Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

NauvooSaint

Community of Christ vs. Restoration Branches

Recommended Posts

Some Background:

There has been some struggles/division within the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS)for several years. There have been some changes in doctrines/beliefs & more traditional & conservative members didn't go along with these departures. The introduction in 1984-85 of Womens' Ordination to the priesthood was seen as a final straw of liberalism in the church, although 'Open Communion', issues surrounding homosexuality & most recently...'Open Baptism/Membership' have occurred since that time. In 2000-01, the church officially adopted a new denomination name, Community of Christ & changed nearly everything associated with the RLDS name as well as change their church flag & seal. The leadership even went so far as to form a completely new church corporation for Community of Christ & all new baptisms/ordination certificates were now under that name (not RLDS). In fact, they accepted a 'revelation' declaring this as their new name into their Doctrine and Covenants. Many traditional RLDS members in the 1980-90s continued to worship as usual in their home congregations that were opposed to such changes, while others formed independent branches. There were cases where entire traditional congregations were literally locked out of their church buildings for not ordaining women, etc. & their buildings sold. Unlike the LDS/Mormon church who's buildings/church properties may be purchased with tithes/offerings collected by the church headquarters in SLC, the RLDS church practice is quite different. (This can be explained later) In order for Restoration Branches to function with non-profit status & deal with ownership of property & collection of money, they sometimes incorporated with a name. Their bylaws commonly state that the members are RLDS & that they are not forming a new denomination. Some members did actually form new factional churches such as, Restoration CofJCofLDS & Remnant CofJCofLDS, but most did not do such a thing. Since the Community of Christ had changed so many doctrines/beliefs & even went so far as to change their church name (retaining RLDS for 'legal' purposes), many Restoration Branches used old church flags or seals in their chapels. Restoration Branch signs would state as example: 'Devon Park Restoration Branch, (small lettering)=Proclaiming the original doctrines & beliefs of the (larger lettering)=Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints' Restoration Branches throughout the Independence, MO area have such signs & have advertised this way since the 1980s along side Community of Christ advertisements in the newspaper without any problem. In 2005, the Community of Christ then filed registration for copyrighting the RLDS name & trademarks not with the intent to use these in the future, but rather to warehouse the church name so others couldn't use them. In fact, the Community of Christ had not produced anything new or formed a new congregation using the RLDS name or older church seal since 2001.

The Community of Christ as plantiff has taken two Restoration Branches to court over the RLDS name in recent years. The first was South Branch in Raytown, MO & the second Devon Park in Independence, MO. Both cases were first heard by the same judge, but South Branch didn't continue with their case as they lacked finances. Devon Park has appealed their case to the next level which just finished some oral arguments on 1/13/2011. Listen to audio proceedings below:

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/oralargs.pl?case_num=101707

I'll post some more links such as the appeals brief soon. The following link has more documents about the lawsuit:

http://www.devonpark.org/page4.html

Share this post


Link to post

Why does the Community of Christ care if someone else uses a name and symbols that they have discarded? Are they worried that these "RLDS" branches will poach from their membership?

Share this post


Link to post

Why does the Community of Christ care if someone else uses a name and symbols that they have discarded? Are they worried that these "RLDS" branches will poach from their membership?

Because the name is not completely discarded. Most of the church properties are still deeded under the name Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. There is no reason to re-deed all the properties under any other name.

The church is not worried about "poaching" members for a number of reasons. With over 6 billion people on the planet, there is enough people for everyone to witness too. Then too the Independent Branches now number around 7,500 members and are declining in membership. There is so much infighting among themselves, they are a greater threat to themselves than to anyone else.

Finally, much of this (in my opinion) was the Lord revealing the true heart of man. Many of these people feel they owned the buildings because they "paid" for them. Yet this was done with "tithes and offerings." It shows the money was never given to God and kept to themselves and for their own benefit. Yet (in my opinion), if God is all sovereign and if all money is his, something even greater would have been given if the people had the right heart and were right with God.

Share this post


Link to post

Some Background:

There has been some struggles/division within the Reorganized Church of

Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS)for several years....

Indeed there has.

And I'm not at all sure how to answer a Communitarian of Christ

who tells me that I cannot continue to call myself a

Reorganized Latter Day Saint.

