Distinctions between the Beliefs, Doctrine and Culture of the Community of Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

[Navidad]

I would appreciate if, in your collective wisdom and knowledge you would share your views on the distinctions and/or commonalities between the beliefs, doctrine, and culture of the COC and the COJCOLDS. Thanks in advance.

[bOObOO]

I don't know much about the CoC, basically just that they do not believe Brigham Young was the one person who our Lord had established to be next in the priesthood line to preside over all others with the priesthood after the murder of Joseph and Hyrum.  They believed for some odd reason that Joseph Smith 3 was the next in line for presiding authority.  And I'm not sure about this but I've heard some rumors that today they no longer believe the Book of Mormon is inspired scripture, that it was not given as Joseph Smith said it was given.  That's about all that I know about them.  They are not us and we are not them.

[JLHPROF]

There are many, many differences in doctrinal and historical belief.  I don't want to speak for the CoC.

But they don't accept much of what Joseph Smith restored in the Nauvoo era - temple ordinances, eternal marriage, plural marriage, etc.
They instead focus far more on the Kirtland era teachings and stop there. 
They believe Joseph Smith's son Joseph III was his successor and maintained the direct descendant bloodline for many years before giving it up.

In addition they have added many new revelations to their D&C, such as ordaining women.

I respect their rights to believe differently but I have a very hard time finding any justification for their beliefs in the teachings and history of Joseph Smith.  They simply don't follow what history shows he restored.

Edited September 9, 2021 by JLHPROF

[Canadiandude]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

They simply don't follow what history shows he restored.

Who is this history you are referring to? Speak of the evidences and be blatantly honest as to its limitations.

To say that “history shows” implies that the totality of archaeological, archival, and other historical data and it’s professional  custodians and researchers are actually supportive of such an assessment.

They aren’t.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Who is this history you are referring to? Speak of the evidences and be blatantly honest as to its limitations.

To say that “history shows” implies that the totality of archaeological, archival, and other historical data and it’s professional  custodians and researchers are actually supportive of such an assessment.

They aren’t.

Such vague expressions aren't beneficial to discussion.

It is a matter of historical record that Joseph Smith restored the temple endowment.  The CoC rejects the ordinance.  It is a matter of historical record that Joseph Smith restored both eternal marriage sealings and plural marriage sealings.  The CoC practices and accepts neither.

Whether people agree on history is irrelevant unless there is some reasonable question as to what happened.  There isn't in these cases.

Edited September 9, 2021 by JLHPROF

[Kevin Christensen]

This essay by Louis Midgley has some very good information on how the RLDS moved from the Book of Mormon to their Community of Christ identity.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol2/iss2/10/

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[JustAnAustralian]

Wikipedia gives a basic summary table https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_Community_of_Christ_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Summary_chart

These days it seems like apart from the Book of Mormon and Doctrine&Covenants as scripture, they reject anything that has traditionally set the Latter-day Saint movement apart from your standard Christian denomination.

[Navidad]

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

There are many, many differences in doctrinal and historical belief.  I don't want to speak for the CoC.

But they don't accept much of what Joseph Smith restored in the Nauvoo era - temple ordinances, eternal marriage, plural marriage, etc.
They instead focus far more on the Kirtland era teachings and stop there. 
They believe Joseph Smith's son Joseph III was his successor and maintained the direct descendant bloodline for many years before giving it up.

In addition they have added many new revelations to their D&C, such as ordaining women.

I respect their rights to believe differently but I have a very hard time finding any justification for their beliefs in the teachings and history of Joseph Smith.  They simply don't follow what history shows he restored.

Are there any dialogues, cooperation, interactions, etc. between the two groups that would create a closer relationship that with other groups in the greater Christian community? I believe there is dialogue or interactions over sacred sites. Is that not correct? How would their core understanding of salvation and exaltation differ? Thanks

[Navidad]

I am a bit hesitant to rely on Wikipedia for information. The accuracy varies so much depending on who is writing what? I also have no idea if there are any members of the COC on this forum who might opine from their perspective? I belonged to the John Whitmer Historical Association and found the scope of its historical interests to be very interesting. I have also had some very interesting personal interactions with some of their historians about that which is "ingrained" or "inherent" in the mindset or identity of the members of the two groups. That is what has driven my motivation and interest in seeking to better understand the differences and similarities, especially how the relationship between the LDS church and the COC might be different than that of the the LDS church and the "standard Christian denomination," whatever that might mean? Not sure I have ever heard that phrase before. The only standard of which I am aware is the centrality of the atonement. I guess JustanAustralian is suggesting there is not variance in the difference.

