Lds Church = Rlds Church

[thesometimesaint]

I think what sometimesaint is saying is that if the claims are truth, their truthfulness does not depend upon how many members are active or how many converts are retained.

 

To put it another way, truth is independent of popularity.

 

Yes.

[volgadon]

Does the LDS not have discipleship partners whose responsibility is to encoirage a fellow brother or sister to not only be walking a Godly path by to contribute to regular tithing. In the good ole days of my old church your discipleship partner wohld sit down with you with your bank statement and pay slips and see what areas could be cut away to help the church grow more.

 

We have home teachers- set assignments of two people per several families- who are to teach, help, and support members. The bishop/branch president will also meet with the members annually for a tithing settlement, which basically means that you are asked if you feel that you've been paying an honest tithe. Members actually have great latitude in these things.

[PtolemyGlenn]

We have home teachers- set assignments of two people per several families- who are to teach, help, and support members. The bishop/branch president will also meet with the members annually for a tithing settlement, which basically means that you are asked if you feel that you've been paying an honest tithe. Members actually have great latitude in these things.

Ok cool

We used to have regular tithing of 10%

Which is different to the annual love gift

And which was different yet to the church planting fund.

[halconero]

Yeah, we have a 10% tithe. Whether it is on your gross income, net, or whatever, is up to the individual and The Lord.

We also have fast offerings. Although anyone can fast at any time, there is a general ward/church fast that happens at the beginning of the month. We are encouraged to donate the equivalent amount of money that we would have used to feed ourselves during that fast. That money is specifically used to benefit those in the area struggling with food or other expenses.

Both are done privately. There's a bunch of envelopes near the Bishop's office, which we use to place the money in, and quietly give it to member of the Bishopric.

[JLHPROF]

I expect the Church will continue to make course corrections from time to time, as it always has, but I'm not even remotely concerned about it falling into institutional apostasy.

 

How does one actually define "institutional apostasy" and how would we even know if something like that was happening?

 

Nobody seemed to have a clue when the Early Christian church devolved into the Great Apostasy.  The membership just considered the actions of the church to be divinely directed.  It wasn't until the reformation that alarm bells even hit the general membership (although I'm sure there were those who noticed as it happened) and by then it was too late.

[thesometimesaint]

Ok cool

We used to have regular tithing of 10%

Which is different to the annual love gift

And which was different yet to the church planting fund.

 

Depends. Some members find it more convenient to pay once a year. Most do it bimonthly or monthly according to when they get paid. Tithing Settlement is there to make sure what you say your financial contributions are agrees with what the Church has you as paying. We don't go through someone's budget to see if they paid more or less than 10%.

[thesometimesaint]

How does one actually define "institutional apostasy" and how would we even know if something like that was happening?

 

Nobody seemed to have a clue when the Early Christian church devolved into the Great Apostasy.  The membership just considered the actions of the church to be divinely directed.  It wasn't until the reformation that alarm bells even hit the general membership (although I'm sure there were those who noticed as it happened) and by then it was too late.

 

Probably no later than 125-150 CE.

[Coreyb]

How does one actually define "institutional apostasy" and how would we even know if something like that was happening?

 

Nobody seemed to have a clue when the Early Christian church devolved into the Great Apostasy.  The membership just considered the actions of the church to be divinely directed.  It wasn't until the reformation that alarm bells even hit the general membership (although I'm sure there were those who noticed as it happened) and by then it was too late.

when I read Johns letters that's not the impression I get

[Palerider]

My purpose in starting this thread is to examine whether we think there are parallels between the current direction of the the church and the journey the RLDS church began a little over 50 years ago.

I'm not specifically talking about doctrinal differences between the two largest Mormon churches, but rather about differences between them and the rest of the christian world.

 

The RLDS church (now called the Community of Christ) has undergone a major revision of many aspects of it's teachings and practices over this period, which has gradually unfolded to reveal a church very different from the one which was led by Joseph Smith III and his immediate successors. This has included a revision of historical interpretations in the light modern scholarship, a more inclusive theology, various doctrinal changes, and significant changes to church practice, including the ordination of women and alterations to membership requirements etc.

 

I personally suspect we are on a similar journey. I'm not suggesting we'll end up in the same place as the RLDS church, but I wonder if in 50 years from now we will look back and realise, as they have, how different we have become from that which we thought we were.

 

I would be very interested to hear your views.