That's what it says upon my certificate of baptism -- so, when did

I lose that status? When I refused to sustain Grant McMurray in

his office as Prophet, Seer, Revelator and Translator?

Oh well -- if I'm not allowed to use the name, I'll discard it,

just as I did that of "Christian," when challenged on that term

as well. I can live without the terminology. It's the doctrine

that matters -- not the name.

Uncle Dale

Share this post


Link to post

Because the name is not completely discarded. Most of the church properties are still deeded under the name Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. There is no reason to re-deed all the properties under any other name.

Ah, so it's not members they are concerned about losing - it's buildings and real estate.

Share this post


Link to post

It seems to me that the court needs to tread pretty carefully here. It must not allow itself to become embroiled in adjudicating questions of religious doctrine or ecclesiastical judicature. A wrong decision in favour of the CofC might have the effect of engaging the apparatus of government in enforcing denominational leadership over unruly congregations; OTOH, a wrong decision in favour of the semi-schismatic branch could be seen as effectively dismembering hierarchical churches. (Somehow I suspect that if this were to happen, the usual separation-of-church-and-state chanters wouldn't mind a bit.) The court needs to keep a narrow focus upon the trademark law issues and not allow itself to get sidetracked in other directions.

The whole issue seems fraught, and I have to confess that my own sympathies here are somewhat mixed. On the one hand, I feel that churches should be allowed to maintain their own denominational integrity, including ownership of names and trademarks. On the other, the CofC has so clearly and radically departed from the traditional beliefs and practices that it seems like natural justice to allow those who are trying to contine those traditions to do so under the banner that the main church has effectively discarded. The action by the CofC looks a bit like the increasingly common "censorious liberal" phenomenon, wherein the alleged liberals want to silence everyone who disagrees with them. The saddest part is that it has come to this, where two groups from the same denomination are now taking their differences before non-believers to be settled.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

...

the alleged liberals want to silence everyone who disagrees with them.

...

I certainly hope that is not the case.

However, there is a unique element present in this situation -- in that

the various restoration branches are not claiming EXCLUSIVE rights to

the title. They are happy to acknowledge each other as brethren, even

when they have insufficient common ground upon which to unite.

This is rather like a church (say, the RCC) claiming that you or I

am not in the "Body of Christ," when we may or may not call one

another brother Latter Day Saints.

However, the "Body of Christ" is not a legal name, registered with

the government of Imperial Rome, or some such entity -- so the analogy

only extends so far.

It reminds me of a Stalinist refusing to acknowledge that a

Trotskyite has the right to sing the Internationale --- and then

taking him to court, because he continues to wear a medal pinned

to his chest by Lenin himself.

Oh well -- so go the precepts of men.

UD

Share this post


Link to post

I don't believe the issues in the case deal with buildings & properties....nor that the RLDS Restorationists are seeking to lay claim upon buildings they may have once worshipped in. Devon Park's church building is owned by them. I do find it interesting that Thuderfire says the Restorationists are no threat, small & losing numbers...yet we have what has been termed by some as Goliath sueing David. Why not sue all the known Restoration Branches or at least those in the Independence area? The Community of Christ must have realized they were a bit weak in claims if they had to register the RLDS name & seal in 2005 so they could take individual branches to court.

As I mentioned in my previous post about RLDS church buildings...

Traditionally in the RLDS church when a large enough grouping of members live in a given area, they may seek to purchase or receive donated land for the purpose to build a church building. Local members would raise the funds needed through offerings/loans & may even help with physically erecting the building with their own hands. Assistance from the church headquarters may be through some design plans or a loan, which is expected to be repaid over time. Once the building & loans are paid-off, then the deed is transferred to the church headquarters. One theory is the church can get a better insurance rate with all church buildings. I can remember reading notices in the 'Saints Herald' magazine in the last couple decades where celebration ceremonies would be held for congregations as they transferred the deed to their buildings to the headquarters.

In 1992, My father & I served on the building committee in Eugene, Oregon. My father served as 'stewardship commissioner' over finances. The existing church had been burned & only the chapel remained. The congregation received a $100,000 loan from the church headquarters to assist in the rebuild, which was eventually paid-off. Since it was on an existing building & the deed already owned by the headquarters, one would think they would have simply contributed the $100,000 especially since Eugene had the largest congregation in southern Oregon at the time.

