Joseph Smith Iii Letter Of Instruction

[Randy Johnson]

Dawn,

On the other board there has been discussion about how the CoC is using Joseph III's "Letter of Instruction" as a guideline to help them choose a successor.

You have stated that you feel that the CoC is using the "Letter of Instruction" out of context.

The Remnant Church has also used that same "Letter of Instruction" as their guide to "set in order" the Church.

If you would, could you show or demonstrate for me how that "Letter of Instruction" is being misused by the CoC and the Remnant Church's?

I am curious as well.....

randy

[Jenda]

A friend of mine posted on another board the whole letter of instruction written by Joseph Smith, III, and indicated those parts of the letter that were lifted out by the CoC to give them validation for the course of action they are taking. The whole letter of instruction says something completely different. I will post the entire letter of instruction.

[Jenda]

This is a link to the Letter of Instruction. http://www.cofchrist.org/history/letter-of...instruction.asp

Here is part of the post that discusses the intent of the letter:

First, I would like to respond to your quote of Joseph III's comments at the close of the 1902 Conference. In order to fully understand Joseph's intent, we need to read more than this one sentence. Joseph stated:

I have been importuned to settle the question as to who should be my successor. We have advanced upon the hypothesis of lineal priesthood in this regard, and while I believe in it, I believe it is connected with fitness and propriety, and no son of mine will be entitled to follow me as my successor, unless at the time he is chosen he is found to be worthy in character. I should not expect it. I now state to you, brethren, under the influence of, to me, the Spirit of God, that should I be overtaken by death before some of the things which are anticipated shall be wrought, you have my successor in your midst. I do not say that he should be chosen; if at the time that this emergency should occur he is found to be worthy let him be chosen, if unworthy let him be rejected and another chosen from the body as revelation provides. And should he be found unworthy and another of my sons found worthy, let the line descend, as I believe that it ought to; for a man should be called to the office to serve in the church who has proved himself to be worthy of confidence and trust (G.C.M 1902:541).

This statement by the President of the church provides us with several key points.

The successor must be chosen by revelation

The RLDS church was founded upon and supported the concept of a lineal priesthood

JS III specifically referred to the lineal succession of the President twice in the paragraph you refer to

The comment you quote is given in anticipation of the untimely death of the sitting President who already names his successor

The only reason the named successor might be rejected is if he were found to be in transgression at the time of "emergency"; and

If the first choice for succession proves to be unacceptable because of transgression, the next worthy son should be selected by revelation

D&C 43:1 specifically states that revelation binding upon the church can only come through the Prophet, and if he is in transgression, that gift shall be taken from him, but the right to name his successor will always remain with him:

O hearken, ye elders of my church, and give ear to the words which I shall speak unto you: for, behold, verily, verily I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you, to receive commandments and revelations from my hand. 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. But verily, verily I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him, for if it be taken from him he shall not have power, except to appoint another in his stead;

Further still, the principle of lineage applies to all the leading quorums of the church.

D&C 124:7 (which is not in the LDS D&C, but that is OK since it is a discussion about the RLDS)

The sons of my servant the President of the church, the sons of my servant William W. Blair, whom I have taken to myself, the sons of my servant the Bishop of the church, and the sons of my servants of the leading quorums of the church are admonished, that upon their fathers is laid a great and onerous burden, and they are called to engage in a great work, which shall bring them honor and glory, or shame, contempt and final great loss and destruction; as they shall in uprightness, faithfulness and diligence discharge their duties acceptably to God, or shall in carelessness, slothfulness, or wickedness fail in their calling and ministry therein; and to their sons shall come honor, or shame, as they shall approve, or disapprove themselves to God. These sons of my servants are called, and if faithful shall in time be chosen to places whence their fathers shall fall, or fail, or be removed by honorable release before the Lord and the church.

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 15 2005, 11:36 AM

This is a link to the Letter of Instruction. http://www.cofchrist.org/history/letter-of...instruction.asp

Here is part of the post that discusses the intent of the letter:

First, I would like to respond to your quote of Joseph III's comments at the close of the 1902 Conference. In order to fully understand Joseph's intent, we need to read more than this one sentence. Joseph stated:

I have been importuned to settle the question as to who should be my successor. We have advanced upon the hypothesis of lineal priesthood in this regard, and while I believe in it, I believe it is connected with fitness and propriety, and no son of mine will be entitled to follow me as my successor, unless at the time he is chosen he is found to be worthy in character. I should not expect it. I now state to you, brethren, under the influence of, to me, the Spirit of God, that should I be overtaken by death before some of the things which are anticipated shall be wrought, you have my successor in your midst. I do not say that he should be chosen; if at the time that this emergency should occur he is found to be worthy let him be chosen, if unworthy let him be rejected and another chosen from the body as revelation provides. And should he be found unworthy and another of my sons found worthy, let the line descend, as I believe that it ought to; for a man should be called to the office to serve in the church who has proved himself to be worthy of confidence and trust (G.C.M 1902:541).

