Kirtland Temple!


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, pam said:

I think that's why the Church is being very selective in what they say and how they say it. They realize that this is a sad time for those of the CoC. 

I am sure this is true for some. I doubt it is the common sentiment among CoC members, who seem to have long since abandoned any real belief in the Book of Mormon, restoration, modern revelation, and so forth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Vort said:

I am sure this is true for some. I doubt it is the common sentiment among CoC members, who seem to have long since abandoned any real belief in the Book of Mormon, restoration, modern revelation, and so forth.

As an outsider looking in, I kind of agree that they place less emphasis on the Book of Mormon and on the unique things of the restoration (though I would add that I have seen someone representing CoC say that they mostly just dislike the Nauvoo era stuff, but are just fine with most of the Kirtland era stuff). But I think it is a gross misrepresentation to say that they do not believe in modern revelation. Their D&C has 165 sections, and the most recent one I see was dated 2006. As I have watched their rhetoric around choosing Pres. Veazey's successor, they have emphasized their desire to seek God's direction as a prophetic people in making this important choice. We can argue until we're blue in the face over which revelations are "true" and which aren't, but it seems pretty clear from my vantage point as an external observer that they clearly believe God guides and directs them through revelation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Vort said:

I am sure this is true for some. I doubt it is the common sentiment among CoC members, who seem to have long since abandoned any real belief in the Book of Mormon, restoration, modern revelation, and so forth.

Daniel Peterson has a few personal anecdotes to share about the CoC.  It's a pretty interesting read.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2024/03/a-few-more-thoughts-on-the-kirtland-temple-deal.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

But I think it is a gross misrepresentation to say that they do not believe in modern revelation. [...] ...it seems pretty clear from my vantage point as an external observer that they clearly believe God guides and directs them through revelation.

Perhaps I would have better said that they don't believe in modern revelation in the sense preached throughout the Restoration—that is, that God reveals Himself to His prophets. They certainly believe in revelation such as inspiration and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which puts them in the same class as most of the rest of modern Christianity.

You may still disagree with this, and maybe you're right, but right or wrong, that would be a better reflection of what I intended to communicate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its an odd situation where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is funding the missionary efforts of the Community of Christ.The next time I renew my temple recommend I'm going to be asked whether I support or promote any teachings, practices or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter_Day Saints. If I'd provided just $1,000 to support the missionary efforts of a church whose missionaries taught that this was a false church I think I might have to answer yes to that question. I'm not going to say that the church should not have done this because its not my place to say such things. I'm just saying its an odd situation.

Edited by askandanswer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Vort said:

Perhaps I would have better said that they don't believe in modern revelation in the sense preached throughout the Restoration—that is, that God reveals Himself to His prophets. They certainly believe in revelation such as inspiration and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which puts them in the same class as most of the rest of modern Christianity.

As an outsider, I'm not sure I can really say what they believe or don't believe. I observe that, up through Pres. W. B. Smith in the 1990's, they wrote their "revelations" in the D&C as if it was the voice of God speaking. Sections added by Pres. McMurray and Pres. Veazey are more circumspect and less obvious about being in the voice of God. I don't know what that might mean for the tangent we are on, but I make the observation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Its an odd situation where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is funding the missionary efforts of the Community of Christ.The next time I renew my temple recommend I'm going to be asked whether I support or promote any teachings, practices or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter_Day Saints. If I'd provided just $1,000 to support the missionary efforts of a church whose missionaries taught that this was a false church I think I might have to answer yes to that question. I'm not going to say that the church should not have done this because its not my place to say such things. I'm just saying its an odd situation.

I think this is rather more similar to buying a gallon of milk from a store that also sells cigarettes and booze. Engaging in a financial transaction could certainly be considered "supporting" someone or something, but that's a problematic stance to take for an organization that does not want to be isolationist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, askandanswer said:

If I'd provided just $1,000 to support the missionary efforts of a church whose missionaries taught that this was a false church I think I might have to answer yes to that question.

It's an interesting dilemma, but one I had to abandon decades ago.  It used to bug me that this or that gas station got their oil from this or that nation that occasionally spoke about their duty to kill Americans, or clothing produced in nations that make use of child or slave labor.  The mortal, secular rules that govern the earth at this time just make it impossible to participate in civilization without doing occasional business with your enemies. 

