Joseph Smith Iii

[Questing Beast]

Not making up anything, just repeating what I've heard. JS's male line died out in the RLDS, women got the "priesthood", correlation is there, but as you say it is misleading to conclude that the one came directly out of the other....

[Alan]

Not making up anything, just repeating what I've heard. JS's male line died out in the RLDS, women got the "priesthood", correlation is there, but as you say it is misleading to conclude that the one came directly out of the other....

Joseph Smith's male line did not die out in the RLDS church. There are still many male descendents of Joseph in the RLDS/Community of Christ.

Since the early days of the Reorganisation there has been concern about the de facto establishment of a hierarchical dynasty or monarchy at the top of the church. Many of the early movers expressed worries in this regard, including Briggs, Gurley and Marks. As the years went by and one Smith followed another, the feeling that it was the designation rather than the bloodline that was essential, grew. Finally, Wallace Smith broke with tradition and designated a non-Smith to succeed him in 1994, 10 years after female ordination had been introduced. There were Smith's he could have chosen.

The change in the presidency and the ordination of women are unconnected, but that doesn't prevent many of us LDS mixing them up.

What I find interesting is that JSIII would hardly recognise the RLDS Church nowadays; and I'm not just talking about the name on the church sign. They recently introduced a new membership proceedure whereby, if a person has been baptised previously in another denomination, they only need to be confirmed in order to become a member of the church. This, on top of revised sacrament prayers which neuted God, women in the first presidency and council of twelve, practicing homosexuals opening functioning in priesthhod responsibilities (a revelation on the subject is expected soon!), the almost total removal of the Book of Mormon from the life of the church................. and so on, has alienated whole congregations. They have left the institutional church and declared independence. They are now known as Restoration Branches. Others have established new churches, such as the Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and others.

Here in the UK the Community of Christ is dying on it's feet.

It's a mess.

All of this started during the presidency of JSIII with the (liberal) heresy of apostles Briggs and Gurley and their eventual withdrawal from the Reorganisation. They left but many of their supporters didn't. The church failed to lance the boil in my view and what we see now is the result.

It's just a hunch, but I think if JSIII could have foreseen the morphing of the RLDS, he would have turned down William Marks & Co and gone to Utah.

Now that would have been interesting!

Edited February 19, 2013 by Alan

[inquiringmind]

Interesting comments folks.

JSIII never accepted that his father was a polygamist. He distrusted the testimonies of the women, and DNA research has since proved some of their claims were false.

He didn't form or start the RLDS church, that was already in existence for some years before he joined.

Emma married Lewis Bidamon quite soon after the martyrdom, when Joseph was still young.

David Smith became mentally ill and spent the last 30 years of his life in a mental hospital. This condition was nothing to do with his fathers alleged polygamy or his mothers hatred of the practice.

I was taught that JSIII was persuaded by his mother to join the RLDS - this was not true.

I was taught the RLDS relied upon lineal descent solely - this is not true either.

JSIII decided not to join the Utah church because he said he had a divine manifestation that he should not.

He said he joined the RLDS because God revealed to him that they were the only faction of the church he recognised.

So my question is: Could it be true that God wanted him in the RLDS church? And if so, why?

One thought that comes to me is that JSIII played a prominent role in the legal challenge to polygamy which resulted in the US government passing legislation to outlaw it and dis-incorportate the LDS church. Perhaps the Lord wanted it stopped and it was the only way he could get the church to abandon it?

If that's true, how could D&C 132 be scripture?

[Alan]

If that's true, how could D&C 132 be scripture?

Maybe it isn't.

Another thought occurs to me. JSIII also played a significant role in toning down the anti-polygamy legislation. He wanted it made clear that only Mormons practicing plural marriage would be subject to the law, not Mormons generally. He also got a provision removed from the Bill which would have required Mormons to have sworn an oath of loyalty to the United States, and to disavow their religion, and especially their Temple vows.

I remember reading in the White Horse Prophecy some years ago that Joseph Smith had reportedly said "You will go to the Rocky Mountains..................... Your enemies will continue to follow you with persecutions and will make obnoxious laws against you in Congress to destroy the White Horse (meaning the church), but you will have a friend or two to defend you to throw out the worst part of the laws, so they will not hurt much."