This statement by the President of the church provides us with several key points.

The successor must be chosen by revelation

The RLDS church was founded upon and supported the concept of a lineal priesthood

JS III specifically referred to the lineal succession of the President twice in the paragraph you refer to

The comment you quote is given in anticipation of the untimely death of the sitting President who already names his successor

The only reason the named successor might be rejected is if he were found to be in transgression at the time of "emergency"; and

If the first choice for succession proves to be unacceptable because of transgression, the next worthy son should be selected by revelation

D&C 43:1 specifically states that revelation binding upon the church can only come through the Prophet, and if he is in transgression, that gift shall be taken from him, but the right to name his successor will always remain with him:

O hearken, ye elders of my church, and give ear to the words which I shall speak unto you: for, behold, verily, verily I say unto you, that ye have received a commandment for a law unto my church, through him whom I have appointed unto you, to receive commandments and revelations from my hand. 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. But verily, verily I say unto you, that none else shall be appointed unto this gift except it be through him, for if it be taken from him he shall not have power, except to appoint another in his stead;

Further still, the principle of lineage applies to all the leading quorums of the church.

D&C 124:7 (which is not in the LDS D&C, but that is OK since it is a discussion about the RLDS)

The sons of my servant the President of the church, the sons of my servant William W. Blair, whom I have taken to myself, the sons of my servant the Bishop of the church, and the sons of my servants of the leading quorums of the church are admonished, that upon their fathers is laid a great and onerous burden, and they are called to engage in a great work, which shall bring them honor and glory, or shame, contempt and final great loss and destruction; as they shall in uprightness, faithfulness and diligence discharge their duties acceptably to God, or shall in carelessness, slothfulness, or wickedness fail in their calling and ministry therein; and to their sons shall come honor, or shame, as they shall approve, or disapprove themselves to God. These sons of my servants are called, and if faithful shall in time be chosen to places whence their fathers shall fall, or fail, or be removed by honorable release before the Lord and the church.

Dawn,

My point is simply this....that even given this detailed "letter of instruction" to the church (it was not a revelation) yet...it is accepted as though it was, the RLDS/CoC have somehow misused or misapplied its intent.

It just appears to me that this "letter of instruction" has fostered even more confusion...because it seems as though everyone ie; CoC/Restorationist and Remnant Church all look to it as the filter by which things will be "put in order".

Yet...when this letter is applied within the CoC and the Remnant Church's respectively..the Restorationists cry foul. The CoC and Restorationist's cry foul when the Remnant Church uses it to support their position of "putting the church in order"...and on and on and on. It will never end. By the very nature of the beliefs that each of the factions hold...confusion is just naturally resident. It cant be avoided.

Do you see what I am trying to say?

In all three of these groups it's guidelines are being supposedly followed, yet confusion reigns on all fronts! Nothing but confusion and contention one with another.

Can you see why the Lord allowed Apostolic Succession to become the Lord's way of Succession in the Presidency? It just seems so clear.

randy

[Jenda]

Randy, apostolic succession is not what happened in the early church, and since the restoration was supposed to restore the church that was established by Christ, then it is not a part of this church, either. The restoration is not a gentile church. The church has always viewed itself as a continuation of the house of Israel, and all things within the house of Israel were based on lineage.

You need to study up on all things restoration in order to understand this. Your priesthood is still reminiscent of that.

I don't really care what happens in the CoC or the Remnant, as long as there is a portion of the true church that holds true to the restoration.

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 16 2005, 04:02 PM

Randy, apostolic succession is not what happened in the early church, and since the restoration was supposed to restore the church that was established by Christ, then it is not a part of this church, either. The restoration is not a gentile church. The church has always viewed itself as a continuation of the house of Israel, and all things within the house of Israel were based on lineage.

You need to study up on all things restoration in order to understand this. Your priesthood is still reminiscent of that.

I don't really care what happens in the CoC or the Remnant, as long as there is a portion of the true church that holds true to the restoration.

Dawn,

I hear what you are saying...I do. The problem arises is that as eloquent and articulate you are in your beliefs....it does not hold up scripturally.

On the other board you stated that it is your personal belief that the next Prophet within the "true" RLDS church ie; Restorationists after the Lord comes and "sets his church in order" will be Jesus Christ. On what do you base this belief?

Can it be accurately said then...that before that day comes there will be no First Presidency, no Apostles in the true RLDS church before the Lord comes and puts in order his church? This is more of a rhetorical question, but answer if you feel compelled.

I have studied this issue of Presidential succession for years...as have others alot smarter than I..and they having access to records and documents that I do not....and many...if not most agree with the LDS position on succession from what the scriptures teach and what the Prophet Joseph taught.

