Community Of Christ Invitation

[trebornotselnagol]

...it has been interesting to read this thread. I just wanted to share my perspective about several comments.

I have been active in the Community of Christ for over 65 years; grew up in the Pacific Northwest with LDS friends; serv

ed the church at the local and int'l levels.

The CofChrist has never received any monetary assistance from the LDS church (other than some cooperation in-kind at the historical association level) during my lifetime.

The reference to distributing LDS printed materials could only refer to a joint publication with the LDS, CofChrist, and the City of Independence (a tour guide of the city with all 3 logos -identifying marks).

In the 80's there was a decline in CofChrist membership around the time of the ordination of women. The rumor was that contributions dropped drastically at that time; and perhaps those that left would like to feel that it was because of their 'move' into Restoration Branches, etc.

There is some current deminishing of membership in the U.S. (much as that being experienced by the LDS). However, membership in developing countries is rapidly growing.

...for anyone serious about understanding the Community of Christ positions today; please select these 4 links ( be sure to explore your particular interest in the left sidebars at each link)....

...select a tab at the top of this first link.

http://www.cofchrist.org/

http://www.cofchrist.org/

ourfaith/faith-beliefs.asp

http://www.cofchrist.org/ourfaith/enduring-principles.asp

http://www.cofchrist.org/history/default.asp

http://www.cofchrist.org/

OurFaith/history.asp

...this may be more information that some are looking for; however, if you are looking for less information just be very selective as you explore each link. I wanted to provide enough for those that have a deeper interest.

...shalom, the peace of Jesus Christ in all of its many meanings and blessings

[Damien the Leper]

I have seldom, if ever, heard anyone think or say that motherhood was insignificant or somehow less than another calling or position. It is interesting that you would classify motherhood as something less than some etheral "greater purpose". What greater purpose can one have than bring a life into the world and raising that life to life a productive, fruitful life? I am sorry, but I reject your premise that there is something greater.

Ok...poor word choice on my part. But for me, the Feminine Wisdom that I believe women should embrace and harness is a direct connection to the Divine. Possibly a means of embodiment. I don't believe our purpose, male or female, is traced solely to creation. I believe that this is all about God and His glory and less about us. If you believe Moses 1:38, I see that verse as naming us as benefactors of God's ultimate glory.

[Damien the Leper]

Again, if one believes that Brigham was chosen by god to lead the lds church, then the CoC has a false foundation. It makes very difference what they say about the tinity or about Jesus. Also, as far as I can tell, they have no leader or prophet. Just a council of apostles.

That's a personal conviction that may or may not be rooted in the concept of 'truth'.

[Damien the Leper]

Absolutely. No other success can compensate for failure in the home.

Odd how this concept that motherhood (or fatherhood) is a second class role continues to creep into society. Maybe it's because motherhood isn't highly visible and doesn't have immediate material perks that go with it; is that what's more important than the "confinement" of women to so-called roles that are, in the world's eyes, mere drudgery? Wonder what Christ would have to say about the public glory of the world being better than quiet, nurturing service over the years.

Here's a question that would be interesting; what does the CoC have to say about the role of women that is so important, and is supposed to "free" them from the confinement of being a wife, mother, and home-maker?

I'm good with motherhood. In fact, I believe it's great...otherwise I would not be here with brothers and sisters who are dear to me. But womanhood is not confined to a box set of specific gender roles.

[Damien the Leper]

Well my friend, I promise you that you will be disappointed if you take that path. It looks ok from the outside but once you get inside the wrapper there is very little there. As the saying goes "Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt". I cannot emphasise enough that you will not find what you think is there.

The only portion of the Josephites I have any time for nowadays are the independent restoration branches. These people have, for all intents and purposes, left the CofC but are still counted on their rolls. They describe themselves as having moved out from under the CofC leadership. In fact, most of the active Josephites in Independence are not CofC but these more traditional RLDS who have rejected the CofC leadership as apostates. The CofC is in terminal decline and the leadership know it. I have had more than one of their general authorities sat in my house and frankly acknowledge that fact. One of them is now on their first presidency. Brigham Young said that those groups who failed to follow the preisthood would not ultimately prosper, and we are seeing that very prophecy unfold before our eyes.

Thank you for your concern. However, the same could be said for CoC who left their church, then joined LDS only to return to CoC. For some, the LDS church may not be a satisfying or spiritually fitting home.

