal opinion that he did not ask for a temporary release. All of the language in that part of the letter indicates (without directly saying it) that he was asking for a temporary release. The fact that he did it publically has no bearing on that. He left it so that he could make the choice to return or not return when he sorted his problems out. The release from the 1st Presidency makes that clear.

Linda Booth's name is being bandied about because many liberal members want a woman in that position, and she, of all the women, seems the most acceptable. But EmmaLeigh is correct regarding this issue. Linda Booth is conservative enough that the liberals would stop attending, but she is a woman, and that would drive away all the conservatives that don't believe in women in the priesthood but have continued to attend in spite of it. The church would never survive another exodus.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by Jenda@Dec 8 2004, 07:02 AM

Linda Booth's name is being bandied about because many liberal members want a woman in that position, and she, of all the women, seems the most acceptable. But EmmaLeigh is correct regarding this issue. Linda Booth is conservative enough that the liberals would stop attending, but she is a woman, and that would drive away all the conservatives that don't believe in women in the priesthood but have continued to attend in spite of it. The church would never survive another exodus.

So, is Linda Booth currently taking the role of President of the RLDS Church? The part where you said the people have continued to come in spite of it makes me think that she is.

To the members of the RLDS Church, I am still praying that you find the leadership that is right for your church.

[EmmaLeigh]

Snow - CofC has a First Presidency just like the LDS... the two remaining members are acting as the presidency still, simply without the third. What the CofC is without is a prophet. I think it was mentioned somewhere that Wallace B Smith is still the prophet, but when he retired, he was no longer prophet but rather Evangelist i believe.

The 12 will be theones in charge of bringing a name of the successor... it is not the stance of the CofC to be against that.

Jenda - just as it is my stance that it isnt a temporary release is reading into things, so is your statement that... It doesnt specifically say either way... *shrugs*

Strawberry - Linda Booth is "simply" an apostle. :) She will be involved in the process just like the other 11 apostles. Steve Veazey is the president of the council of 12 and will lead the process.

The information can be found on the CofC website here: http://cofchrist.org/docs/official12-1-04.asp

At the bottom of the page are links to other statements - his letter of resignation, the statement from the 12, some Qand A's and a prayer that was made at the announcement by the Presiding Evangelist - the Presiding Patriarch.

Thanks for the prayers Strawberry. It is certainly a strange and difficult time - one full of uncertainties. I simply wish all the speculation about the circumstances surrounding the resignation would end, but I suppose that is human nature. It does make me appreciate the LDS church a bit more in their consistancy of belief and such...

[EmmaLeigh]

The 'continuing to come' statement I believe was in regards to the start of the ordination of women with section 156 of the D and C in 1987. there was a HUGE exodus, but even with the aggreement of that decision, there are still conservatives (myself included) that have had to give in to certain trends the church has taken - the name change and open communion - and the ordination of a woman to the office of Prophet is just - well, it would be another last straw for me and probably cause me to look into the LDS church a bit more seriously.

As the CofC has strived to become more eccumenicle they have taken standards of belief and rationalized them or made them less 'celebrated' or important.

Of course, while I have enjoyed the ministry of Apostle Linda Booth and Apostle Gail Mengal (I've never been around Mary Jacks-Dynes) I was not comfortable with adding women to the Concil of Twelve. Just call me a conservative 25 year old seventh generation-er... Shrugs...

So pray whichever way you want... but I do know that there are a couple of choices that I would certainly not feel is the will of God for the future of the church...

:)

ANd thanks for letting me come here to talk aobut this.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by EmmaLeigh@Dec 8 2004, 08:35 AM

The 'continuing to come' statement I believe was in regards to the start of the ordination of women with section 156 of the D and C in 1987. there was a HUGE exodus, but even with the aggreement of that decision, there are still conservatives (myself included) that have had to give in to certain trends the church has taken - the name change and open communion - and the ordination of a woman to the office of Prophet is just - well, it would be another last straw for me and probably cause me to look into the LDS church a bit more seriously.