The two church's have a fundamentally different view on the meaning of D&C 43. I have to ask....looking back now almost 170+ yrs....which mode of succession has brought about unity, progress, stability....has brought the Church out of obscurity, has flooded the earth with the BoM, has spread the gospel to every kindred, tongue and people...save now only a few countries? When the Lord said "by their fruits ye shall know them" he was serious. He said there would be fruit to see!

You state the Church has always operated based upon lineage, yet it is clear that Apostolic succession was also the church order in the meridian of time.

It is clear that succession through lineage has not brought stability, unity or progression....but rather the fruits of which I have already mentioned.

I simply bring up the CoC and Remnant church's....especially the Remnant church...because they represent exactly what it is the Restorationists want....and have looked forward to all of these years.

Their members are as die hard and knowledgeable as the RLDS ...yet, the Restorationists look upon them with disdain. Why? For alot of different reasons...but, at the very core all these contending viewpoints stem from pride.

randy

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson@Mar 16 2005, 04:34 PM

Dawn,

I hear what you are saying...I do. The problem arises is that as eloquent and articulate you are in your beliefs....it does not hold up scripturally.

On the other board you stated that it is your personal belief that the next Prophet within the "true" RLDS church ie; Restorationists after the Lord comes and "sets his church in order" will be Jesus Christ. On what do you base this belief?

Can it be accurately said then...that before that day comes there will be no First Presidency, no Apostles in the true RLDS church before the Lord comes and puts in order his church? This is more of a rhetorical question, but answer if you feel compelled.

I have studied this issue of Presidential succession for years...as have others alot smarter than I..and they having access to records and documents that I do not....and many...if not most agree with the LDS position on succession from what the scriptures teach and what the Prophet Joseph taught.

The two church's have a fundamentally different view on the meaning of D&C 43. I have to ask....looking back now almost 170+ yrs....which mode of succession has brought about unity, progress, stability....has brought the Church out of obscurity, has flooded the earth with the BoM, has spread the gospel to every kindred, tongue and people...save now only a few countries? When the Lord said "by their fruits ye shall know them" he was serious. He said there would be fruit to see!

You state the Church has always operated based upon lineage, yet it is clear that Apostolic succession was also the church order in the meridian of time.

It is clear that succession through lineage has not brought stability, unity or progression....but rather the fruits of which I have already mentioned.

I simply bring up the CoC and Remnant church's....especially the Remnant church...because they represent exactly what it is the Restorationists want....and have looked forward to all of these years.

Their members are as die hard and knowledgeable as the RLDS ...yet, the Restorationists look upon them with disdain. Why? For alot of different reasons...but, at the very core all these contending viewpoints stem from pride.

randy

When I said what I said, it was a personal belief, based upon the holy number of 7. This is the 6th dispensation, we have had 6 prophets. The next dispensation (the 7th) is to be Zion. Christ is to come and usher in Zion. If we follow the rule of 7's, Christ would be the next head of the church. It is nothing that I'd write on paper, or prophesy about, just a belief that we are that close to the end of this era.

James, the brother of Jesus, was considered the head of the church in Jerusalem. That makes it lineage. The keys of the kingdom were equally bestowed on Peter, James and John, but it was James who was considered the head of the church.

You keep throwing out red herrings by mentioning the Remnant. They are not important. They are not even in the ball game. The RLDS/CoC is the church the promises were given to. That some misguided men organized themselves a church is beside the point.

I don't think you know what the restorationists want. Sorry, but your posts miss the mark by quite a ways.

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Mar 16 2005, 08:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Mar 16 2005, 08:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Randy Johnson@Mar 16 2005, 04:34 PM

Dawn,

I hear what you are saying...I do.  The problem arises is that as eloquent and articulate you are in your beliefs....it does not hold up scripturally.

On the other board you stated that it is your personal belief that the next Prophet within the "true" RLDS church ie; Restorationists after the Lord comes and "sets his church in order" will be Jesus Christ.  On what do you base this belief?

Can it be accurately said then...that before that day comes there will be no First Presidency, no Apostles in the true RLDS church before the Lord comes and puts in order his church?  This is more of a rhetorical question, but answer if you feel compelled.

I have studied this issue of Presidential succession for years...as have others alot smarter than I..and they having access to records and documents that I do not....and many...if not most agree with the LDS position on succession from what the scriptures teach and what the Prophet Joseph taught.

The two church's have a fundamentally different view on the meaning of D&C 43.  I have to ask....looking back now almost 170+ yrs....which mode of succession has brought about unity, progress, stability....has brought the Church out of obscurity, has flooded the earth with the BoM, has spread the gospel to every kindred, tongue and people...save now only a few countries?  When the Lord said "by their fruits ye shall know them" he was serious.  He said there would be fruit to see!

You state the Church has always operated based upon lineage, yet it is clear that Apostolic succession was also the church order in the meridian of time.

It is clear that succession through lineage has not brought stability, unity or progression....but rather the fruits of which I have already mentioned.