Perhaps his son was one of those who fulfilled this role.

[bluebell]

I remember hearing in high school that the reason the RLDS essentially dropped the BOM was because they were practically bankrupt, wanted to join a christian organization which would help them financially, but were prevented from doing so until they denounced the BOM.

Is there any truth to that or was that just a rumor gone wild among teenagers?

[Alan]

I remember hearing in high school that the reason the RLDS essentially dropped the BOM was because they were practically bankrupt, wanted to join a christian organization which would help them financially, but were prevented from doing so until they denounced the BOM.

Is there any truth to that or was that just a rumor gone wild among teenagers?

Another rumour I'm afraid.

[bluebell]

Another rumour I'm afraid.

so what are the real reasons the RLDS changed their doctrine concerning the BOM?

[Thunderfire]

so what are the real reasons the RLDS changed their doctrine concerning the BOM?

Sorry for jumping in here late! Fascinating discussion for sure and much is rumor. But as a member of the Community of Christ I wanted to offer this regarding the Book of Mormon. This is taken from the Community of Christ website:

Scripture

Scripture is writing inspired by God’s Spirit and accepted by the church as the normative expression of its identity, message, and mission. We affirm the Bible as the foundational scripture for the church. In addition, Community of Christ uses the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants—not to replace the witness of the Bible or improve on it, but because they confirm its message that Jesus Christ is the Living Word of God. When responsibly interpreted and faithfully applied, scripture provides divine guidance and inspired insight for our discipleship.

For more, see Scripture in the Community of Christ at www.CofChrist.org/OurFaith/scripture.asp.

[bluebell]

Sorry for jumping in here late! Fascinating discussion for sure and much is rumor. But as a member of the Community of Christ I wanted to offer this regarding the Book of Mormon. This is taken from the Community of Christ website:

Scripture

Scripture is writing inspired by God’s Spirit and accepted by the church as the normative expression of its identity, message, and mission. We affirm the Bible as the foundational scripture for the church. In addition, Community of Christ uses the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants—not to replace the witness of the Bible or improve on it, but because they confirm its message that Jesus Christ is the Living Word of God. When responsibly interpreted and faithfully applied, scripture provides divine guidance and inspired insight for our discipleship.

For more, see Scripture in the Community of Christ at www.CofChrist.org/OurFaith/scripture.asp.

Thanks!

When did the Community of Christ start to de-emphasize the BOM in favor of the Bible? I'm guessing that when the RLDS was first organized, they saw the BOM in the same light as the LDS and so the blurp above is indicative of a change occurring somewhere along the way (but maybe i'm mistaken in how the RLDS viewed the BOM in the beginning).

[Thunderfire]

Didn't the "priesthood to women" change occur at least partially because there were only female direct descendants of JS remaining in the RLDS? I seem to remember something of the sort.

In April 1984, this is what President Wallace B Smith brought to the church as the mind and will of God regarding women in the priesthood:

..."I have heard the prayers of many, including my servant the prophet, as they have sought to know my will in regard to the question of who shall be called to share the burdens and responsibilities of priesthood in my church. I say to you now, as I have said in the past, that all are called according to the gifts which have been given them. This applies to priesthood as well as to any other aspects of the work. There, do not wonder that some women of the church are being called to priesthood responsibilities. This is in harmony with my will and where these calls are made known to my servants, they may be processed according to administrative procedures and provisions of the law. Nevertheless, in the ordaining of women to priesthood, let this be done with all deliberateness. Before the actual laying on of hands takes place, let specific guidelinies and instructions be provided by the spiritual authorities, that all may be done in order..." Doctrine and Covenants 156:9

The first women were ordained roughly a year later. Currently there is a woman serving in the First Presidency, four (4) serve as apostles with a fifth (a Tahitian woman) just called, three (3) women serve as presidents of seventy, and a woman serves as president of the quorum of High Priests.

[ALarson]

Thanks!

When did the Community of Christ start to de-emphasize the BOM in favor of the Bible? I'm guessing that when the RLDS was first organized, they saw the BOM in the same light as the LDS and so the blurp above is indicative of a change occurring somewhere along the way (but maybe i'm mistaken in how the RLDS viewed the BOM in the beginning).