In this case, it appears that focus of Devon Park Restoration Branch is to have the court revoke the Community of Christ registration of the RLDS name/seal in 2005 since it had changed their denominational name & abandoned or warehoused the name so others couldn't use it. If successful, the RLDS name would be released without a corporate attachment. It could be used like the term Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran.

Share this post


Link to post
I certainly hope that is not the case.

However, there is a unique element present in this situation -- in that

the various restoration branches are not claiming EXCLUSIVE rights to

the title. They are happy to acknowledge each other as brethren, even

when they have insufficient common ground upon which to unite.

This is where I'm just not clear on the relationship between the Restoration Branches and the Community of Christ as a body. In the audio that Nauvoo Saint linked to, the barrister mentioned that her client's congregation continued to send baptismal and marriage reports to CofC HQ, until HQ told them not to bother. So are the RB's best described as little independent congregational churches, like the various "polyg" offshoots are, or are they more like CofC units that are operating in somewhat of a "rogue" manner? IOW, are they fully separate now, or are they merely semi-schismatic, as I previously described them?

This is rather like a church (say, the RCC) claiming that you or I

am not in the "Body of Christ," when we may or may not call one

another brother Latter Day Saints.

However, the "Body of Christ" is not a legal name, registered with

the government of Imperial Rome, or some such entity -- so the analogy

only extends so far.

All analogies are imperfect, of course; but there are actual events that I can think of that seem relevant. In Australia a number of years ago, the Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregationalist Churches amalgamated to form a new body called The Uniting Church in Australia. There was a significant group in the Presbyterian Church that didn't want to merge with the others, and so they formed what was then called the "Continuing Presbyterian Church." While there was a lawsuit (or perhaps more than one) about just which church owned what of the former Presbyterian Church's property, I don't recall any attempt by the larger body to stop the smaller group from using the "Presbyterian" name.

And that case looks quite analogous to this one.

If the CofC has really abandoned the old RLDS name, then I can't see any harm in them letting the RB's use it. OTOH, if the RB's are to be prohibited from advertising themselves as following the RLDS tradition, I have to wonder how they are supposed to signal to others just what it is that they believe and stand for.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

...what it is that they believe and stand for.

...

Not just that -- but heritage. The turning of the hearts of the

children to the fathers.

There are congregations in the USA which happily feature a framed

photo of Joseph Smith III visiting them many decades ago -- or a

cherished commendation from Fred M. Smith, acknowledging their

missionary outreach. These, and a thousand similar links with

the past, preserve our roots and call our attention back to the

basics of Restorationism, so dear to the hearts of our ancestors.

It sometimes seems as if CoC wants us to relinquish all of that,

and proclaim ourselves johnny-come-lately imitation saints, who

are attempting to tarnish the old memories of Graceland College

and The Auditorium in Independence.

I imagine that The Mormons have the same uncomfortable feelings

in looking at FLDS laudatory presentations of Brigham Young and

John Taylor. It is far easier to dismiss another's proper heritage,

than it is to admit some common ground.

From my point of view, the Reorganization is back where it was in

1859, ready for rebirth --- and this time without the Smith family

dictating what is God's will and what is not.

I can only wonder what will happen next.

UD

Share this post


Link to post

Pahoran, Many Restoration Branches continued to send their blessings/baptisms/ordinations to headquarters in the 1980-90s. Since there were mass silencings of priesthood men during that time & since the leadership didn't recognize Restoration Branches as official congregations, it may explain why they didn't want to accept the records. I knew of priesthood men who had never been 'silenced' from the priesthood in different Restoration Branches, but the Community of Christ established a way to 'silence' priesthood who may have been inactive in CofC congregations for a period of three years.

The most telling departure of the Community of Christ from it's Restoration roots is 'Open Baptism/Membership'. They now are recognizing the water baptisms of other christian churches (sprinking/pouring/immersion, but no infant baptism) & will only confirm such individuals by the laying on of hands in the Community of Christ. Sure goes against what the angel John, the Baptist, told Joseph & Oliver with the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood.

Share this post


Link to post
Pahoran, Many Restoration Branches continued to send their blessings/baptisms/ordinations to headquarters in the 1980-90s. Since there were mass silencings of priesthood men during that time & since the leadership didn't recognize Restoration Branches as official congregations, it may explain why they didn't want to accept the records. I knew of priesthood men who had never been 'silenced' from the priesthood in different Restoration Branches, but the Community of Christ established a way to 'silence' priesthood who may have been inactive in CofC congregations for a period of three years.