I simply bring up the CoC and Remnant church's....especially the Remnant church...because they represent exactly what it is the Restorationists want....and have looked forward to all of these years.

Their members are as die hard and knowledgeable as the RLDS ...yet,  the Restorationists look upon them with disdain.  Why?  For alot of different reasons...but, at the very core all these contending viewpoints stem from pride.

                                                                randy

When I said what I said, it was a personal belief, based upon the holy number of 7. This is the 6th dispensation, we have had 6 prophets. The next dispensation (the 7th) is to be Zion. Christ is to come and usher in Zion. If we follow the rule of 7's, Christ would be the next head of the church. It is nothing that I'd write on paper, or prophesy about, just a belief that we are that close to the end of this era.

James, the brother of Jesus, was considered the head of the church in Jerusalem. That makes it lineage. The keys of the kingdom were equally bestowed on Peter, James and John, but it was James who was considered the head of the church.

You keep throwing out red herrings by mentioning the Remnant. They are not important. They are not even in the ball game. The RLDS/CoC is the church the promises were given to. That some misguided men organized themselves a church is beside the point.

I don't think you know what the restorationists want. Sorry, but your posts miss the mark by quite a ways.

Dawn,

Correct me if I am wrong I count the RLDS has had 8 Prophets:

1) JS jr

2) JS III

3) Alexander Hale

4) Frederick M.

5) Israel

6) W. Wallace

7) Wallace B.

8) Grant McMurray

So the "law of 7's is not a viable argument.

What do the Restorationists want?

randy

[Jenda]

Alexander Hale Smith was not president of our church.

Grant McMurray doesn't count for all the reasons given in the above post.

So we are back to 6.

[Jenda]

I don't know what you were referring to when you said that the Remnant had everything we wanted. Perhaps if you enlightened me as to what you are thinking about, I can answer the question. Otherwise, I'd be grasping at straws.

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 16 2005, 09:27 PM

Alexander Hale Smith was not president of our church.

Grant McMurray doesn't count for all the reasons given in the above post.

So we are back to 6.

Dawn,

First...I did have brain fart about Alexander Hale Smith. I stand corrected.

However, I must ask you this....you put SO MUCH emphasis on Section 43 about the President being able to designate his successor....which Wallace B. did in Grant McMurray...yet you do not count him among the Presidents of the Church. Why?

The President had the right to choose...and he did , and it was brought before the body of the saints of the RLDS (which you attend) in General Conference...and he was sustained by the common consent (rlds version) of the people....seems to me he should be included in the list. Cant just pick and choose again!

Now....I have asked you before if Wallace B. Smith was in such a state of apostacy and sin, which would render his designation basically null and void, that then perhaps there would be something more substantive to discuss.

But, you have continually maintained the position that he was not in apostacy to that degree. Indeed, one of the hopes was, depending of course on who you talked to, was that Wallace B. Smith would perhaps accept the invitation to come back...IF ONLY to designate a successor!!

So....I am sorry, as a Restorationist you either need to accept Section 43 (as it is taught in the RLDS/Restorationist camp) and all the ramifications that have come about from it..ie; Grant McMurray being president...and in turn, the ramifications from his NOT choosing a successor and all that entails...ie; having to refer back to JS III's "Letter of Instruction" to give guideance on how to resolve the problem and all the confusion and contention that has resulted from that......OR you need to accept that your interpretation of Section 43 has been wrong.

I understand your position toward the Remnant church perfectly. The LDS people do not worry ourselves with any other church or splinter group. We just go about doing what it is we do.

However, from an historical perspective..the Remnant Church gives the Restorationist's a problem because they represent what it is you all want.

They have:

1) unity in belief and practice

2) a First Presidency with a descendant of JS jr as Prophet/President. I realize that you dont accept that because he is descended from the Maternal side...however, they have gone to great pains to show how that is not, and should not be an issue with respect to "lineal succession". Again, to be clear....I dont believe either of the two camps have a leg to stand on with respect to this issue, but the Remnant Church was born from the womb of the Restorationists....so it should be an issue with you. IMO.

3) They have a almost full Quorum of the 12. They are establishing a structured missionary outreach.

4) They have Presiding Bishop.

That's what they have, that I can think of off the top of my head.

Now...Dawn, can you tell me with a straight face that the Restorationist's do not desire these same things...as it pertains to the church as a whole?

randy

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 16 2005, 09:32 PM

I don't know what you were referring to when you said that the Remnant had everything we wanted. Perhaps if you enlightened me as to what you are thinking about, I can answer the question. Otherwise, I'd be grasping at straws.