I think it was in the 1980's (but I hope Thunderfire will return and give us more information). IIRC, that's when they started referring to the Book of Mormon as "inspired fiction". They are also much more open regarding the "problems" with LDS history.

[Thunderfire]

Thanks!

When did the Community of Christ start to de-emphasize the BOM in favor of the Bible? I'm guessing that when the RLDS was first organized, they saw the BOM in the same light as the LDS and so the blurp above is indicative of a change occurring somewhere along the way (but maybe i'm mistaken in how the RLDS viewed the BOM in the beginning).

Interesting question and I can only answer from what I have personally seen. My congregation requests that the Book of Mormon be used in EVERY service. I have found that this is more of a personal issue with each respective congregation and individual. Meaning, some feel a greater connection to the Doctrine and Covenants, while others prefer the Bible.

Speaking for myself, I cherish the Book of Mormon and have a three nephite testimony. Yet I spend more time with the Bible. For me, I choose to use what I need in the moment I need it to promote our Eternal Christ. Meaning, I choose not to promote a particular book, rather the Lord Jesus that all the books testify about (if that makes sense!)

But it is true that some members see the Book of Mormon as 19th century fiction which I find unfortunate. And one thing of note, these same members are also not moving in signs and wonders either. But something I find fascinating is that a core belief of the Community of Christ which is cherished and immovable is found in the Book of Mormon which some deny:

..."The law could have no power on any man for his belief..." (Alma 1) Meaning, the church was forbidden in Book of Mormon times to require what an individual must believe and no law could be made which takes away the agency of man regarding what they chose to believe!

Edited February 19, 2013 by Thunderfire

[bluebell]

Interesting question and I can only answer from what I have personally seen. My congregation requests that the Book of Mormon be used in EVERY service. I have found that this is more of a personal issue with each respective congregation and individual. Meaning, some feel a greater connection to the Doctrine and Covenants, while others prefer the Bible.

Speaking for myself, I cherish the Book of Mormon and have a three nephite testimony. Yet I spend more time with the Bible. For me, I choose to use what I need in the moment I need it to promote our Eternal Christ. Meaning, I choose not to promote a particular book, rather the Lord Jesus that all the books testify about (if that makes sense!)

But it is true that some members see the Book of Mormon as 19th century fiction which I find unfortunate. And one thing of note, these same members are also not moving in signs and wonders either. But something I find fascinating is that a core belief of the Community of Christ which is cherished and immovable is found in the Book of Mormon which some deny:

..."The law could have no power on any man for his belief..." (Alma 1) Meaning, the church was forbidden in Book of Mormon times to require what an individual must believe and no law could be made which takes away the agency of man regarding what they chose to believe!

Very interesting!

What brought about the change from RLDS to Community of Christ? And what brought about the change in how the BOM is perceived by some congregations?

Also, thanks for sharing the CoC interpretation of that verse in Alma, i've never seen that interpretation before. In the LDS church, that verse is generally interpreted to be saying that in BOM times, the law of the land (ie. the goverment or the king) could not require an individual to believe anything specific.

Thanks again for the information.

[Questing Beast]

...

All of this started during the presidency of JSIII with the (liberal) heresy of apostles Briggs and Gurley and their eventual withdrawal from the Reorganisation. They left but many of their supporters didn't. The church failed to lance the boil in my view and what we see now is the result.

It's just a hunch, but I think if JSIII could have foreseen the morphing of the RLDS, he would have turned down William Marks & Co and gone to Utah.

Now that would have been interesting!

That's all very interesting. And as you have read up on this and I have not I will take your view as accurate. I heard as a young man that the RLDS was in trouble because of the "died out line of succession" issue. That was evidently, from what you say, a fabrication that got around on the "Mormon grapevine" in a hurry, and it never got disabused, since until now I still accepted it as a fact.

Yes, I think JSIII was more or less pressured into leadership of the RLDS, and if he had had a clue where it was going to go he would have opted instead to not participate. But I don't think he would have gone to Utah! The current LDS faith is also less recognizable than the 19th century church. And it looks set to change even more, if not as much as the RLDS and its fragments (although I understand that some/many of those fragments are based on practicing the original 19th century religion as much as it can be reconstructed)....