 

 

I think the church has such a well developed culture that it could probably dump the "We have a prophet" and BofM, et al, as scripture issues and still have a robust Christian faith that would continue to grow with good leadership.

 

Those who left on grounds of integrity would eventually forgive the past mistakes and would come back, being joined by those who left when they first discovered the church wasn't what it represented itself to be in the first place. 

[knowone]

i think our church has changed drastically in 50 years already.  spencer w kimball organized the first quorum of seventy in like 1975 & extended all worhty males the priesthood in 1978.  that wasnt even 50 years ago.

 

these days, with president monson, there have also been big changes with the hastening of the work.  the Lord continues to talk to mankind through prophets, so the only thing consistant in our church, like the old adage, is change itself.

[Alan]

I have been a member of the church for 40 years or so. I was a convert at 14.

I have seen many changes during this time.

 

1. Women are now allowed to pray in sacrament meeting (they weren't when I joined the church)

2. Blacks now hold the priesthood

3. We don't really talk so much these days about Joseph Smith

4. We have become much more Christ-centred

5. We talk more about Grace these days

6. The temple ordinances were changed and reformed as a result of an opinion poll amongst members..........

.......I could go on.

 

Take a copy of the Ensign from the '70's and compare it with today's. The current magazine is full of colour and artwork etc, but it has definately been dumbed down in terms of doctrinal or scholarly contributions. In fact, it is a very stark comparison.

Take a copy of the RLDS equivalent, the Saints Herald, from the '50's or '60's and compare with one now or even from the '80's and '90's (now called simply "Herald" - they don't like "Saints" anymore, they want to be known as Christians.......... sound familiar?), and you see exactly the same thing.

 

My point is that many in the RLDS church didn't really realise what was happening because they were in the midst of it. It is only with hindsight that the full implications of these changes, many of which were subtle and seemed of little significance at the time, can now be understood.

Like I said earlier, I'm not saying we'll end up where they have, or that we will suffer "institutional apostacy" and the like. But I do find it worrying.

[JLHPROF]

6. The temple ordinances were changed and reformed as a result of an opinion poll amongst members..........

.......I could go on.

 

...*Shudders*....

[thatjimguy]

Stupid question. Does the LDS cnfirm that the Rlds President is a Prophet also.

When I asked an elder of the difference between the two churches he told me not to be concerned. That the RLDS is declining in membership and wont have the same impact as the LDS church.

 

A weak and terrible answer that seems scripted, because I heard my mishes say it too.

 

The funny thing is, if you ask an LDS about the Cathlic chruch being right because they are so big, you may ironically hear "Well, just because a chruch is big doesn't mean it's true."

[thatjimguy]

Does the LDS not have discipleship partners whose responsibility is to encoirage a fellow brother or sister to not only be walking a Godly path by to contribute to regular tithing. In the good ole days of my old church your discipleship partner wohld sit down with you with your bank statement and pay slips and see what areas could be cut away to help the church grow more.

 

No, it has to be between you and the Lord. The bishop really does nothing other than to ask if you feel you are a full tithe payer or not. He may cut in if he senses you are not being totally honest.  

[PtolemyGlenn]

I have been a member of the church for 40 years or so. I was a convert at 14.

I have seen many changes during this time.

 

1. Women are now allowed to pray in sacrament meeting (they weren't when I joined the church)

2. Blacks now hold the priesthood

3. We don't really talk so much these days about Joseph Smith

4. We have become much more Christ-centred

5. We talk more about Grace these days

6. The temple ordinances were changed and reformed as a result of an opinion poll amongst members..........

.......I could go on.

 

Take a copy of the Ensign from the '70's and compare it with today's. The current magazine is full of colour and artwork etc, but it has definately been dumbed down in terms of doctrinal or scholarly contributions. In fact, it is a very stark comparison.

Take a copy of the RLDS equivalent, the Saints Herald, from the '50's or '60's and compare with one now or even from the '80's and '90's (now called simply "Herald" - they don't like "Saints" anymore, they want to be known as Christians.......... sound familiar?), and you see exactly the same thing.

 

My point is that many in the RLDS church didn't really realise what was happening because they were in the midst of it. It is only with hindsight that the full implications of these changes, many of which were subtle and seemed of little significance at the time, can now be understood.

Like I said earlier, I'm not saying we'll end up where they have, or that we will suffer "institutional apostacy" and the like. But I do find it worrying.