Dawn,

If you would please, could you give me the references you use for believing James became the President after Christ?

randy

[Jenda]

The restorationists believe that the will of God will be performed by the RLDS church. That any other church that is organized by man is just that. A creation of man. While we would like to have more priesthood in the higher quorums, we recognize that the only "legal" way for that to happen is for them to be ordained within the RLDS church because that is where the "legal" quorums are. We have no desire to organize higher quorums illegally. Of course, we also recognize that it is becoming harder and harder to find authoritatively ordained priesthood in the church, but we believe that the Lord is stepping in to help correct that situation right now. That might be the purpose of the traditional branches within the church, so that there is a portion of the priesthood that remains untainted.

But no, we don't want what the Remnant has. If we did, we'd be there.

I will get back to you with the references that discusses that James was the leader of the church.

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 17 2005, 07:55 AM

The restorationists believe that the will of God will be performed by the RLDS church. That any other church that is organized by man is just that. A creation of man. While we would like to have more priesthood in the higher quorums, we recognize that the only "legal" way for that to happen is for them to be ordained within the RLDS church because that is where the "legal" quorums are. We have no desire to organize higher quorums illegally. Of course, we also recognize that it is becoming harder and harder to find authoritatively ordained priesthood in the church, but we believe that the Lord is stepping in to help correct that situation right now. That might be the purpose of the traditional branches within the church, so that there is a portion of the priesthood that remains untainted.

But no, we don't want what the Remnant has. If we did, we'd be there.

I will get back to you with the references that discusses that James was the leader of the church.

Dawn,

Your "legal" Upper Quorums are resident within a Church that is in apostacy. What you are wanting to have happen is not going to happen. The RLDS/CoC is firmly on the path it has charted and chosen.

The RLDS/CoC has followed Section 43 and look where it has taken them....and you.

Please forward ASAP the references for James being the President after Christ. I want to look into that deeply.

randy

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 17 2005, 07:55 AM

The restorationists believe that the will of God will be performed by the RLDS church. That any other church that is organized by man is just that. A creation of man. While we would like to have more priesthood in the higher quorums, we recognize that the only "legal" way for that to happen is for them to be ordained within the RLDS church because that is where the "legal" quorums are. We have no desire to organize higher quorums illegally. Of course, we also recognize that it is becoming harder and harder to find authoritatively ordained priesthood in the church, but we believe that the Lord is stepping in to help correct that situation right now. That might be the purpose of the traditional branches within the church, so that there is a portion of the priesthood that remains untainted.

But no, we don't want what the Remnant has. If we did, we'd be there.

I will get back to you with the references that discusses that James was the leader of the church.

Dawn,

I share this with you regarding your belief that James, not Peter was the President of the Church after Christ:

Acts 15:7 which reads...."And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles "BY MY MOUTH" should hear the word of the gospel, and believe."

Peter was the President of the Church, and as such received the mind and will of Diety on all matters. This was one those. Peter made the decision.

In verses 6-11...Peter strikes at the heart of the controversy over circumcision. It wasnt really circumcision per se', but rather:

Can the gospel be offered to uncircumcised Gentiles or is it limited to circumcised Israel?

Are people who do not keep the law of Moses eligible in inherit the blessings of salvation which Christ came to bring?

Is salvation through in Moses or in Christ?

These are rhetorical questions...however as Peter, as President of the Church had received the revelation from God on the matter...there wasnt anything to decide.

Circumcision...with all it symbolizes...is not essential for salvation.

Now...in Acts 15:19 James says this...."Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God....."

This could be misinterpreted to mean that James was making a decision on the case and therefore was head of the Church in Jerusalem, having some pre-eminence over Peter. Such is not the case.

The fact is that Peter was the presiding officer in the Church and had in fact rendered and announced judgement on the issue of circumcision...see Acts 15:7-11.

James is simply proposing the detailed instructions to put in force the decision already announced by Peter.

Dawn, I dont know if this was one of the scriptures you would be refering to, but if it was...you might take a harder look.

randy

In Acts 15:13 its says...."And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me..."

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Mar 17 2005, 01:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Mar 17 2005, 01:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 17 2005, 07:55 AM

The restorationists believe that the will of God will be performed by the RLDS church.  That any other church that is organized by man is just that.  A creation of man.  While we would like to have more priesthood in the higher quorums, we recognize that the only "legal" way for that to happen is for them to be ordained within the RLDS church because that is where the "legal" quorums are.  We have no desire to organize higher quorums illegally.  Of course, we also recognize that it is becoming harder and harder to find authoritatively ordained priesthood in the church, but we believe that the Lord is stepping in to help correct that situation right now.  That might be the purpose of the traditional branches within the church, so that there is a portion of the priesthood that remains untainted.

But no, we don't want what the Remnant has.  If we did, we'd be there.

I will get back to you with the references that discusses that James was the leader of the church.

Dawn,

Your "legal" Upper Quorums are resident within a Church that is in apostacy. What you are wanting to have happen is not going to happen. The RLDS/CoC is firmly on the path it has charted and chosen.

The RLDS/CoC has followed Section 43 and look where it has taken them....and you.

randy

At least we followed the word of the Lord. Why don't you?