[Alan]

For some reason I find the the Reorganisation of great interest.

I was once a member, but that is a long story.

With regards to the Book of Mormon, while some congregations use it, they are few and far between. In the congregation I attended it was impossible to find a copy on the premises! Just go on the the website and look at a sample of their monthly magazine the "Herald". You will not find a single reference to the BoM anywhere in it's pages. Nothing. Now, compare that with an Ensign.

So while the CoC seem to say more or less the right thing in their official statement on scripture, in practice things are very different.

Having said all of that, members of the CoC are, on the whole, really nice people. We could do with them in our church!

JSIII did actually consider going to Utah and was encouraged to do so following the death of Brigham Young. Some commentators believe if he had done so he would have become president of the church and the LDS and RLDS churches would have been united. I'm not so sure myself, but it is certainly true to say that there was confusion following the passing of brother Brigham. Succession in the presidency was still a confusing subject for many and the automatic apostolic succession we currently employ was not understood properly. For example, Brigham wanted his son to succeed him.

It is thought that JSIII later regretted his decision not to go to Utah.

[ALarson]

It is thought that JSIII later regretted his decision not to go to Utah.

Do you think he would have if they hadn't been practicing polygamy in Utah at that time?

(Great posts Alan. Very interesting. Thanks.)

[Alan]

Do you think he would have if they hadn't been practicing polygamy in Utah at that time?

(Great posts Alan. Very interesting. Thanks.)

Thank you.

Without a doubt.

[Thunderfire]

Very interesting!

What brought about the change from RLDS to Community of Christ? And what brought about the change in how the BOM is perceived by some congregations?

Also, thanks for sharing the CoC interpretation of that verse in Alma, i've never seen that interpretation before. In the LDS church, that verse is generally interpreted to be saying that in BOM times, the law of the land (ie. the goverment or the king) could not require an individual to believe anything specific.

Thanks again for the information.

Hi Bluebell!

At the time I wrote that response I was "multitasking" and offered Alma 1 when the better reference was Alma 16 (RLDS version). If you recall, Korihor was leading many astray from the doctrines of the church and he was taken before Alma for judgment. Here we read that there was no law against a man's beliefs for this was strickly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds. For each of us has the agency to choose whom we shall serve and what we shall believe.

If a man desired to serve God or even believe in God it was his privilage. But if he did not believe in him, there was no law to punish him. There was no law against a man's beliefs. What this means to me is this: If God will not take away a man's agency to believe, how can we do something that God himself will not do?

Granted, this is very difficult for many in the church and I struggle with it myself! How someone could not believe in light of all the testimonies/signs and wonders all around them is beyond me. But it still happens.

So what brought about this change regarding the Book of Mormon? ...Agency... But again, there are some who completely discount the Book of Mormon and there are others who will only use the Book of Mormon. Baffles me completely!

[bluebell]

Hi Bluebell!

At the time I wrote that response I was "multitasking" and offered Alma 1 when the better reference was Alma 16 (RLDS version). If you recall, Korihor was leading many astray from the doctrines of the church and he was taken before Alma for judgment. Here we read that there was no law against a man's beliefs for this was strickly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds. For each of us has the agency to choose whom we shall serve and what we shall believe.

If a man desired to serve God or even believe in God it was his privilage. But if he did not believe in him, there was no law to punish him. There was no law against a man's beliefs. What this means to me is this: If God will not take away a man's agency to believe, how can we do something that God himself will not do?

Granted, this is very difficult for many in the church and I struggle with it myself! How someone could not believe in light of all the testimonies/signs and wonders all around them is beyond me. But it still happens.

So what brought about this change regarding the Book of Mormon? ...Agency... But again, there are some who completely discount the Book of Mormon and there are others who will only use the Book of Mormon. Baffles me completely!

I don't feel this is the right thread to get into a discussion of BOM theology, but thanks for the further insights on your beliefs. We may disagree but it's still always interesting to learn about different belief systems.

In regards to the RLDS/CoC, what i'm wondering is what happened to officially change the standing of the BOM in the group? If it used to be seen as equal to the bible, then why did that change, officially?