[Damien the Leper]

And that was point in my above posts. For the CoC to be true, Brigham needed to be a false leader and those who stayed behind and organized a splinter church would need to be correct. But it does look like Brigham was a the correct choice for leader which would make the CoC wrong.

Perhaps you should stop looking at which church is 'true'. This concept is no longer a concern for Community of Christ. They have matured out of this mindset and only seek to do the will of God by practicing what they believe they are being called to do through Christ's Mission as revealed to them.

[Damien the Leper]

hi folks!

i am a community of christ member... Alan knows me well. Alan and i have a very different view of the church.

the community of christ does not rely on any materials from the lds (mormon) church. we do maintain an understanding when and where it comes to some historical documents and materials. hey, we even allow you folks to visit or kirtland temple and the temple in independence! the lds church does not in any way, shape or form, support nor provide for, the community of christ.

we are a church that embraces our restoration heritage while boldly taking steps into the future where God is leading.

not trying to proselytize but clear up some misconceptions i have read in this thread...

john

Hey John...thanks for joining us. I certainly hope that I have not contributed to the misconceptions of Community of Christ in this thread.

[LeSellers]

[Which church is 'true] is no longer a concern for Community of Christ. They have matured out of this mindset and only seek to do the will of God by practicing what they believe they are being called to do through Christ's Mission as revealed to them.

In other words, they're just another also-ran in the world of Christianity with nothing important to offer that isn't already out there on the buffet.

"Matured", in this context, means they recognize their impotence, and seek to meet the world halfway, or more.

Lehi

[Damien the Leper]

In other words, they're just another also-ran in the world of Christianity with nothing important to offer that isn't already out there on the buffet.

"Matured", in this context, means they recognize their impotence, and seek to meet the world halfway, or more.

Lehi

Poor attempt to interpret and twist the word 'matured', Lehi. Perhaps you should try again.

[randyj]

Perhaps you should stop looking at which church is 'true'. This concept is no longer a concern for Community of Christ. They have matured out of this mindset and only seek to do the will of God by practicing what they believe they are being called to do through Christ's Mission as revealed to them.

"Perhaps you should stop looking at which church is 'true'"

I suppose this doctrinal teaching of Joseph Smith is one of those pesky little holdovers from the "Restoration Heritage" that the CoC chooses not to "embrace", yet was a core foundational principle of the Restoration and the 1830 church.

Make no mistake...I applaud the CoC as having reached that point where they can now simply go out and preach the gospel as they understand it, without having an identity crisis with the LDS church. I certainly have no problems with that. What I do take issue with is that they "cherry pick" which of the teachings of Joseph Smith they will "embrace"...and those which they seemingly choose to disavow for expediency in wanting to be accepted as "mainstream Protestant". Such is my observation and understanding from my side of the fence here at CoC HQ.

[Pahoran]

Perhaps you should stop looking at which church is 'true'. This concept is no longer a concern for Community of Christ. They have matured out of this mindset and only seek to do the will of God by practicing what they believe they are being called to do through Christ's Mission as revealed to them.

Now all they need to do is encourage their adherents to "mature out of" the "mindset" of pretending to be Mormons so that their proselytizing can slip under the radar.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LeSellers]

Poor attempt to interpret and twist the word 'matured', Lehi. Perhaps you should try again.

By which you mean we disagree.

Joseph Smith, the putative founder of the Community of Christ/Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, would never have stood for the dilution of the doctrines he received from heaven. Through the 1950s, the RLDS Church actually stood for something, in spite of their apostasy. As it stands, she is nothing but an insignificant Protestant denomination, although she protests, not the Catholic Church as the Baptist do, but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Her doctrines are evangelical Protestantism, and her view of the Restoration rejects the most important issue God addressed from 1820 to 1844: the Priesthood.

Sorry, the CoC is now a filmy version of a Protestant sect saddled with a book of scripture they don't hold to be of any real value. But that's the way of apostates: they start out all fire and acid, but end up weak as month-old tea in a rainstorm.

Lehi

Edited February 15, 2012 by LeSellers

[Damien the Leper]

"Perhaps you should stop looking at which church is 'true'"

I suppose this doctrinal teaching of Joseph Smith is one of those pesky little holdovers from the "Restoration Heritage" that the CoC chooses not to "embrace", yet was a core foundational principle of the Restoration and the 1830 church.

Make no mistake...I applaud the CoC as having reached that point where they can now simply go out and preach the gospel as they understand it, without having an identity crisis with the LDS church. I certainly have no problems with that. What I do take issue with is that they "cherry pick" which of the teachings of Joseph Smith they will "embrace"...and those which they seemingly choose to disavow for expediency in wanting to be accepted as "mainstream Protestant". Such is my observation and understanding from my side of the fence here at CoC HQ.