As long as there are authoritatively ordained priesthood in all offices in the church, the church can go on.

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Mar 17 2005, 07:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Mar 17 2005, 07:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Mar 17 2005, 01:56 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 17 2005, 07:55 AM

The restorationists believe that the will of God will be performed by the RLDS church.  That any other church that is organized by man is just that.  A creation of man.  While we would like to have more priesthood in the higher quorums, we recognize that the only "legal" way for that to happen is for them to be ordained within the RLDS church because that is where the "legal" quorums are.  We have no desire to organize higher quorums illegally.  Of course, we also recognize that it is becoming harder and harder to find authoritatively ordained priesthood in the church, but we believe that the Lord is stepping in to help correct that situation right now.  That might be the purpose of the traditional branches within the church, so that there is a portion of the priesthood that remains untainted.

But no, we don't want what the Remnant has.  If we did, we'd be there.

I will get back to you with the references that discusses that James was the leader of the church.

Dawn,

Your "legal" Upper Quorums are resident within a Church that is in apostacy. What you are wanting to have happen is not going to happen. The RLDS/CoC is firmly on the path it has charted and chosen.

The RLDS/CoC has followed Section 43 and look where it has taken them....and you.

randy

At least we followed the word of the Lord. Why don't you?

As long as there are authoritatively ordained priesthood in all offices in the church, the church can go on.

Dawn,

hahahaha....No...yes, I should have clarified....The RLDS/CoC have followed Section 43 according to their understanding of it. Not that that is the correct understanding!

Give me your references!!

randy

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Mar 17 2005, 07:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Mar 17 2005, 07:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Mar 17 2005, 01:56 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 17 2005, 07:55 AM

The restorationists believe that the will of God will be performed by the RLDS church.  That any other church that is organized by man is just that.  A creation of man.  While we would like to have more priesthood in the higher quorums, we recognize that the only "legal" way for that to happen is for them to be ordained within the RLDS church because that is where the "legal" quorums are.  We have no desire to organize higher quorums illegally.  Of course, we also recognize that it is becoming harder and harder to find authoritatively ordained priesthood in the church, but we believe that the Lord is stepping in to help correct that situation right now.  That might be the purpose of the traditional branches within the church, so that there is a portion of the priesthood that remains untainted.

But no, we don't want what the Remnant has.  If we did, we'd be there.

I will get back to you with the references that discusses that James was the leader of the church.

Dawn,

Your "legal" Upper Quorums are resident within a Church that is in apostacy. What you are wanting to have happen is not going to happen. The RLDS/CoC is firmly on the path it has charted and chosen.

The RLDS/CoC has followed Section 43 and look where it has taken them....and you.

randy

At least we followed the word of the Lord. Why don't you?

As long as there are authoritatively ordained priesthood in all offices in the church, the church can go on.

Dawn,

The members of the upper quorums are in lock-step with the agenda of the CoC. Cant you see that?

randy

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Mar 17 2005, 07:48 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Mar 17 2005, 07:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Mar 17 2005, 01:56 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 17 2005, 07:55 AM

The restorationists believe that the will of God will be performed by the RLDS church.  That any other church that is organized by man is just that.  A creation of man.  While we would like to have more priesthood in the higher quorums, we recognize that the only "legal" way for that to happen is for them to be ordained within the RLDS church because that is where the "legal" quorums are.  We have no desire to organize higher quorums illegally.  Of course, we also recognize that it is becoming harder and harder to find authoritatively ordained priesthood in the church, but we believe that the Lord is stepping in to help correct that situation right now.  That might be the purpose of the traditional branches within the church, so that there is a portion of the priesthood that remains untainted.

But no, we don't want what the Remnant has.  If we did, we'd be there.

I will get back to you with the references that discusses that James was the leader of the church.

Dawn,

Your "legal" Upper Quorums are resident within a Church that is in apostacy. What you are wanting to have happen is not going to happen. The RLDS/CoC is firmly on the path it has charted and chosen.

The RLDS/CoC has followed Section 43 and look where it has taken them....and you.

randy

At least we followed the word of the Lord. Why don't you?

As long as there are authoritatively ordained priesthood in all offices in the church, the church can go on.

Dawn,

Restorationists, CoC and Remnant church's all feel they are following the word of the Lord in section 43 and all of you disagree vehemently with each other...so what does that teach you??

randy

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Mar 17 2005, 08:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Mar 17 2005, 08:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Mar 17 2005, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Mar 17 2005, 01:56 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 17 2005, 07:55 AM

The restorationists believe that the will of God will be performed by the RLDS church.  That any other church that is organized by man is just that.  A creation of man.  While we would like to have more priesthood in the higher quorums, we recognize that the only "legal" way for that to happen is for them to be ordained within the RLDS church because that is where the "legal" quorums are.  We have no desire to organize higher quorums illegally.  Of course, we also recognize that it is becoming harder and harder to find authoritatively ordained priesthood in the church, but we believe that the Lord is stepping in to help correct that situation right now.  That might be the purpose of the traditional branches within the church, so that there is a portion of the priesthood that remains untainted.