Is there a reason you wouldn't look into becoming a restorationist? Unless you actually believed what the LDS believe, it wouldn't be a comfortable place to be.

[EmmaLeigh]

Sighs...

I have always felt as though those who are restorationists have a grudge... a chip on their shoulder... and i dont think that it is something I would be comfortable with. I'm not too informed about them, granted, but that is how I have always felt. Perhaps I should do some research... One of my dad's college basketball teammates is in their council of 12... we've maintained contact with him - maybe he could answer questions... Of course, there is a restoration congregation in my town, maybe that would be better (Even though I just moved here a couple of months ago)....

And... I've always respected certain aspects of the LDS faith and church. I have ancestory that goes all the way back to the first council of 12 under Joseph Smith Jr...... shrugs... guess I'm complicated, eh? I just want to be right... and feel right about the decision i make....

[Jenda]

Originally posted by EmmaLeigh@Dec 8 2004, 11:48 AM

Sighs...

I have always felt as though those who are restorationists have a grudge...  a chip on their shoulder... and i dont think that it is something I would be comfortable with.  I'm not too informed about them, granted, but that is how I have always felt.  Perhaps I should do some research...  One of my dad's college basketball teammates is in their council of 12...  we've maintained contact with him - maybe he could answer questions... Of course, there is a restoration congregation in my town, maybe that would be better (Even though I just moved here a couple of months ago)....

And...  I've always respected certain aspects of the LDS faith and church.  I have ancestory that goes all the way back to the first council of 12 under Joseph Smith Jr......  shrugs...  guess I'm complicated, eh?  I just want to be right...  and feel right about the decision i make....

I'm sorry, I'm not meaning to doubt you (we often get people here who are not who they claim to be), but if you are CoC, you would know know that Restorationists don't have a council of twelve apostles. They are a (rather large) group of members who are not allowed to worship as they believe (in the mainstream church), and so worship in an alternative setting. There is no official unity among them. There are numerous other small churches that have organized into organized religions that have ordained apostles, one of them being the Remnant, another being the Restoration LDS.

There are some restorationists who do harbor a grudge, but most have moved on with their lives and hardly pay any attention to the CoC and what happens there except as how it could ultimately affect them. Such as this incident. Depending on where you live and who you might know that has restorationist connections, you could luck out and find contact with some of the "good ones". LOL.

I can understand having some respect for different aspects of the LDS faith, I do, also (or I wouldn't post here), but unless you like sitting on the outside of things looking in, unless you really believe what they teach, you would not be comfortable there.

[EmmaLeigh]

Hm... Like I said - i dont know much about the restorationists, but I do know that my dad's friend told him he had just been ordained an apostle a few years back... *shrugs*.. Guess he could have been lieing....

Funny that if there is no organization - how do they hold reunions and such .... And it isnt that they are not allowed to worship as they want to - it is that they (for the most part) do not beleive and agree with the church's stance on certain things (mainly women in the priesthood)... Even Pres. McMurray's inlaws are restorationists... and that is about the extent of my knowledge. We had a huge fight in our family over 156, but when it all panned out, we were one of the first families with three generations of women in the priesthood...

As far as questioning if I'm CofC, that is hilarious... I'm seventh generation on BOTH sides of my family... If I"m not CofC I dont know who is. I've had two of my 'grandfathers' (great-great-great-great-great and great-great-great) who were apostles... my uncle is currently a pres of seventy... and i'm me... a girl who was ordained a Teacher when I was seventeen, left the church over open communion and the name change and because people didnt want to ACT in their priesthood roles and who returned a year ago... only to be so inspired by Pres. McMurray's sermon on the Sunday night of World Conference and then be faced with this... I've never concerned myself with the restorationists... I've never known any aside from my dad's friend...

But then again - you probably know best, right?? :)

BTW - The Rement church has a headquarters in Independence as well, that much I do know (cant miss their sign on 291)....unless the sign is a fake... *shrugs*