But haven't LDS done the same? The KFS is quoted and overused but it is not doctrine but was a teaching of JS. This theology is rationalized through a specific interpretation of what specific scriptural verses say in the Bible.

However, I would be more accepting of an argument concerning the etymology of Psalm 82: 6 and John 10:34 as a basis for this line of reasoning. If possible, please provide a list of things that JS taught that are not accepted by the LDS today? And if they don't accept it...why? If the prophet taught it, then it should be accepted right?

Also, the 1850-2012 LDS church is NOT the same Restoration church started on April 6, 1830. It is a product of it...just as the other Restoration churches are.

[Damien the Leper]

Now all they need to do is encourage their adherents to "mature out of" the "mindset" of pretending to be Mormons so that their proselytizing can slip under the radar.

Regards,

Pahoran

Is this according to your general Utah LDS definition of Mormon? Or is it a broader definition of Mormon that can also be applied to other Restoration churches?

[Damien the Leper]

By which you mean we disagree.

Joseph Smith, the putative founder of the Community of Christ/Re-organized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, would never have stood for the dilution of the doctrines he received from heaven. Through the 1950s, the RLDS Church actually stood for something, in spite of their apostasy. As it stands, she is nothing but an insignificant Protestant denomination, although she protests, not the Catholic Church as the Baptist do, but The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Her doctrines are evangelical Protestantism, and her view of the Restoration rejects the most important issue God addressed from 1820 to 1844: the Priesthood.

Sorry, the CoC is now a filmy version of a Protestant sect saddled with a book of scripture they don't hold to be of any real value. But that's the way of apostates: they start out all fire and acid, but end up weak as month-old tea in a rianstorm.

Lehi

I would like to hear you make this statement in World Conference and see what kind of response this fruitless assertion will receive.

[LeSellers]

I would like to hear you make this statement in World Conference and see what kind of response this fruitless assertion will receive.

If they invite me, I'll gladly speak and bear testimony of the validity of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and how apostasy does not lead to God and His heaven.

I await their proposal for me to speak. But I'm not holding my breath.

Lehi

[Pahoran]

Also, the 1850-2012 LDS church is NOT the same Restoration church started on April 6, 1830. It is a product of it...just as the other Restoration churches are.

Thank you for testifying to your Reorganite belief. But you happen to be wrong.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded in Western New York on April 6, 1830. It did not come to an end in 1834 when it first changed its name, nor in 1838, when it received the name it now bears. It did not end when Joseph and Hyrum were murdered, nor when the Twelve assumed the mantle of leadership designated for them by revelation. It did not end when the body of the Church left Nauvoo to continue their westward trek; it did not end when the end of that trek was finally reached in the valleys of the Rocky Mountains, any more than it had ended when that trek began, and the body of the Church moved from the New York-Pennsylvania area.

The Church Joseph founded has continued intact to this day. The 2012 Church is a "product" of the 1830 Church in exactly the same way as a mature tree is a "product" of the sapling it once was. It has been a single, visible institution from the day of its founding to now. And that is not an expression of faith, but a simple historical fact.

Now Val, it is high time for you to come clean with us and admit where your actual denominational allegiance lies, and has lain since at least the opening post of this thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Damien the Leper]

Thank you for testifying to your Reorganite belief. But you happen to be wrong.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded in Western New York on April 6, 1830. It did not come to an end in 1834 when it first changed its name, nor in 1838, when it received the name it now bears. It did not end when Joseph and Hyrum were murdered, nor when the Twelve assumed the mantle of leadership designated for them by revelation. It did not end when the body of the Church left Nauvoo to continue their westward trek; it did not end when the end of that trek was finally reached in the valleys of the Rocky Mountains, any more than it had ended when that trek began, and the body of the Church moved from the New York-Pennsylvania area.

The Church Joseph founded has continued intact to this day. The 2012 Church is a "product" of the 1830 Church in exactly the same way as a mature tree is a "product" of the sapling it once was. It has been a single, visible institution from the day of its founding to now. And that is not an expression of faith, but a simple historical fact.

Now Val, it is high time for you to come clean with us and admit where your actual denominational allegiance lies, and has lain since at least the opening post of this thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

Thank you for testifying of your Brighamite beliefs.