There must be some scholarly works on the history of the division of the two groups and the differences in the thinking about apostolic and prophetic succession? I have read biographies of all the claimants to Joseph's mantle, but not a solid theological or doctrinal assessment of the same. I will check out Kevin's article. I was hoping that perhaps someone might guide me to a third party assessment of the split not based on ownership of a "side" in the debate. Thanks.

[Amulek]

I've only ever met one member of the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS), and that was during a tour of their temple in Missouri as part of a church history trip we took back when I was a teenager.

To be honest, if it weren't for the fact that they still own and maintain the Smith Family Cemetery (and happen to be in possession of various other items relating to church history), I wouldn't have had even that one contact.

Given how small their membership is (roughly 250K according to Wikipedia), I imagine the experience of not encountering someone of their faith would be fairly common.

 

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Are there any dialogues, cooperation, interactions, etc. between the two groups that would create a closer relationship that with other groups in the greater Christian community? I believe there is dialogue or interactions over sacred sites. Is that not correct? How would their core understanding of salvation and exaltation differ? Thanks

I am not aware of much substantive interaction.  In September 2017 the Church purchased the Printer's Manuscript from the CoC (paid for by "generous donors").  Broadly speaking, though, I think we are doing our thing, and they are doing theirs. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not aware of much substantive interaction.  In September 2017 the Church purchased the Printer's Manuscript from the CoC (paid for by "generous donors").  Broadly speaking, though, I think we are doing our thing, and they are doing theirs. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Prior to that, the two churches cooperated in the preservation of that manuscript. The C of C archivist told me when I was on a Church News assignment in Independence, Mo., years ago that he had earlier sent the manuscript to our church’s headquarters in Salt Lake City so the experts there could work on conserving it. (This was my first opportunity to view the manuscript. He was pleased to show it to me while I visited him in the C of C temple in Independence.)
 

There have been congenial relations between the leadership of the two churches regarding preservation of history. Both are involved in the Mormon History Association, for example. 

Edited September 10, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Navidad]

If I attended a Sunday morning service at a CofC church or ward, what would I observe that is different from what I would see at a LDS ward Sunday experience? From the few responses so far, I would begin to conclude that members of the COJCOLDS do not consider the members of the CofC to be "cousins" more or less? Does the COJCOLDS have any ties or formalized relationships with any other Christian group, especially one of with a Mormon identity?

Edited September 10, 2021 by Navidad

[bOObOO]

30 minutes ago, Navidad said:

If I attended a Sunday morning service at a CofC church or ward, what would I observe that is different from what I would see at a LDS ward Sunday experience? From the few responses so far, I would begin to conclude that members of the COJCOLDS do not consider the members of the CofC to be "cousins" more or less? Does the COJCOLDS have any ties or formalized relationships with any other Christian group, especially one of with a Mormon identity?

A Christian group could be any group of Christians regardless of any clubs or organizations they are members of, but I think they would all be in 1 or 2 categories.  We are all related by either spirit or by blood, if not both.  We are all children of our Eternal Father in heaven, as we all got the spirit of God through him, and we are all descended by blood through Adam and Eve, as our primary mortal ancestors on this planet.  Some of us are also children of Jesus Christ through a covenant with his Church.  Brothers and sisters through Jesus Christ, as well as through our Father in heaven.  I think that answer covers all the specific ways we are or can be related to each other.

[Navidad]

23 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

This essay by Louis Midgley has some very good information on how the RLDS moved from the Book of Mormon to their Community of Christ identity.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol2/iss2/10/

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Thanks. I just read the article. I found it more interesting for its perspectives in the last 15 pages on what was happening in the LDS church during the time it was written. What was most interesting was that as I read it, I kept seeing the same warnings, criticisms etc. used by Protestant Fundamentalists and aimed at the fairly new Evangelical movement, including frequent use of the word "liberal" to refer to those in the movement from Fundamentalism to Evangelicalism. Thanks for sharing the article with me. I have never read it before. I found it very helpful in several different ways.

Edited September 10, 2021 by Navidad

[Navidad]

23 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Some of us are also children of Jesus Christ through a covenant with his Church.

