Community of Christ?

[WANDERER]

Sorry, I didn't type this heading either. I originally typed Church of Christ and found I couldn't change the thread topic to Community of Christ. The 'U' rather bothers me in this moderator? fix.

[title fixed by Alaskagain]

[Hemidakota]

?????????

[WANDERER]

Sorry I thought there were some people who did frequent this forum who were from this church, but perhaps not. I'm working my way through Church history and can't find many references. It came up in my reading.

[Hemidakota]

Which reference are you looking for? I am a member of the church. I am also here in trying to unravel the mystery of the 'rib' [Adam & Eve].

[Aelswyth]

Are you talking about the Community of Christ? Used to be the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

[WANDERER]

Yep that one. Looking for online references and sources according to what they believe and any church history documents.

[WANDERER]

Oooooops no wonder I didn't get any reply posts. Apologies. Sorry I can't fix the thread name.

[Aelswyth]

Hehe.

Actually a good place to start would be their website.

I investigated them as well as the LDS Church when I first started out, trying to decide which was correct. Anyway, on the site you can find information about their history and their presidents (under "History" on the drop-down menu "Our Faith"), and if you choose "Online Resources" under the drop-down menu "Tools for Ministry", you will find a fairly extensive list of stuff, including (under D) a few of their added Doctrine & Covenants sections that differ from those of the LDS Church. The Community of Christ article on Wikipedia is also pretty comprehensive, and here is the article containing information on the different versions of Doctrine & Covenants.

This Religious Tolerance website also contains a good history.

[Doctor Steuss]

Dale (a poster here) is a member of the CoC. Anything that isn't answered by their website could probably be answered by him (you can find him in the memberlist and send him a PM in needed).

[Jeremiah]

Wanderer,

You may find this interesting as well.

Revelations of James J. Strang - Mormon revelations - Doctrine and Covenants

Regards,

Jeremiah

[WANDERER]

Much thanks : )

[Dale]

I am as they say a member of the Community of Christ. We split from the LDS about after 15 years. We have been on different historical and doctrinal tracks ever since.

Ever since then we have had different church Presidents. President Stephen Veazey is our current church prophet. Recently D.&C. 133 was added to our Docrine and Covenants. We felt Joseph Smith 3rd Joseph Smiths son was to be prophet not Brigham Young. The Centerplace Library website as an LDS Issues section which presents our differences with LDS.

We rejected a lot of the later idea's associated with Joseph Smith as untrue. So idea's LDS adopted like eternal marriage, plural marriage, baptism for the dead, the plurality of Gods,ect we never got into. We tend to be closer to earlier Mormonism in Kirtland than later Mormonism in Nauvoo.

I think in 2001 we went to the shorter church name. The longer church name is still used for business purposes.

Our official website which has some basic history, beliefs can be found at Community of Christ Official Homepage Frequently Asked Questions is a good article. Frequently Asked Question Community of Christ, We proclaim Jesus Christ and promote communities of joy, hope, love, and peace.

[Tor_of_Zion]

We tend to be closer to earlier Mormonism in Kirtland than later Mormonism in Nauvoo.

Dale, I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Community of Christ holds a different view of the Trinity than the church of LDS does. Do you know if the Community of Christ's current view is the same as that of the earlier Kirtland Mormons, or if it's something newer? And can you perhaps explain just what the current view is?

Many thanks... !

[Gerlinde]

I know the bishop of the Berlin branch of CoCH. a real nice guy, and i like this church cause they got a lot of good points like women as priesthood holders and that they are gay friendly. but i saw on the other hand that they denied some stuff from their own church history. They believe e.g. that Brigham Young and not Joseph Smith created the polygamy, and that joseph smith NEVER maried other women except Emma Smith.

so, that was my reason why i can't join in.

[WANDERER]

Gerlinde, thankyou. I have a few things like that, that I think about. But I don't really know what to think : ) .

[Dale]

Dale, I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Community of Christ holds a different view of the Trinity than the church of LDS does. Do you know if the Community of Christ's current view is the same as that of the earlier Kirtland Mormons, or if it's something newer? And can you perhaps explain just what the current view is?