Also, why did the RLDS become the CoC? I've never really understood what exactly happened there.

[Thunderfire]

Yes, I think JSIII was more or less pressured into leadership of the RLDS, and if he had had a clue where it was going to go he would have opted instead to not participate.

Hello Questing Beast,

Permit me if you would to quote from: "The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith III" (Herald House 1979). In chapter four he writes about the different personalities of the leaders of the early church and offers anecdotal accounts of his interactions with Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, John Taylor, and others.

In chapter ten (10) Joseph III relates how he choose which group to affiliate with. He spoke of the many issues involved which he had to consider and earnestly pray about. Speaking of the Utah faction, he writes that Brother Young would not accept him unless he was re-baptized. This offended him greatly where he writes:

..."I believed that the baptism I had received at the hands of my father had been as sacred and effective as any baptism preformed since the days of the Savior could possibly be...My feeling strongly revolted against such a step, for I felt it would have required me to throw away every sense of sacredness with which I had accepted the ordinances in my young boyhood and tacitly repudiate that which I had received..."

He gets more pointed in his reasons, but I will leave it up to the reader to discover that for themselves. Of course, he writes of his time visiting with or studing about the other factions as well. Speaking of Alpheus Cutler and his group he writes: "they had become imbued with peculiar philosophies which were not acceptable to my reasons." He gives accounts of his opinion regarding the groups lead by Lyman Wight in Texas, his uncle William B Smith, and James Strang.

In the end, he writes how in his mind he had a vision of what his father had started and how he wanted to stay true to this vision he had of the movement. But then he writes regarding which group he was to join: "To make assurance doubly sure, I made the whole matter a specific study and subject of prayer, laying it before the Almighty in the plain question: To which body of believers shall I unite myself? When the answer came I could make no mistake, for clearly and specifically I was directly told to unite myself to the Reorganization.(pp 72)

Edited February 19, 2013 by Thunderfire

[Alan]

I think Brigham was wrong to require JSIII to be re-baptised, and certainly such an insistence would seem odd on the face of it. However, we should bear in mind that re-baptism was a common occurance in Utah, and didn't cast any aspersions on the individuals original baptism. People were often re-baptised on their birthday for example, and it was seen as a re-commitment to God - much in the way we view the sacrament today.

So Brigham probably felt that JSIII should submit to baptism as a sign of re-committing to God and the faith of his father, especially as he had gone through many years of religious inactivity.

But, technically of course JSIII was right.

There is no doubt that JSIII claimed to have spiritual experiences which led him, and indeed instructed him, to affiliate with the Reorganisation. I believe him. This thread is all about trying to discover why, given that we believe the LDS Church to be the Lord's church, the Lord would lead him to the RLDS.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Alan

[Alan]

Also, why did the RLDS become the CoC? I've never really understood what exactly happened there.

The RLDS had been looking for a new name for a number of years. The main reason was that the existing name, the Reorganised Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was very similar to ours and they had to spend a lot of time explaining or defining who they weren't rather than who they were. In various parts of the world some local areas tried different approaches. In Australia, for example, they had been unofficially known as the Saints Church for some time, and this was seen as a positive thing there.

I am given to understand that during a summer retreat attended by the leading councils of the church (First Presidency, Twelve, Presiding Bishopric, Evangelist (Patriarch) etc) this came up for discussion. Various thoughts were expressed, ideas discussed etc, with little agreement or unanimitty. Then, the president of the church, Wallace Smith, who had been silent for much of the discussion said, in effect, "we are the Community of Christ". There was immediate agreement. As happens in the RLDS/CoC, nothing was done straightaway, but the proposal was allowed to filter down through the membership for some time. Eventually, some years later, a proposal was brought to the 2000AD world conference and was accepted by the membership. The change took place in 2001.

It should be noted that the church still retains the original name for legal reasons. There was a recent court case in which the CoC won a case against some of the independent Restoration Branches who had insisted on using the RLDS name.

I have to say that I believe the new name is appropriate. Joseph Smith spent his entire adult life trying to establish a community (Zion), so Community of Christ fits quite well in my view.