Our church has historical tidbits about making food (and beer) from our own farms only, but I haven't heard anything like that in like a century.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vort said:

I think this is rather more similar to buying a gallon of milk from a store that also sells cigarettes and booze. Engaging in a financial transaction could certainly be considered "supporting" someone or something, but that's a problematic stance to take for an organization that does not want to be isolationist.

Indeed. 

I have some issues with the whole idea.  If I am doing a transaction with some one, the ideal of Capitalism and Christianity would be that we both got good value in the exchange.  AKA it was a Win Win.

This mindset tells me I can't do an exchange with someone if they might Win and they might do something with that win that I do not like.  That sounds like a very dark side of Capitalism and not very Christian at all.

Don't get me wrong, working with someone that shares your values makes the Wins even better but that can be very isolationist if that is all whom you will engage with.

In this case I have no issues whatsoever.  In the Book of Mormon, Nephi talks about there being 2 Churches only.  Church of God and the Church of the Devil.  Now clearly we think our Church as the Church of God...  But I can't say the Church of Christ is the church of the devil...  I have to classify it as also a Church of God.  One with lesser light and truth, sure, but still in the group.  And with that mindset why wouldn't we engage in a transaction that benefits both?  Seems very Christ-like to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Its an odd situation where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is funding the missionary efforts of the Community of Christ.The next time I renew my temple recommend I'm going to be asked whether I support or promote any teachings, practices or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter_Day Saints. If I'd provided just $1,000 to support the missionary efforts of a church whose missionaries taught that this was a false church I think I might have to answer yes to that question. I'm not going to say that the church should not have done this because its not my place to say such things. I'm just saying its an odd situation.

Others have already brought up the general shopping comparison.  I'll add two more angles of view:

1. IMO, the temple recommend question about your thoughts, beliefs, and intent.  Do you go out of your way to shop at Satan's Groceries where you pay a mark-up intending to fund the owner's efforts to proselytize his Satanic beliefs?  Or do you just shop at whichever grocery store happens to be convenient and has the item(s) you want?  (Is your intent to get groceries, or is it (also) to fund activities contrary to the Church?)

2. There was only one seller from whom we could buy (back) the Kirtland temple.  The Church is probably more picky about its suppliers when there are many to choose from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That particular TR question is an interesting one, isn't it? Before Pres. Nelson rewrote the TR questions, the explanation around that question was that it's specific purpose was to try to prevent polygamous offshoots from getting people to infiltrate our temples and ordinances.

I'm not likely to move in the right circles to hear them, but has anyone really heard anecdotes of people being denied temple recommends based on that question? It seems that every anecdote I've heard over the years involving supporting LGBTQ+ family members, or supporting political causes, or whatever have always been adjudicated in favor of giving the recommend. It seems that, whenever the question of "does that TR question apply to this scenario?" comes up, the conclusion is always, "no, that TR question is not aimed at that scenario." except for situations involving polygamy. I'm not entirely sure I know what scenarios the church has in mind for those questions around supporting something/someone contrary to the church, but it seems that they are really only interested in the most egregious offenses. The kinds of scenarios that average, well-intentioned LDS encounter to we think might apply don't seem to be the scenarios our leaders are looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

But I can't say the Church of Christ is the church of the devil... 

I understand why some are reticent to say such things, particularly with the harshness of the phrasing. But I don't think the idea was ever to specify another church as entirely belonging to the devil. But the idea behind specifying there are only 2 churches seems to me to be to teach a principle, not malign others. The principle is sound. Jesus's church is His church, and the foundation of all others is built by the lies, half-truths, deceptions, and workings of he who leads the fight against Christ's church...the devil. That doesn't mean every principle in every church but Christ's is satanic filth. All Satan has to do is convince someone of a single falsehood to lead them astray. And that's the principle and warning within the idea of there only being two churches. We are fully and completely guided by God, or we are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

Others have already brought up the general shopping comparison.  I'll add two more angles of view:

1. IMO, the temple recommend question about your thoughts, beliefs, and intent.  Do you go out of your way to shop at Satan's Groceries where you pay a mark-up intending to fund the owner's efforts to proselytize his Satanic beliefs?  Or do you just shop at whichever grocery store happens to be convenient and has the item(s) you want?  (Is your intent to get groceries, or is it (also) to fund activities contrary to the Church?)