Many thanks... !

We have a Trinitarian view of God today. The older Anti-Trinitarianism is found in books like the Godhead by V.H. Fisher. When we made a more modern version of the Articles of Faith the teological reliability of the older view was brought into question. To avoid having two Gods in the Godhead we would equivocate on Jesus Deity. The scriptures do not do that so that would make the two persons Gods. We rejected the plurality of Gods as an idea of man in the 1890's. The Book of Mormon teaches only one God, so the church abandoned the older view as official.

At most we held the Lectures taught the two as personages, but not two Gods. We held to the mono-theistic view only one exclusive God exists. Jesus to us shared the title of God with God, but was not to us a 2nd God. The Godhead booklet denied Joseph Smith saw two Gods in the First vision. But called Jesus Christ a God one also. I like the older Kirtland view, but the older official view was not to us beyond questioning.

Not mandating forced beliefs regarding the matter you still find us Anti-Trinitarians in the church.

[VisionOfLehi]

We felt Joseph Smith 3rd Joseph Smiths son was to be prophet not Brigham Young.

Can I ask why this is?

[WANDERER]

A slight difference in opinion it seems...one group went one way and the other group went another from what I have read.

Lehi.... why was this so?

[Dale]

We felt LDS attepts to try and discredit our claim Joseph Smith blessed his son as successor were wrong. The Centerplace Library has an LDS issues section. Our one-time Apostle Russel F. Ralston has a Succession In Presidency And authority booklet online. It was written in response to i think Joseph Fielding Smiths article on the same subject from the LDS perspective. I can't recall the title, but i got his article printed up as a tract pamphlet LDS missionaries still might be giving out. I do not have the link right now.

Some of the material they put online may have temple content on it. Not his article, but some of the very old stuff. Until i am sure i hate to link to it. Not being under the restriction not to talk about temple content some of our people in the zeal to expose LDS secrets published some Temple content. I think that was because older RLDS all blamed Brigham Young for Temple ceremonies and not any Joseph Smith. So when it came to picking on Brigham Young alone that was pretty easy for us.

We had persons who claimed the endowment was only practiced after Joseph Smiths death. Since these persons were not in the know in regards to pre-temple temple practices they did not know what they were talking about. But some of my people taking this unreliable testimony seriously ended up shooting ourselves in the foot with that information. Basing a testimony on type of testimony alone was most unwise.

As my own discussion of Temple content goes i do not do that. Its not that i object to the content. I think the content beautiful. I was reading an idiotic Utah Lighthouse Messenger edition on Temple ceremony changes last night. (1990) The Tanners are pretty dumb. I will discuss the concept of change, but not the content. Outside of course i will get into what LDS commonly feel it is ok to talk about.

In regards to the concept of changing the ceremonies. I do not have to discuss the changes, or content to address the general concept can such a ceremony be changed. The Book of commandments was changed when the revelations were revised to become the D.&C. and the Book of Revelations was changed in the JST version. It would not be inconsistent with modern revelation for God to approve big changes to any revelation its just that man can't do it without permission.

We have no Temple ceremonies in our Independence, temple. We can discuss our differences about the temple without getting into that which is sacred to LDS. One difference we can get into is baptism for the dead. We felt based on Mormoni 8 and Joseph Smiths brother in the Celestial kingdom such was not needed. I dislike the argument because Joseph smiths brother knew good from evil, so was not like an infant. And it gives people the mistaken impression Alvin did not have to do anything in order to qualify for the Celestial kingdom. He certainly had to have faith, and repent. Baptism would not be clearly required for him, but would be if possible for him or God commanded it.

So even though i do not feel baptism for the dead is needed. I am not sure he would never get baptized. Baptism for the dead is one way for him to get baptized. Waiting until his resurrection would be another. To me the idea he will never get baptized is just one idea.

[Maureen]

...I was reading an idiotic Utah Lighthouse Messenger edition on Temple ceremony changes last night. (1990) The Tanners are pretty dumb....

Hi Dale,

I'm curious about your opinion with the above. You can PM me with your answer. Thanks!

M.