[BlueDreams]

So I've been following this thread because it's been an interesting read so far. I don't have much of an opinion or thought on it....but I'm itching with curiosity to see BB's other question:

In regards to the RLDS/CoC, what i'm wondering is what happened to officially change the standing of the BOM in the group? If it used to be seen as equal to the bible, then why did that change, officially?

I was really surprised to see the official statement about it, because to my eyes it seems fairly different (in someways almost a reversal) from the AoF statement and fairly different to how LDS view the bible in general. I'd really like to have some basic idea about the evolution that occurred. Unless they think there hasn't been a change...

Also this is what I could find on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia....hrist#Scripture):

In 2001, Community of Christ President W. Grant McMurray reflected on increasing questions about the Book of Mormon: "The proper use of the Book of Mormon as sacred scripture has been under wide discussion in the 1970s and beyond, in part because of long-standing questions about its historicity and in part because of perceived theological inadequacies, including matters of race and ethnicity."^[42] In the introduction he qualified his statements: "I cannot speak for each person within our community, but perhaps I can say some words on behalf of our community."

At the 2007 Community of Christ World Conference, President Stephen M. Veazey ruled on a resolution to "reaffirm the Book of Mormon as a divinely inspired record" out of order. In so doing he stated that "while the Church affirms the Book of Mormon as scripture, and makes it available for study and use in various languages, we do not attempt to mandate the degree of belief or use. This position is in keeping with our longstanding tradition that belief in the Book of Mormon is not to be used as a test of fellowship or membership in the church."^[43]

Would this be an accurate assessment? Is there more you would add or emphasize.

Beyond that, I don't remember ever learning about the RLDS/COC church in churc before I was a teen. And after that I think I might have heard it as an example of some of the many breakaway churches and how none of them are not really growing or became as the LDS church has. Or something like that....maybe, my memory's hazy and if it did happen, it happened only once. Honestly, most of what I heard about the faith was based on the internet.

With luv,

BD

Edited February 20, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

So we all know that Emma hated polygamy. Well it turns out that after Joseph died, she taught Joseph iii and David that their father had never taught, promoted, or practiced polygamy, while at the same time fiercely denouncing the practice as disgusting and evil. Joseph's sons of course believed their mother. They didn't know the truth until they were much older. They had been lied to about their father, by their mother! Apparently when they found out from other sources that Joseph had in fact revealed polygamy, and taken wives besides their beloved other, they were devastated and disgusted. Emma's incredible hatred of plural marriage had formed their opinions from childhood, and suddenly their world-view was destroyed. The Prophet Joseph Smith had become a monster! i can't imagine painful it was for them. It really bums me out. David actually went insane. He simply could not reconcile the Church, or his father, in any manageable way. It destroyed his mind!

Anyway,

Although he was only 11 when his father was killed, Joseph Smith iii refused to join the Utah faction even when he became old enough. If he had gone, it is certain that he would have occupied the position of Prophet in Utah- Brigham Young himself accepted the bloodline doctrine concerning Joseph Smith's lineage. But he Just couldn't overcome his deep revulsion of polygamy, and instead became the president of the RLDS organization in Navuoo.

David was placed in an insane asylum, and eventually Emma remarried a non-LDS Navuoo native named Bidamon. Despite consummating their new marriage, no children came of it, which was very fortunate because Bidamon cheated constantly with many other women.

But there is more to this story... Let me know if you are interested.

Is there a question in here somewhere? Sounds like an anti- Joseph rant.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

We have a wealth of "detail" on the matter of polygamy in Mormonism. There's more than enough material to make an educated assessment either way, which is what the LDS leadership has always encouraged from the pulpit. Yet when one digs into it, there is no reason (imho) to believe anything beyond JS instituting the practice so that he could reconcile his biological drives with his religion. He had precedent, even if it was appealing to the "age of the patriarchs" and coming up with "the restitution of all things" to include that, yet not the Levitical law....

Be respectful when you speak about religious leaders. You can make your point without being insulting.

He married old and young alike...there are easier way to satisfy "biological drives" as you put it, without the binding aspects of marriage. False religious leaders have done so throughout time...You are seeking to put a very large and complicated issue into a very small box. Not to mention Joseph got Emma "with child" 11 times, but not a single one of the other 34 women to whom he was sealed...point being, we "don't" have enough data.