inquiringmind Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 Does "The Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints" have a unique legal claim to being the Church that JS Smith founded in Palmyra New York in 1830?What exactly happened in 1830?Was the Church incorperated under the federal laws of the United States at the time?Why was the name changed when Brigham Young took over the leadership, and led the majority of saints to Utah (and was this main body, with the name change, legally recognized as the same Church JS founded in 1830)?Could the laws of the United States be used to invalidate the claims of the RLDS and other Restoration movement Churches?
KevinG Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) Does "The Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints" have a unique legal claim to being the Church that JS Smith founded in Palmyra New York in 1830?What exactly happened in 1830?Was the Church incorperated under the federal laws of the United States at the time?Why was the name changed when Brigham Young took over the leadership, and led the majority of saints to Utah (and was this main body, with the name change, legally recognized as the same Church JS founded in 1830)?Could the laws of the United States be used to invalidate the claims of the RLDS and other Restoration movement Churches?I think there were legal cases that divided the property of the Church in Kirtland and Missouri. Other than that I don't know that any government claim will validate or invalidate any religious organization in any meaningful way.(I know this doesn't really answer the OP - hopefull some of our historians can shed more light) Edited July 23, 2011 by DaddyG
inquiringmind Posted July 23, 2011 Author Posted July 23, 2011 I think there were legal cases that divided the property of the Church in Kirtland and Missouri. Other than that I don't know that any government claim will validate or invalidate any religious organization in any meaningful way.(I know this doesn't really answer the OP - hopefull some of our historians can shed more light)Thank you.(I'm interested in this question, and would apreciate any additional light the historians can shed.)
LeSellers Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 Does "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" [corrected capitalization and hyphenation] have a unique legal claim to being the Church that JS Smith founded in Palmyra New York in 1830?The question is much more complex than this, and, because of the next parts, cannot be answered definitively. What exactly happened in 1830?My second great grandfather was born, but I think this has nothing to do with your question.1830 04 06 was the date the Lord commanded Joseph and five others to formally organize "The Church of Christ", according to the laws of the State of New York. Joseph was sustained as the First Elder, and Oliver as the Second. The six of them went to the nearby stream and baptized each other into the Church. (This is now part of the single baptism required for both the remission of sins and membership into the Church. Because there was no Church in 1839 when Joseph and Oliver received the Priesthood and baptized each other, they had to be rebaptized so join the Church.) Their confirmations (including the bestowal of the gift of the Holy Ghost) followed when they reconvened the meeting in the home of Peter Whitmer.Was the Church incorperated under the federal laws of the United States at the time?No. Federal law did not apply. It was a state function, as it remains today. Why was the name changed when Brigham Young took over the leadership, and led the majority of saints to Utah (and was this main body, with the name change, legally recognized as the same Church JS founded in 1830)?The original name of the Church was, as I said above, "The Church of Christ". On April 6, 1830, Joseph Smith met with a large group at Fayette, New York, to formally organize what was called on that day the Church of Christ. Later the name was changed to the Church of the Latter Day Saints, and in 1838 to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity, p.10-10 - 11We do not know why the Lord chose to change the name of His Church. but it happened well before 1846. Could the laws of the United States be used to invalidate the claims of the RLDS and other Restoration movement Churches?No. This is not an area the Law would or should get involved in. As someone else noted above, the property, notably the Temple in Kirtland, was adjudicated and delivered to the RLDS (now Community of Christ). Much (but not all) of the Temple Lot in Independence, Missouri is under RLDS/CoC ownership, and there are a couple of other Restorationist churches who have a presence there, as well. When the Saints were driven out of Missouri, they left millions of dollars worth of property behind. Some was "sold" at the point of a gun, some merely abandoned. But the title to the Temple Lot was held in private LDS (and RLDS once that church was founded in 1860, and the "Church of Christ (Temple Lot)" among others) hands for a while, and the taxes paid on it for many years. The Missouri property history gets muddled for decades, however. Lehi
Mark Beesley Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) Does "The Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints" have a unique legal claim to being the Church that JS Smith founded in Palmyra New York in 1830?The legal entity that Joseph Smith organized in 1830 under the laws of the State of New York likely does not exist any more.What exactly happened in 1830?Read this article.Was the Church incorperated under the federal laws of the United States at the time?What federal corporation laws existed before the Securities Act of 1933? Why was the name changed when Brigham Young took over the leadership, and led the majority of saints to Utah (and was this main body, with the name change, legally recognized as the same Church JS founded in 1830)?The current name of the Church was establishd in 1838 in section 115 of the Doctrine and Covenants. Joseph Smith was still alive and Brigham Young was not in charge.Could the laws of the United States be used to invalidate the claims of the RLDS and other Restoration movement Churches?What claims do you think we ought to be concerned about invalidating? Edited July 23, 2011 by Mark Beesley
inquiringmind Posted July 23, 2011 Author Posted July 23, 2011 What claims do you think we ought to be concerned about invalidating?There are other groups that claim to be the Church restored by Joseph.
inquiringmind Posted July 23, 2011 Author Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) How, when, and why did the saints leave New York?Were they commanded to leave, or were they driven out?Did they leave any church property behind (and what became of it)?And did a remnant of saints stay behind when the others left? Edited July 23, 2011 by inquiringmind
LeSellers Posted July 23, 2011 Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) How, when, and why did the saints leave New YorkWere they commanded to leave, or were they driven out?There was a mass migration to Kirtland, Ohio, in 1831. The Lord commanded the Church to move there. It was a result of the "Lamanite Mission", whose purpose was to find the Campbellite congregation of Sidney Rigdon (irrespective of the name of the endeavor).Did they leave any church property behind (and what became of it)?The Church herself owned no property in New York. Up until then, the members met in private homes. And did a remnant of saints stay behind when the others left?Yes. Most of them eventually caught up with the body of the Church, either in Kirtland or in "Zion", i.e., Jackson County, Missouri.Most of them had financial impediments to their leaving with the main body of the Church.Lehi Edited July 24, 2011 by LeSellers
volgadon Posted July 24, 2011 Posted July 24, 2011 There are other groups that claim to be the Church restored by Joseph.And a legal claim won't hold water for believers, as we each think the other has apostasied and thus forfeited God's authority.
Recommended Posts