[Dale]

Maureen-This is my opinion it does not get more complex than that. I do feel free to comment on quotes unrelated to the changes they bring up. But quite a lot of the content of that issue of the Salt Lake Messenger i just can't get into. LDS can refute their whole case, but they can't because the content is sacred for them to be able to defend in public. So all they can do is wait for God to smoke such critics.

I see their case based on a stack of quotes that are supposed to prove such things can't changed and remain unconvinced. One is, "As temple work progresses, some members wonder if the ordinances can be changed or adjusted. These ordinances have been provided by revelation, and are in the hands of the First Presidency. Thus, the temple is protected from tampering." (Deseret News, Church Section, January 16,1982) This quote is wrong revelations can be changed. The Book of Commandments revelations were revised and placed in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. If revelations can be changed, so can anything else the LDS First Presidency feels inspired to change. The quote is also wrong because temple practice has undergone changes from the 19th century.

Our First Presidency changed the content of our D.&C. in recent years. The revelations and letters regarding the Nauvoo Temple, baptism for the dead were placed in the back of our D.&C. in a historical appendix. Then we later removed these sections from our D.& C. and we treat them more like the Apocrypha. So we no longer have the sections in our D.&C. Although Price Publishing Company reprints i think its a 1953 edition with them still in them.

We had a wait and see position on baptism for the dead for many years. When we built our Independence temple a decision had to be made. I am maybe among very few members of the church that retain a belief in the practice. I may be the last one left. And this was only because i thought LDS apologetics and scholarship handled Apostle Ralston's objections to it. I still agree with him some, but not entirely. He has a tract on that also online someone put up also at the centerplace library.

[rayhale]

Go to Our History - W. Wallace Smith and see a prophet RETIRING!? How can a prophet retire? Not only that but also one question for a member of the Committee of Christ. How do you still think you have the authority of God? The reason that people thought that Joseph Smith III was the next prophet was that they believed that the role of prophet should go from father to son. But who is the prophet now? Stephen M. Veazey, he is not related to Joseph Smith in any way other then we all are related. That alone should disqualify your church alone. But there is more, as soon as a prophet of the Reorganized Church was not a descendent of Joseph Smith, they changed their name and started trying to fit into being a normal Christian church. These are a few questions that a member of the Reorganized Church member should think about.

P.S. what we do in the temple is sacred!!!!!!! I would never look at ANY book, DVD or, listen to any thing else that would talk about any other churches sacred rites or practices. That is just wrong. I can’t locate the reference, but Joseph Smith once said that it is good to stick up for your own religion but it is better to stick up for someone else’s religion. He would fight for the Catholics, Methodists, and anyone else that the wicked would trample on. (Again, this is NOT the original quote but a summery)

[WillowTheWhisp]

Dale - I love the architectural design of your temple in Independence. It's beautiful.

[Maureen]

...Not only that but also one question for a member of the Committee of Christ...

Do you mean Community of Christ?

How do you still think you have the authority of God? The reason that people thought that Joseph Smith III was the next prophet was that they believed that the role of prophet should go from father to son. But who is the prophet now? Stephen M. Veazey, he is not related to Joseph Smith in any way other then we all are related. That alone should disqualify your church alone. But there is more, as soon as a prophet of the Reorganized Church was not a descendent of Joseph Smith, they changed their name and started trying to fit into being a normal Christian church. These are a few questions that a member of the Reorganized Church member should think about.

P.S. what we do in the temple is sacred!!!!!!! I would never look at ANY book, DVD or, listen to any thing else that would talk about any other churches sacred rites or practices. That is just wrong

.

Why is that wrong?

I can’t locate the reference, but Joseph Smith once said that it is good to stick up for your own religion but it is better to stick up for someone else’s religion. He would fight for the Catholics, Methodists, and anyone else that the wicked would trample on. (Again, this is NOT the original quote but a summery)

Is that what you're doing here rayhale, sticking up for the Community of Christ?

M.

[Moksha]

I was curious as to what happens nowadays in the CoC services. Do you pass the Communion Sacrament? Are there girl Deacons? Female Bishops?