I agree with all that you said with one change in this particular sentence. I would say "Some of us are also children of Jesus Christ through a covenant with Him. Christ didn't suffer and die for any church or any other kind of institution. I used to do a lot of speaking at companies whose founders had founded them as a reflection of their commitment to, and witness for Christ, including the Marriott School Services division of the large Marriott Corporation. I always cringed when someone would say to me, "Wow, you are speaking at a lot of Christian companies." Christ didn't die for companies or churches. His covenants are with those for whom he died - individuals. Thanks.

[bOObOO]

45 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I agree with all that you said with one change in this particular sentence. I would say "Some of us are also children of Jesus Christ through a covenant with Him. Christ didn't suffer and die for any church or any other kind of institution. I used to do a lot of speaking at companies whose founders had founded them as a reflection of their commitment to, and witness for Christ, including the Marriott School Services division of the large Marriott Corporation. I always cringed when someone would say to me, "Wow, you are speaking at a lot of Christian companies." Christ didn't die for companies or churches. His covenants are with those for whom he died - individuals. Thanks.

We've gone over this before.  I think we just need to accept the fact that we disagree on this issue.  But just in case I may something this time in a way that may click with you better I will try again to explain my thinking on this issue.

The covenant Jesus Christ offers to everybody brings everybody who accepts it into the covenant relationship between him and his bride (aka his Church), at which point everybody who accepts it is then a child of himself and his bride.  Jesus and his Church are the ones who are married in that covenant relationship, and members of his Church (his bride) are one with him as he is one with his bride.  That is what makes us members of his family, with him as our Father and his bride as our Mother as we are born again through him and his Church. This relationship with him through his Church is how he knows us and thinks about us.  We who are born again through his Church are his people.  The ones he does not "know" and never "knew" are those who claim to be members of his Church but who never were because they never entered it the only way there is to enter into it.  One must be baptized into his Church to become a member/child of it and he who is married to it.

Edited September 10, 2021 by bOObOO

[mfbukowski]

On 9/9/2021 at 9:40 AM, Navidad said:

I would appreciate if, in your collective wisdom and knowledge you would share your views on the distinctions and/or commonalities between the beliefs, doctrine, and culture of the COC and the COJCOLDS. Thanks in advance.

I don't think we know enough about them to give an accurate assessment.

I certainly don't, but we have members here who don't know enough about their OWN faith to give a correct summary, so take it all with a teaspoon and a half of salt.

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, bOObOO said:

We've gone over this before.  I think we just need to accept the fact that we disagree on this issue.  But just in case I may something this time in a way that may click with you better I will try again to explain my thinking on this issue.

The covenant Jesus Christ offers to everybody brings everybody who accepts it into the covenant relationship between him and his bride (aka his Church), at which point everybody who accepts it is then a child of himself and his bride.  Jesus and his Church are the ones who are married in that covenant relationship, and members of his Church (his bride) are one with him as he is one with his bride.  That is what makes us members of his family, with him as our Father and his bride as our Mother as we are born again through him and his Church. This relationship with him through his Church is how he knows us and thinks about us.  We who are born again through his Church are his people.  The ones he does not "know" and never "knew" are those who claim to be members of his Church but who never were because they never entered it the only way there is to enter into it.  One must be baptized into his Church to become a member/child of it and he who is married to it.

Thanks for your good spirit and kindness. I appreciate it. I actually agree with the vast majority of everything you said in this reply. Two differences however, which are most likely quite important to both of us. The first is the baptism requirement. Again, my faith teaches me that we are baptized into Christ, not into a church. At baptism we witness to and make covenants with Christ, not a church. Please understand that I have never in 72 years been part of a church (group) where being baptized made you a member of the church. Membership was in every case a separate process. I have been baptized once by immersion when I was around seven years of age. I have belonged as a member to at least seven churches of differing or no denominations. I am in my fifth year of attendance at an LDS ward. I have lived all over the United States and now in Mexico. It has been a wonderful ride. The second is our definition of the "church." Mine is the universal church that is of no group other than the group of individual Christians everywhere who are committed to the atonement as a satisfactory propitiation. Your definition of Christ's church is the LDS church, and it only whether on earth or in the world to come. I would appreciate a clarification, if you wouldn't mind offering it. When you stand before the judgment seat of Christ, do you believe He will look at you as a member of the COJCOLDS and take that into consideration as He decides your eternal destiny? It is referred after all to be being a judgment seat, so some active act of judgment must happen there. One of Christ's roles is judge. I think you would agree with that. I have often wondered if you (collectively) believe that we will retain our church affiliations in the afterlife, and that Christ, Heavenly Father, and the Holy Spirit will recognize that affiliation? 