But no, we don't want what the Remnant has.  If we did, we'd be there.

I will get back to you with the references that discusses that James was the leader of the church.

Dawn,

Your "legal" Upper Quorums are resident within a Church that is in apostacy. What you are wanting to have happen is not going to happen. The RLDS/CoC is firmly on the path it has charted and chosen.

The RLDS/CoC has followed Section 43 and look where it has taken them....and you.

randy

At least we followed the word of the Lord. Why don't you?

As long as there are authoritatively ordained priesthood in all offices in the church, the church can go on.

Dawn,

hahahaha....No...yes, I should have clarified....The RLDS/CoC have followed Section 43 according to their understanding of it. Not that that is the correct understanding!

Give me your references!!

randy

Perhaps you can provide the "correct" understanding of it, then. And then tell us why you ignore it.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jamesleader.html

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/james/Background/WhoIs.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...115/ai_20350181

http://www.sc.edu/uscpress/2003/3523.html

http://www.centuryone.com/5773-X.html

(how many did you want?)(some of these are book reviews (you'd need to buy the book to see most of the evidence), others are articles, but you get the idea. Most of modern Christianity (excepting the Catholics and LDS) now accepts James as the leader of the NT church.)

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Mar 18 2005, 01:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Mar 18 2005, 01:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Mar 17 2005, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Mar 17 2005, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Mar 17 2005, 01:56 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 17 2005, 07:55 AM

The restorationists believe that the will of God will be performed by the RLDS church.  That any other church that is organized by man is just that.  A creation of man.  While we would like to have more priesthood in the higher quorums, we recognize that the only "legal" way for that to happen is for them to be ordained within the RLDS church because that is where the "legal" quorums are.  We have no desire to organize higher quorums illegally.  Of course, we also recognize that it is becoming harder and harder to find authoritatively ordained priesthood in the church, but we believe that the Lord is stepping in to help correct that situation right now.  That might be the purpose of the traditional branches within the church, so that there is a portion of the priesthood that remains untainted.

But no, we don't want what the Remnant has.  If we did, we'd be there.

I will get back to you with the references that discusses that James was the leader of the church.

Dawn,

Your "legal" Upper Quorums are resident within a Church that is in apostacy. What you are wanting to have happen is not going to happen. The RLDS/CoC is firmly on the path it has charted and chosen.

The RLDS/CoC has followed Section 43 and look where it has taken them....and you.

randy

At least we followed the word of the Lord. Why don't you?

As long as there are authoritatively ordained priesthood in all offices in the church, the church can go on.

Dawn,

hahahaha....No...yes, I should have clarified....The RLDS/CoC have followed Section 43 according to their understanding of it. Not that that is the correct understanding!

Give me your references!!

randy

Perhaps you can provide the "correct" understanding of it, then. And then tell us why you ignore it.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jamesleader.html

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/james/Background/WhoIs.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...115/ai_20350181

http://www.sc.edu/uscpress/2003/3523.html

http://www.centuryone.com/5773-X.html

(how many did you want?)(some of these are book reviews (you'd need to buy the book to see most of the evidence), others are articles, but you get the idea. Most of modern Christianity (excepting the Catholics and LDS) now accepts James as the leader of the NT church.)

Dawn,

I was hoping for just the scriptural references....so I can just go to them and read them without any biasis attached.

can ya do that?

randy

[Jason]

Most of modern Christianity (excepting the Catholics and LDS) now accepts James as the leader of the NT church.

While avoiding the main of the discussion, I'd like to chime in on the above statement:

Eastern Orthodox accept St. James as the head of the Jerusalem Church, and that it was James who presided over the first Ecumenical Council which was held at Jerusalem. But we do not teach that St. James ruled over the entire Church (like a Pope or a President if you will). Each diocese was independent, and run by the presiding Bishop-Apostle. No one individual could speak for the entire church. Hence the need for church councils, as is found in Acts.

In our teachings, James and Peter were equals in authority, but Peter was always the "first among equals". This is the teaching of the Church until the 9th century, when Rome first began to assert her "Primacy" claims culminating in the schism of 1054.

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled debate...

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Mar 18 2005, 04:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Mar 18 2005, 04:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Mar 18 2005, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Mar 17 2005, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Mar 17 2005, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Mar 17 2005, 01:56 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 17 2005, 07:55 AM

The restorationists believe that the will of God will be performed by the RLDS church.  That any other church that is organized by man is just that.  A creation of man.  While we would like to have more priesthood in the higher quorums, we recognize that the only "legal" way for that to happen is for them to be ordained within the RLDS church because that is where the "legal" quorums are.  We have no desire to organize higher quorums illegally.  Of course, we also recognize that it is becoming harder and harder to find authoritatively ordained priesthood in the church, but we believe that the Lord is stepping in to help correct that situation right now.  That might be the purpose of the traditional branches within the church, so that there is a portion of the priesthood that remains untainted.