2. There was only one seller from whom we could buy (back) the Kirtland temple.  The Church is probably more picky about its suppliers when there are many to choose from.

3. It's always a bit odd to me to have a lay member state they're not sure how comfortable they are with something the church did as if the church is not led by God.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

That particular TR question is an interesting one, isn't it? Before Pres. Nelson rewrote the TR questions, the explanation around that question was that it's specific purpose was to try to prevent polygamous offshoots from getting people to infiltrate our temples and ordinances.

I'm not likely to move in the right circles to hear them, but has anyone really heard anecdotes of people being denied temple recommends based on that question? It seems that every anecdote I've heard over the years involving supporting LGBTQ+ family members, or supporting political causes, or whatever have always been adjudicated in favor of giving the recommend. It seems that, whenever the question of "does that TR question apply to this scenario?" comes up, the conclusion is always, "no, that TR question is not aimed at that scenario." except for situations involving polygamy. I'm not entirely sure I know what scenarios the church has in mind for those questions around supporting something/someone contrary to the church, but it seems that they are really only interested in the most egregious offenses. The kinds of scenarios that average, well-intentioned LDS encounter to we think might apply don't seem to be the scenarios our leaders are looking for.

I'm not sure that's the end all of the temple recommend question though. When I'm asked if I keep the Word of Wisdom and say yes it's in light of no coffee, tea, alcohol, or tobacco usage. But..... I often consider whether my eating and drinking choices are in alignment with the Word of Wisdom and make adjustments. I don't think if I confessed that I sometimes have drunk too much Dr. Pepper that any church leader would say, "Well...then we can't issue you your temple recommend, garumph, harumph." But that doesn't mean it's all hunky-dory for me to be pounding 300oz of the stuff in a day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

That particular TR question is an interesting one, isn't it? Before Pres. Nelson rewrote the TR questions, the explanation around that question was that it's specific purpose was to try to prevent polygamous offshoots from getting people to infiltrate our temples and ordinances.

I'm not likely to move in the right circles to hear them, but has anyone really heard anecdotes of people being denied temple recommends based on that question? It seems that every anecdote I've heard over the years involving supporting LGBTQ+ family members, or supporting political causes, or whatever have always been adjudicated in favor of giving the recommend. It seems that, whenever the question of "does that TR question apply to this scenario?" comes up, the conclusion is always, "no, that TR question is not aimed at that scenario." except for situations involving polygamy. I'm not entirely sure I know what scenarios the church has in mind for those questions around supporting something/someone contrary to the church, but it seems that they are really only interested in the most egregious offenses. The kinds of scenarios that average, well-intentioned LDS encounter to we think might apply don't seem to be the scenarios our leaders are looking for.

 

The Temple Questions are more for the one being interviewed than they are for the Bishop or Stake President.  When in Leadership it was explained to me that in general (there can be exceptions, but they were just that, exceptions not the general rule), I was to give someone a temple recommend if they answered the questions in a way that agreed with the church...even if I felt something was off. 

A member can answer the questions however they want and however they feel.  They have their free agency.  The questions are there for them to affirm not only to the Church leaders, but to themselves, that they feel they are keeping the commandments and covenants they have made and feel worthy to enter the temple.  It is the member themselves that have the self introspection to answer how they feel.  IF they are honest there may be things that are not truly serious, but that THEY feel are serious and thus for THEM is a personal barrier to temple entry.  Other times it allows them to talk about serious sins that are preventing them from advancing spiritually and gives the Church Leader an opportunity to try to help the member overcome these obstacles in their life.

Many questions are open to interpretation by the member, even if we may feel they are open and shut.  If a member came and said that they were supporting the Boy Scouts and that they felt this was supporting an organization that taught things contrary to the church (people may snort, but I have known those who actually consider this a factor), a bishop may use inspiration on how to help that individual.  The member may simply need a clarification, or the member may have a serious consideration and it is for the Church leader to take them seriously. 

Overall, the temple recommend questions are not something that the Church Leadership is trying to interrogate a member over, it is an interview for the member to self reflect on their own worthiness and to determine in lieu of what is being asked and their own knowledge to honestly answer to the leader AND THEMSELVES on whether they feel they can answer to the affirmative in their support of the Church and the Gospel.