Even though I am the OP, I don't want to hijack the thread away from its original intent to be a discussion about the COJCOLDS and the CofC. According to the replies to this point, I am very mistaken in my assumption that LDS-Christians would have an innate curiosity and desire to know more about other Christian groups, especially those with common roots. Maybe you know of B Carmon Hardy? He was a great LDS historian who wrote that the LDS folks here in Mexico were an encystment culture. He said they lived a cocooned life here. He attributed many of their problems in the revolution and after to that isolationism. It seems that perhaps in a broader sense, they are self-isolated to this day? (That's a question, not a statement).

Edited September 10, 2021 by Navidad

[esodije]

I’ve taken tours in the last decade or so of CofC-owned sites in Nauvoo (Smith family homes, cemetery, red-brick store, Mansion House) and Kirtland (temple). The tour guide in Nauvoo told us that belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet, in the Book of Mormon, or in the Restoration is completely optional for members of the CofC. The tour guide in Kirtland told us that the CofC believes in the three-in-one Trinity—that, to the extent that they believe the First Vision was a real event, they accept Joseph’s account(s) that don’t refer to the Father and the Son being distinct individuals.

Edited September 10, 2021 by esodije

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

I also have no idea if there are any members of the COC on this forum who might opine from their perspective?

I believe we used to have one from the more traditional branch on the board, but they haven’t posted for quite sometime. I think there was also a convert who had been CoC in the past, but again not posted for sometime. 

[bOObOO]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks for your good spirit and kindness. I appreciate it. I actually agree with the vast majority of everything you said in this reply. Two differences however, which are most likely quite important to both of us. The first is the baptism requirement. Again, my faith teaches me that we are baptized into Christ, not into a church. At baptism we witness to and make covenants with Christ, not a church. Please understand that I have never in 72 years been part of a church (group) where being baptized made you a member of the church. Membership was in every case a separate process. I have been baptized once by immersion when I was around seven years of age. I have belonged as a member to at least seven churches of differing or no denominations. I am in my fifth year of attendance at an LDS ward. I have lived all over the United States and now in Mexico. It has been a wonderful ride.

You are familiar with the term born again.  Think about what that means.  A person who is born has parents.  Who do you suppose those parents are in this context?  Hint: Jesus is our Father in this context.  Who do you suppose is our Mother?  His bride, right?  His Church.  Jesus and His bride/Church are the parents of those who are born again, and we can not be born without a Mother involved in the process.  Jesus is not our Mother.  And no the Holy Spirit isn't our Mother either although he/the Holy Spirit is also involved in the process.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

The second is our definition of the "church." Mine is the universal church that is of no group other than the group of individual Christians everywhere who are committed to the atonement as a satisfactory propitiation.

What kind of Mother is that?  Fellow Christians are at best only our brothers and sisters, not our parents.  Think about the Church as the bride of Christ and then think about how she must be involved in the process of us being born again.  

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Your definition of Christ's church is the LDS church, and it only whether on earth or in the world to come. I would appreciate a clarification, if you wouldn't mind offering it.

Our idea of how the Church is necessary for salvation is compatible with the Catholic church's idea of how the Church is necessary for salvation.  We do not agree with Protestants who believe salvation is possible outside of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Most Protestants I have spoken to and heard from believe in some kind of invisible Church in which all Christians are members.  I do not agree with that concept, just as I do not believe in some kind of invisible God.  I think in terms of real things in reality.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

When you stand before the judgment seat of Christ, do you believe He will look at you as a member of the COJCOLDS and take that into consideration as He decides your eternal destiny?

Yes, and I believe every ordinance I have received for salvation has been recorded and will be reviewed on that day of judgment.  Some sort of personal priesthood interview with those authorized to determine whether those ordinances have any merit.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

It is referred after all to be being a judgment seat, so some active act of judgment must happen there. One of Christ's roles is judge. I think you would agree with that. I have often wondered if you (collectively) believe that we will retain our church affiliations in the afterlife, and that Christ, Heavenly Father, and the Holy Spirit will recognize that affiliation? 