Okay. Excommunication I know (someone is no longer a member) and disfellowshipment I know (someone is still a member but can't hold callings or partake of the Sacrament) but was ist das "Silencing?" I heard that term on the audio as well, and it made my antenna twitch. Is it a formal aspect of CofC church discipline, or is it something else?

The most telling departure of the Community of Christ from it's Restoration roots is 'Open Baptism/Membership'. They now are recognizing the water baptisms of other christian churches (sprinking/pouring/immersion, but no infant baptism) & will only confirm such individuals by the laying on of hands in the Community of Christ. Sure goes against what the angel John, the Baptist, told Joseph & Oliver with the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood.

Indeed. That reminds me of a documentary I saw about one of the so-called "fundamentalist Mormon" groups in Utah; the TLC, I think. It showed a baptismal service, and the prayer failed entirely to resemble the proper baptismal prayer. IOW, it was a complete innovation. The more I have seen of CofC innovations, the more it seems to me (speaking as an outsider) that the CofC is a kind of "progressive" or apostate offshoot of the RLDS Church -- but that instead of leaving, the apostates have managed to capture the leadership of the parent church.

This can't be a comfortable place for you guys to be in.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

Ah, so it's not members they are concerned about losing - it's buildings and real estate.

The interesting reality is that nothing is more important than our relationship with Jesus and our pursuit of him. Yes, it is sad when some want to leave. Yet we seem to forget those who wanted to stay. What happens to those who wanted to stay when others wanted to "take their buildings" with them? From the perspective of some, God blessed those who left by taking away their idols which they were worshiping (the buildings, church name, church seal, flag, etc). You could see the depth of what these things meant when they proclaimed they could no longer "minister" without these things.

Then too, one thing which baffles many is the apparent lack of focus on greater numerical growth, but the continued growth of the individual in Jesus. You could have thousands of people and still be spiritually dead to God. Yet one person filled with the spirit could change an entire community.

Share this post


Link to post

Its a shame our brothers are fighting here. It should be interesting to see what happens. Personally, I wish they'd look to arbitration or something to settle this. Courts could make dangerous precedent.

Share this post


Link to post

'Silencing' is most commonly the involuntary removal of one's priesthood license to function in the ordinances of the church. A person's membership is not affected & most Restorationists retain their membership in the RLDS church. Most priesthood were 'silenced' over Womens' Ordination & participation in unauthorized congreations. ie. Restoration Branches. In my case, I was ordained in 1991 & 'silenced' in the spring of 1995 over not feeling comfortable serving with women priesthood & 'Open Communion' or sacrament to non-members (a changed in 1994) (Sacrament is served differently in the RLDS & LDS churches as priests & elders serve each individual in the pews rather than 'pass the sacrament')

In the late 1980s, some stakes & districts (mostly around Independence, MO) didn't support womens' ordination & a large majority of members whould vote down callings to the priesthood in stake conferences. In Blue Valley Stake near Independence for example, approx. 900 saints vs. 300 would not approve a woman presented for priesthood. When the leadership realized their agenda wasn't being implemented in such places, they would do several things to make it happen. They appointed liberal presiding elders (like a bishop) over a traditional congregation inspite of the members & sometimes disorganized the congregation making it a mission (similar to an LDS branch). The stake might be disorganized temporarily & official letters sent to traditional members, including children as young as 8 years-old placing them in a new membership category called, 'Non-affiliate'...denying them voice/vote in business meetings of the church. The stake would be reorganized & have a successful conference without opposition & then be praised in the 'Saints Herald' magazine for the reconciliation they had among their people. Traditional members & congregations in these areas were disenfrancised without a recourse. These RLDS saints didn't introduce anything new, false or illegal, but rather wanted to continue to worship as usual without the introduction of womens' ordination & church school material that was critical to the Restoration. The leadership allowed liberal experimental congregations to exist within the church, but were not tolerant of conservative ones.

There were a handful cases (approx. 5) of traditional RLDS congregations or 'island' branches remaining under the Community of Christ. My uncle John, was the presiding elder of one in California & later one near Independence, MO. In the lawsuit with Devon Park, the Community of Christ is likely using these few remaining congregations in their ranks along with some others with both Community of Christ & RLDS church signs to prove their case.