But no, we don't want what the Remnant has.  If we did, we'd be there.

I will get back to you with the references that discusses that James was the leader of the church.

Dawn,

Your "legal" Upper Quorums are resident within a Church that is in apostacy. What you are wanting to have happen is not going to happen. The RLDS/CoC is firmly on the path it has charted and chosen.

The RLDS/CoC has followed Section 43 and look where it has taken them....and you.

randy

At least we followed the word of the Lord. Why don't you?

As long as there are authoritatively ordained priesthood in all offices in the church, the church can go on.

Dawn,

hahahaha....No...yes, I should have clarified....The RLDS/CoC have followed Section 43 according to their understanding of it. Not that that is the correct understanding!

Give me your references!!

randy

Perhaps you can provide the "correct" understanding of it, then. And then tell us why you ignore it.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jamesleader.html

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/james/Background/WhoIs.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...115/ai_20350181

http://www.sc.edu/uscpress/2003/3523.html

http://www.centuryone.com/5773-X.html

(how many did you want?)(some of these are book reviews (you'd need to buy the book to see most of the evidence), others are articles, but you get the idea. Most of modern Christianity (excepting the Catholics and LDS) now accepts James as the leader of the NT church.)

Dawn,

I was hoping for just the scriptural references....so I can just go to them and read them without any biasis attached.

can ya do that?

randy

No, I don't think I can. It goes beyond just scripture. It goes by historical references, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. Sorry. I just posted those so you would know I wasn't making it all up. It really is the current belief based on all the things that the scholars have studied.

It is, of course, your option to believe whatever you want, just like it is mine.

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Mar 18 2005, 06:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Mar 18 2005, 06:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Mar 18 2005, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Mar 18 2005, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Mar 17 2005, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Mar 17 2005, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Mar 17 2005, 01:56 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Mar 17 2005, 07:55 AM

The restorationists believe that the will of God will be performed by the RLDS church.  That any other church that is organized by man is just that.  A creation of man.  While we would like to have more priesthood in the higher quorums, we recognize that the only "legal" way for that to happen is for them to be ordained within the RLDS church because that is where the "legal" quorums are.  We have no desire to organize higher quorums illegally.  Of course, we also recognize that it is becoming harder and harder to find authoritatively ordained priesthood in the church, but we believe that the Lord is stepping in to help correct that situation right now.  That might be the purpose of the traditional branches within the church, so that there is a portion of the priesthood that remains untainted.

But no, we don't want what the Remnant has.  If we did, we'd be there.

I will get back to you with the references that discusses that James was the leader of the church.

Dawn,

Your "legal" Upper Quorums are resident within a Church that is in apostacy. What you are wanting to have happen is not going to happen. The RLDS/CoC is firmly on the path it has charted and chosen.

The RLDS/CoC has followed Section 43 and look where it has taken them....and you.

randy

At least we followed the word of the Lord. Why don't you?

As long as there are authoritatively ordained priesthood in all offices in the church, the church can go on.

Dawn,

hahahaha....No...yes, I should have clarified....The RLDS/CoC have followed Section 43 according to their understanding of it. Not that that is the correct understanding!

Give me your references!!

randy

Perhaps you can provide the "correct" understanding of it, then. And then tell us why you ignore it.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/jamesleader.html

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/james/Background/WhoIs.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...115/ai_20350181

http://www.sc.edu/uscpress/2003/3523.html

http://www.centuryone.com/5773-X.html

(how many did you want?)(some of these are book reviews (you'd need to buy the book to see most of the evidence), others are articles, but you get the idea. Most of modern Christianity (excepting the Catholics and LDS) now accepts James as the leader of the NT church.)

Dawn,

I was hoping for just the scriptural references....so I can just go to them and read them without any biasis attached.

can ya do that?

randy

No, I don't think I can. It goes beyond just scripture. It goes by historical references, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. Sorry. I just posted those so you would know I wasn't making it all up. It really is the current belief based on all the things that the scholars have studied.

It is, of course, your option to believe whatever you want, just like it is mine.

Dawn,

I never implied you were making it up! I just always heard this being put forward with no references given.

I have read the links you gave...and will several more times in the next few days...as I digest this information.

I smiled when I read several of them. This discussion will be fun.

I do want to ask you one question though...

When the MP was restored to the earth, why wasn't James "the Lord's brother" included? Given your position that he was "President of the Church" after Christ, it would seem only appropriate and right for him to lead the way in the restoration of that PH. Your thoughts plz?

I will start another thread on this. This one will take a while!! Chompin at the bit!

randy

[Jenda]

James is not part of "Peter, James, and John"?