In MY OPINION of course. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fast and testimony meeting today (had stake conference last week) a sister got up and related that her parents are missionaries back in Kirtland, OH. She said that during the meeting between the churches to discuss the sale of the temple a guy in attendance from the Community of Christ was seriously opposed to the sale and really wanted to raise an objection to it. But he said the Spirit restrained him so he could not object and a voice spoke to him saying "This isn't your temple or their temple. It's my temple." 

Assuming that's a true account of events, it would seem that the Lord is yet mindful of these descendants of early Church members and that He cares about how they feel about these things. There may yet be a reconciliation in the future. Perhaps in Independence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/8/2024 at 4:24 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

I understand why some are reticent to say such things, particularly with the harshness of the phrasing. But I don't think the idea was ever to specify another church as entirely belonging to the devil. But the idea behind specifying there are only 2 churches seems to me to be to teach a principle, not malign others. The principle is sound. Jesus's church is His church, and the foundation of all others is built by the lies, half-truths, deceptions, and workings of he who leads the fight against Christ's church...the devil. That doesn't mean every principle in every church but Christ's is satanic filth. All Satan has to do is convince someone of a single falsehood to lead them astray. And that's the principle and warning within the idea of there only being two churches. We are fully and completely guided by God, or we are not.

And yet that was not the context of my meaning..  I was addressing the context of not wanting to support another church in a Win Win situation for both.  To be reluctant to engage in business with someone because they have lesser light and knowledge that is harsh...  That is a judgement none of us would like God to turn around on us, because compared to God, our light  (as great as it is) is but a fading spark and we only have it because he gave it to us.  God does not judge us by the light we do not have and so we should not judge other by the light they do not have.

Now you might make the case that they had the light and then rejected it.... But give the time that has passed it would be like Ammon and the sons of Moisah refusing to go to the Lamanites because Laman and Lemual rebelled

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

And yet that was not the context of my meaning.

Nevertheless, I don't agree that the Community of Christ should be classified as a church of God. It's not led by God and it has none of God's authority. Those are my defining criteria for a church being God's. Not whether it has some truth and light or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 3/6/2024 at 7:00 PM, Traveler said:

Just a little bit of history – as I have experienced.  In my college years I, with a few return missionary friends, embarked or a Church history vacation one summer.  Our encounter with our religious LDS neighbors was bitter and disappointing and left a very bad taste in my mouth.  In my youth, I blamed everything on who we called the Reorganites.   Over the years this bitter relationship has softened. 

One of the doctrines that has sustained some bitterness has been our stand on the priesthood being exclusively for men.  The Community of Christ currently has women apostles.  There was some bitterness over blacks and the priesthood.  Not so much concerning the blacks and the priesthood but the Community of Christ suffered a great division over women and the priesthood.  They have never been solvent economically since that division. 

The LDS Church has financed the Community of Christ to maintain our common interest in historical properties.  It was never sustainable – especially for the Community of Christ.

A few years ago, my wife and I (with some local friends) again made a trip through Church History.  My personal encounter with the Community of Christ was like meeting with beloved long separated family members.  I spent a day with one of their general authorities (president of the 70’s).  I was privileged to go with him through their private vault of artifacts accumulated form the beginning and dating back to the time we were not separated.  With their new focus on “The Community of Christ”, he tearfully confessed to me that they did not have the resources to maintain the artifacts of history.  It was not just the finances but the human resources as well.  We openly discussed the possibility of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints carrying this baton to the finish line when the Messiah comes.

The bitterness between our religious institutions seems to be the one factor no longer a concern.  I am grateful that our brethren in Christ have carried this burden so well and nobly for so long.  I am grateful that the properties will now be restored to what they need and ought to be – a treasure for the Saints to enjoy during the millennial reign. The years in college were really full, I remember how I constantly had problems with writing stories on various topics. I even had to use https://essays.edubirdie.com/assignment-writing-service to help me get through the task. If you have a similar problem, you can use this proven resource, which is staffed by eager professionals.

 

The Traveler

It sounds like your journey through Church history has been quite a rollercoaster of emotions, from bitterness to reconciliation. It's heartening to hear that the bitterness between your religious institutions has softened over time, allowing for collaboration and support in preserving historical artifacts. It seems like a hopeful step towards unity and mutual respect among believers. Thank you!

Edited by tomasgreenro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...