The product I speak of is that of a parent/child type relationship. Kinda like God creating a single life and that life becoming something of its own. Not a seed blossoming as you may presume.

As for defining where my 'allegiances' lie...I believe that Wade is right in previous posts. Perhaps I should or am considering Community of Christ as a spiritual home. But to this date, I have NOT been baptized Community of Christ nor have I been confirmed a member. This is a serious matter...and whether you intend antagonistic remarks, you definitely give me reason to think over and pray about where I belong and where God is calling me. For that, Pahoran, I am sincerely grateful to both you and Wade.

[jnichols]

hey Val!

nice to meet you! you have done a great job!

i have been a member here for many years but seldom stop by. this thread piqued my interest!

john

Hey John...thanks for joining us. I certainly hope that I have not contributed to the misconceptions of Community of Christ in this thread.

[jnichols]

hi Randy!

living in independence, even in sight of the cofchrist independence temple, does not allow you to speak for, nor from, cofchrist headquarters.

i can't speak for everyone in the cofchrist, but the "teachings of jsii" that i do not embrace simply do not make sense to me... and we all, no matter our flavour, end up picking and choosing and cherry picking...

john

"Perhaps you should stop looking at which church is 'true'"

I suppose this doctrinal teaching of Joseph Smith is one of those pesky little holdovers from the "Restoration Heritage" that the CoC chooses not to "embrace", yet was a core foundational principle of the Restoration and the 1830 church.

Make no mistake...I applaud the CoC as having reached that point where they can now simply go out and preach the gospel as they understand it, without having an identity crisis with the LDS church. I certainly have no problems with that. What I do take issue with is that they "cherry pick" which of the teachings of Joseph Smith they will "embrace"...and those which they seemingly choose to disavow for expediency in wanting to be accepted as "mainstream Protestant". Such is my observation and understanding from my side of the fence here at CoC HQ.

[Damien the Leper]

hey Val!

nice to meet you! you have done a great job!

i have been a member here for many years but seldom stop by. this thread piqued my interest!

john

Would you care to share your thoughts on my OP and what the site created by Apostle Luffman means to you as a member of Community of Christ?

[Pahoran]

Thank you for testifying of your Brighamite beliefs.

The product I speak of is that of a parent/child type relationship. Kinda like God creating a single life and that life becoming something of its own. Not a seed blossoming as you may presume.

It's not a question of what I "presume." The historical record shows Joseph founding a single organic institution in 1830, and that institution continuing uninterrupted to this day. As far as the unbroken existence of that single institution is concerned, there are no "gaps in the record" that require faith, theory or guesswork to fill.

The record also shows that the Reorganisation was not authorised by Joseph. Nor was it founded by anyone with legitimate claim to apostolic authority. It was founded by an assortment of disaffected Strangites, apostates and stay-behinds looking for an "anyone but Brigham" candidate to lead their church. It is a "branch" that deliberately chose to separate itself from the tree.

As for defining where my 'allegiances' lie...I believe that Wade is right in previous posts. Perhaps I should or am considering Community of Christ as a spiritual home. But to this date, I have NOT been baptized Community of Christ nor have I been confirmed a member. This is a serious matter...and whether you intend antagonistic remarks, you definitely give me reason to think over and pray about where I belong and where God is calling me. For that, Pahoran, I am sincerely grateful to both you and Wade.

Val, I do not "intend antagonistic remarks." Nor am I going to be silenced by the thought that you might decide to join the Reorgs just to spite me if I annoy you enough. I simply observe this thread; and in observing it, I note that you seem to support and defend the CofC at every opportunity. I also note that you use terminology in a classically Reorganite way. For instance, for Latter-day Saints, "the Restoration" does not mean a movement, but a series of historical events. But you don't even seem to be familiar with the standard LDS usage. Why is that?

That's why my preliminary conclusion is that you are in fact a Reorganite. If not by formal membership, then at least by actual allegiance. Following on from that, I suspect -- and my suspicions gather strength with each new post that you make -- that the purpose of the OP is and always was to proselyte for the CofC. I think you've been coy about that, just like you've been coy about your denominational allegiance, primarily to keep the mods from shutting this thread down.

I assure you that, apart from this thread, "coming out" (so to speak) about your actual religious standing would not do you any harm in this forum. We'd all much rather know where each other is coming from; it makes communication easier than when we're all trying to second-guess each other.

As we sometimes feel that we have to do when people aren't being fully forthcoming.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Ares]

Differences between the Community of Christ and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be discussed without proselytizing or getting personal.