A remnant will always come out if that happens I am sure.

The Uniting Church in Australia like 20 years ago leftist doctrine seaped into the church. They were ordaining gay ministers and focusing more on wordly needs than Godly needs. There wasca huge mass exodus. I just asked my girlfriend and she said just before they were implemented the church was 100 strong. After the new policies emerged there were less than 20 members left.

A simillar patter occired all around Australia and they haven't been able to build up tge numbers to what they omce were and many of tgeir churches closed.

[Deborah]

The current magazine is full of colour and artwork etc, but it has definately been dumbed down in terms of doctrinal or scholarly contributions. In fact, it is a very stark comparison.

 

I think given the diversity of the world population in the church and the fact that there are so many new converts it behooves us to stick with the basics. In fact, the GA's have said that we need to get back to the basics of the gospel as too many people are going off into wild tangents, taking quotes out of context and trying form their own version of doctrine.

 

The temple ordinances were changed and reformed as a result of an opinion poll amongst members..........

.......I could go on.

 

 

Or was it that the prophet received a revelation on the changes and wanted to make sure the people were ready for them? Joseph Smith often withheld many truths from the general membership because he didn't feel they were ready. And since the changes are in presentation only I think that people accepted these things because time is a real commodity in today's world.

[JLHPROF]

I think given the diversity of the world population in the church and the fact that there are so many new converts it behooves us to stick with the basics. In fact, the GA's have said that we need to get back to the basics of the gospel as too many people are going off into wild tangents, taking quotes out of context and trying form their own version of doctrine.

 

 

Or was it that the prophet received a revelation on the changes and wanted to make sure the people were ready for them? Joseph Smith often withheld many truths from the general membership because he didn't feel they were ready. And since the changes are in presentation only I think that people accepted these things because time is a real commodity in today's world.

 

The problem isn't getting back to the basics.  It's that we get stuck at basic level and never progress beyond.  Focusing on the basics just keeps us basic.

 

And as far as the "revelation" to change the temple ordinances.  Well, I long for a restoration of the time when revelations were actually written as the word of the Lord and presented to the Church.  I am tired of ASSUMING a revelation was given.  I'd like to actually read one again.

[Deborah]

The problem isn't getting back to the basics.  It's that we get stuck at basic level and never progress beyond.  Focusing on the basics just keeps us basic.

 

And whose fault is that? No one should have to be spoon fed. Those who don't continue learning and expanding their understanding with all the tools in our hands have no one to blame but themselves. Those who are hungry for more will seek. Most people I know continue to study and grow in their knowledge without the church having to give it to them. The church offers Institutes and Education Week, etc and has wonderful scholars who expand on these things.

 

Well, I long for a restoration of the time when revelations were actually written as the word of the Lord and presented to the Church.

 

 

 

 

Given the sacredness of the temple and the fact that everything said today gets posted for all to see I hardly think something of this nature is wise to put before the church when many do not have temple recommends and have never been to the temple.

[Calm]

...*Shudders*....

Why was the opinion poll taken in the first place?

Is it a bad thing for the Brethren to be concerned with the teaching effectiveness of the temple ceremony or for them to use an efficient way to gather information about how people were reacting?

[JLHPROF]

Why was the opinion poll taken in the first place?

Is it a bad thing for the Brethren to be concerned with the teaching effectiveness of the temple ceremony or for them to use an efficient way to gather information about how people were reacting?

 

I have no idea why there was an opinion poll taken as to whether people liked an ordinance.  It's ridiculous to change an eternal ordinance given by revelation to make those participating happier.  And while we can't discuss details on this board, it's one thing to adjust the theatrical & presentation aspect (which has happened throughout time and is ok - as Joseph told Brigham) but it's another to cut out key elements that God revealed as necessary to return to his presence.  Without those elements the ordinance becomes at the very least diminished, and at worst ineffectual.

 

It would be like removing baptism by immersion because the church population didn't like it and replacing it with sprinkling or a waterless symbolic baptism.

Isaiah 24:5 - The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

Edited February 2, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Coreyb]

I have no idea why there was an opinion poll taken as to whether people liked an ordinance.  It's ridiculous to change an eternal ordinance given by revelation to make those participating happier.  And while we can't discuss details on this board, it's one thing to adjust the theatrical & presentation aspect (which has happened throughout time and is ok - as Joseph told Brigham) but it's another to cut out key elements that God revealed as necessary to return to his presence.  Without those elements the ordinance becomes at the very least diminished, and at worst ineffectual.