Yes, in essence, although only general terms may be used to refer to the different churches.  Either the true Church of Jesus Christ or some other church that is not his church.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Even though I am the OP, I don't want to hijack the thread away from its original intent to be a discussion about the COJCOLDS and the CofC. According to the replies to this point, I am very mistaken in my assumption that LDS-Christians would have an innate curiosity and desire to know more about other Christian groups, especially those with common roots. Maybe you know of B Carmon Hardy? He was a great LDS historian who wrote that the LDS folks here in Mexico were an encystment culture. He said they lived a cocooned life here. He attributed many of their problems in the revolution and after to that isolationism. It seems that perhaps in a broader sense, they are self-isolated to this day? (That's a question, not a statement).

I'll confess that I'm not very interested in learning about other Christian groups, per se, other than what might help them to become interested in joining the true Church of Jesus Christ, as members.  I often wonder what holds them back, why they don't become members of the true Church, and what I might be able to say to them to help them realize they should join us as members if they want all of the blessings God offers to those who accept the true Church of Jesus Christ as what it is, his church.

Edited September 11, 2021 by bOObOO

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

If I attended a Sunday morning service at a CofC church or ward, what would I observe that is different from what I would see at a LDS ward Sunday experience? From the few responses so far, I would begin to conclude that members of the COJCOLDS do not consider the members of the CofC to be "cousins" more or less? Does the COJCOLDS have any ties or formalized relationships with any other Christian group, especially one of with a Mormon identity?

In a word, no. 

[Stargazer]

23 hours ago, Amulek said:

I've only ever met one member of the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS), and that was during a tour of their temple in Missouri as part of a church history trip we took back when I was a teenager.

To be honest, if it weren't for the fact that they still own and maintain the Smith Family Cemetery (and happen to be in possession of various other items relating to church history), I wouldn't have had even that one contact.

Given how small their membership is (roughly 250K according to Wikipedia), I imagine the experience of not encountering someone of their faith would be fairly common.

 

While serving as a missionary in Germany in 1972, my companion and I actually ran into an extended family of RLDS members. We doorbelled this one house, and the woman who answered recognized us as LDS missionaries and we had a brief conversation, during which she said that Brigham Young had not behaved properly (she was thinking of polygamy, it being an article of faith among the RLDS that Joseph hadn't taught or lived polygamy). Upon leaving that door, my companion stopped on the walk between the two houses and seemed quite dumbfounded. This was the first time he had ever met anyone belonging to the RLDS church and he was quite astonished. I had never met any, either, but being a fairly new member myself, it was just the next new experience for me: accept it and move on. And then the unthinkable happened. The next two houses were also RLDS members! It turned out that they were all extended family. The second house just identified itself as RLDS and sent us on our way in a friendly fashion ("How nice to see you, but we're RLDS and so are the neighbors on both sides, so off you go!"), but at the third, the lady of the house invited us in briefly. We had a conversation with her in which she explained the situation with the extended family all being RLDS and how they went to church once a month. This irregular attendance was because their nearest meetinghouse was in Hanover, 130 miles to the northeast of where we were. So it was a bit of a major exercise to go to church. Anyway, she confessed to us that she didn't really believe in their church, or the Book of Mormon, and actually seemed a bit distressed about this. So we bore our testimony to her that the Book of Mormon was indeed true, and encouraged her to read it and pray about it. We had no further contact with any of these three households, but perhaps we managed to inspire at least one of them to gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon.

Many years later as a computer programmer I worked with an RLDS member for a year or so, and we had plenty of fun joshing each other about our respective churches. I liked him, he was a good egg.

[Amulek]

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

According to the replies to this point, I am very mistaken in my assumption that LDS-Christians would have an innate curiosity and desire to know more about other Christian groups, especially those with common roots.

My experience has been that most religionists, regardless of faith, aren't overwhelmingly curious about learning more about other religious groups.

If you were to walk into a random Protestant church and ask someone in the pews what the difference is between their church and some other Protestant denomination, how many of them do you think would be able to answer you? Pretty much zero.

I would say that Latter-day Saints tend to know more about other religions than most people - largely because we have to spend a fair amount of time defending our own religion from (small 'e') evangelists.

But I don't know that we are any more or less curious when it comes to desiring to know more about our breakoff denominations than anyone else is with respect to their religious pedigree.