Share this post


Link to post

I do find it interesting that Thunderfire says the Restorationists are no threat, small & losing numbers...yet we have what has been termed by some as Goliath sueing David. Why not sue all the known Restoration Branches or at least those in the Independence area?

I understand and acknowledge that this will always be seen from the perspective of each side. Frankly, these deep feelings on the Restoration side has not gone away even after twenty five years. We now have a new generation of

Share this post


Link to post

I understand and acknowledge that this will always be seen from the perspective of each side. Frankly, these deep feelings on the Restoration side has not gone away even after twenty five years. We now have a new generation of

Share this post


Link to post

That is blatantly false and I call you to repent of your false accusations against the good folks of the Restoration Branches.

Well, actually it is not false because I have personally witnessed some of these children come to our website and heard the "gospel" they preached. But as I wrote earlier, it is all individual perspective.

Good folks can still do bad things and there is no need to repent for speaking truth. I do believe they are trying to do the "right things" as they view right verse wrong. Yet the results cannot be defended, only acknowledged.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, actually it is not false because I have personally witnessed some of these children come to our website and heard the "gospel" they preached. But as I wrote earlier, it is all individual perspective.

Good folks can still do bad things and there is no need to repent for speaking truth. I do believe they are trying to do the "right things" as they view right verse wrong. Yet the results cannot be defended, only acknowledged.

Steve, you know that you are bearing false witness. You actually accused Restoration parents of teaching animosity towards your church in lieu of the Restored Gospel. I believe this is the lowest I have seen you sink. Perhaps you believe you can get away with, being in a predominately LDS board where most contributors know close to nothing of the inner-workings of the RLDS Restoration Movement, but I will call you on it every time - for as you said "there is no need to repent for speaking the truth."

Share this post


Link to post

Steve, you know that you are bearing false witness. You actually accused Restoration parents of teaching animosity towards your church in lieu of the Restored Gospel. I believe this is the lowest I have seen you sink. Perhaps you believe you can get away with, being in a predominately LDS board where most contributors know close to nothing of the inner-workings of the RLDS Restoration Movement, but I will call you on it every time - for as you said "there is no need to repent for speaking the truth."

Actually, some of the Restorationist have done much worse and in my opinion, I have been going easy on them. As mentioned earlier, I acknowledge that some view the gospel differently with what is taught to the children. But the sins of the parents are indeed on the heads of the children and they are only doing what they have been taught to believe.

I have attended your services (an ordination service for example) where the preacher stood behind the pulpit and "preached" against the Community of Christ. It was not a shining moment nor did it glorify God. I have watched your children come to our internet sites and speak the same message that I have heard preached from your pulpits. Continued turmoil, in fighting, they cannot even get along with themselves.

So no, I am not bearing false witness nor did I "accuse" because it is the truth.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, some of the Restorationist have done much worse and in my opinion, I have been going easy on them. As mentioned earlier, I acknowledge that some view the gospel differently with what is taught to the children. But the sins of the parents are indeed on the heads of the children and they are only doing what they have been taught to believe.

I have attended your services (an ordination service for example) where the preacher stood behind the pulpit and "preached" against the Community of Christ. It was not a shining moment nor did it glorify God. I have watched your children come to our internet sites and speak the same message that I have heard preached from your pulpits. Continued turmoil, in fighting, they cannot even get along with themselves.

So no, I am not bearing false witness nor did I "accuse" because it is the truth.

Being an active participant in the Restoration Branches week in and week out, having attended Reunions and other gatherings multiple times a year, and being an active participant in several Restoration discussion sites/groups/etc... I can guarantee you that bashing the Community of Christ is not the main focus of most members of the Restoration and the younger generation is somewhat tired of hearing about "the incident", which is mostly talked about by 60-70 year-old women and old lovable curmudgeons who got silenced 15-20 years ago. In fact the youth of the Restoration Branches sent an open letter to the older generation and couple years back which essential told them the move on. I am in the process of trying to relocate the letter.