 

It would be like removing baptism by immersion because the church population didn't like it and replacing it with sprinkling or a waterless symbolic baptism.

Isaiah 24:5 - The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

I haven't yet read "The development of LDS temple worship", nor am I old enough to remember the change, so I am a bit in the dark here. What key element was changed that you understood to be necessary? Most everything I have read about the many changes seem to have been in the presentation of the ordinances.

[Stone holm]

Re: the part I have emphasized in bold above.

 

The Community of Christ does not accept the descriptor "Mormon" for itself.

Until very recently, the members of the former RLDS Church did not like to be referred to as Mormon or Mormons, as our Church has gained near mainstream acceptance, that has eased and changed somewhat. Now if you go to Kirtland you are likely to hear about the restorative tradition and stuff like that. As far as I am concerned we share very little in common other than the B of M.

[Calm]

I have no idea why there was an opinion poll taken as to whether people liked an ordinance. It's ridiculous to change an eternal ordinance given by revelation to make those participating happier.

You don't think it is possible that the Lord cares enough that his people get as much value out of the experience that he might reveal to the Brethren it is time to update the script in which the ordinance is embedded? If God's work is to bring men and women joy, why not a change to the nonessentials in the endowment if it brings happiness? Why make them suffer on the principle of "no change is a good change" in a faith that is built on the concept of knowledge being received line upon line and continuing revelation? Is it better to create an elite by keeping the meat out of the reach of many members or better to translate the endowment into understandable concepts whether it is a translation of language to language in location or time. For me, refusing to update the endowment would make as much sense as insisting all endowments must be in English, even for those members who know none of it. Like the Sabbath, the Endowment was made for man. It lives only in the sense of how it transforms people's lives.

I completely disagree that anything key to our salvation or exaltation has been removed. Symbols that no longer hold the same meaning will not teach, but confuse.

Edited February 2, 2014 by calmoriah

[EllenMaksoud]

We already are very different than we were, but I hope we always keep those aspects of our religion that make us Mormons. I know community of Christ members, and it's seems to me that they have become almost indistinguishable from other progressive Christian denominations in current doctrine and practice. If that happens to us, I don't see much to stay for.

We actually joined the RLDS church in 1974 for about 6 months, and the preaching was really bad. It was when we were told not to read the Bible that we left. This was here in Portland, Oregon. In my opinion, the RLDS are vastly different from the LDS.

[JLHPROF]

I haven't yet read "The development of LDS temple worship", nor am I old enough to remember the change, so I am a bit in the dark here. What key element was changed that you understood to be necessary? Most everything I have read about the many changes seem to have been in the presentation of the ordinances.

 

You don't think it is possible that the Lord cares enough that his people get as much value out of the experience that he might reveal to the Brethren it is time to update the script in which the ordinance is embedded? If God's work is to bring men and women joy, why not a change to the nonessentials in the endowment if it brings happiness? Why make them suffer on the principle of "no change is a good change" in a faith that is built on the concept of knowledge being received line upon line and continuing revelation? Is it better to create an elite by keeping the meat out of the reach of many members or better to translate the endowment into understandable concepts whether it is a translation of language to language in location or time. For me, refusing to update the endowment would make as much sense as insisting all endowments must be in English, even for those members who know none of it. Like the Sabbath, the Endowment was made for man. It lives only in the sense of how it transforms people's lives.

I completely disagree that anything key to our salvation or exaltation has been removed. Symbols that no longer hold the same meaning will not teach, but confuse.

 

Coreyb - you know we can't discuss specifics of the temple ceremony here.  Cal, if the changes were just theatrical or presentation of symbols, I would completely agree with you.  However, the temple endowment is specifically designed to teach us and instruct us how to do two specific things - communicate more powerfully with God and enter into His presence.  You can't honestly tell me that the changes didn't involve removal of some key steps in the communication process and the key method of entering God's presence.

 

I don't want to overstep here and discuss something I shouldn't (or annoy the Mod's) and I apologize if this is derailing the thread at all.  But what was changed was not presentation or symbolism - the method by which the endowment was administered has always changed.

But God gave us the endowment to provide us specifically with the power to do some things.  We no longer teach how to do those things the way that he revealed.  That scares and saddens me.

Edited February 2, 2014 by JLHPROF