Share this post


Link to post

Thunder, I know you are aware of the background of the young man you speak of who has participated on the CofC board & Centerplace (Restorationist) board. So others may know...the young man is a son of the pastor at Devon Park Restoration Branch. He personally has experienced great pain from the actions involving this lawsuit by the Community of Christ not only against his congregation, but his family directly in his lifetime. As mentioned in the links I posted dealing with the lawsuit, his father is named as a defendant & partly responsible for the payment of the $300,000+ plantiff/court fees if the outcome of the case remains the same. It will bankrupt his family as well as destroy this congregation. I do agree that the young man's tone has not aways been appropriate, however if you want to preach grace charity & mercy, than you should understand, empathize with him a bit. I have some personal experience in different ways on what 'reconcilation' the Community of Christ has offered & given...good & bad. <-(A very full statement.)

I too support BofMLuv in calling you out on your wrongdoing....I expected more from you.

Your estimate on the population of RLDS Restorationists must be based on JCRB figures. Surely you are aware that the JCRB represents only a small number of branches & they are the ones that held a conference at the Stone Church in Independence. Devon Park is affiliated with them. The JCRB is not supported by a large majority of Restoration Branches for several valid reasons. It's unrealistic to think we can fully discuss all of that here effectively. As you know from the Centerplace board, some Restorationists think this lawsuit is a waste of money & resources that could be used for spreading the Restored gospel. It took guts for little Devon Park to stand up for their heritage & identity against an organization that has done just about everything to re-invent themselves. When I lived in Nauvoo, we had so many repeat questions from our Mormon brothers/sisters in our bookstore about the CofC, that we finally made a pamphlet answering them.

UncleDale, I realize names may not mean much to you now, but I think it's pretty interesting that the Community of Christ even went so far as to issue new priesthood cards to everyone with the CofC name. I don't believe they required folks to hand in their RLDS ones. My father wasn't required. According to the policies surrounding 'silencing' of priesthood, a person is expected to hand in their card (not everyone does, but then they can't appeal the 'silencing') If someone was to be reinstated, then they are issued a new priesthood card rather than get their original one returned. I would assume if someone were to lose their RLDS baptism certificate, the Community of Christ would send them one with their new name as a replacement.

Pahoran, I really like your insight from an outsider viewpoint. I kept thinking....Bingo! When the leadership in the RLDS church began to have some liberals 'progressives' in their ranks, those individuals promoted other liberals. The LDS are fortunate their leadership is conservative. I've seen this happen at lower levels even at the local level. An example: I knew a man that would among other things...open his public prayers at church with "Our Heavenly Parent (sometimes Mother)". This was bothersome to many members, but the district president who attended the same congregation bypassed the woman pastor of the congregation (yeah even a woman pastor) & called the man to the priesthood & he was promoted a short time later. (Calling of priesthood differs between RLDS & LDS churches). I attended one Sunday service where the same district president gave a talk where he spoke of singing the music scale in different public restrooms with the hopes of trying to discover what key the universe was in. My uncle John (I spoke of earlier) came for a visit once & was shocked when this same man stood in a prayer & testimony service declaring, "No book can tell me how to live my life." They promoted him to Patriarch (This office is now called Evangelist in the CofC...Patriarch would be silly for priesthood women.)

Share this post


Link to post

Care to elaborate on the differences in priesthood 'promotion' (don't know if that word fits) between RLDS and LDS. I'm more familiar to the latter.

Share this post


Link to post

Vex,

I'll start a new thread dealing with the topic.

Share this post


Link to post

...

UncleDale, I realize names may not mean much to you now, but I think it's pretty interesting that the Community of Christ even went so far as to issue new priesthood cards to everyone with the CofC name. I don't believe they required folks to hand in their RLDS ones. My father wasn't required. According to the policies surrounding 'silencing' of priesthood, a person is expected to hand in their card (not everyone does, but then they can't appeal the 'silencing') If someone was to be reinstated, then they are issued a new priesthood card rather than get their original one returned. I would assume if someone were to lose their RLDS baptism certificate, the Community of Christ would send them one with their new name as a replacement....

That is probably correct.

It reminds me of the Union Army taking possession of Confederate States

property, and then disposing of it during Reconstruction, as the proper

holder to the legal titles.

But I really do not much care about what goes on in the court of Caesar --

I'm more concerned with what Reorganized Latter Day Saints will become

in the near future, no matter what they are called.

I'd settle for "the poor," or "the way," or even "Israel."

God knows His own and will not abandon them.

UD

.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...