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

[Navidad]

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

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. 

 

Fair enough. This was just a personal observation. When I pastored I routinely held adult Sunday School classes on other faiths, inviting their local leaders to join in. I think that is an important part of being an informed believer. I also think the more we know, the less we tend to be biased against. I think familiarity breeds insight instead of contempt. If your only interaction is with a Fundamentalist on a Temple Square corner, your perspective is likely to be informed only by that interaction. Such interactions such as on Temple Square serve only to distance.

Oh, and you are probably right about someone in the pew in a random Protestant church. I think it depends on the denomination, where the person or church is at on the Fundamentalist - Mainstream continuum, and local leadership. I am sure I have my own biases! I speak regularly on the religious history of Mexico in both informal and academic settings. In fact, in Colonia Juarez I am doing so this afternoon to a visiting group. In so doing, I have to be very careful to be both informed and even-handed in leading the discussions. I am teaching, not preaching. Big difference.

In the FWIW department, I am forming a stronger belief that there is a very similar continuum in the LDS church, with local leadership (which regularly changes) varying greatly in their outlook on this issue. I don't think that is good, bad, or indifferent. I think it is interesting. It is also fairly well demonstrated on this forum . . . ditto for interesting. Thanks and have a good day!

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/10/2021 at 10:20 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

When my son Abogadissimo was earning his MA at BYU he worked on a Joseph Smith Translation project with a BYU professor (can’t remember his name but it might have been Kent Jackson). He was able to go to the CoC archives to obtain high-definition photographs of the Phinney Bible Joseph used in the translation. He was cordially accepted and treated very kindly while there. I learned that Joseph and his scribes wrote notes on paper scraps and attached them to the pages of the Bible with straight pins. Abogadissimo came to be able to recognize the handwriting of all the scribes. It was a wonderful experience.

Maybe how sticky notes were invented?😉

Edited September 11, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

When my son Abogadissimo was earning his MA at BYU he worked on a Joseph Smith Translation project with a BYU professor (can’t remember his name but it might have been Kent Jackson). He was able to go to the CoC archives to obtain high-definition photographs of the Phinney Bible Joseph used in the translation. He was cordially accepted and treated very kindly while there. I learned that Joseph and his scribes wrote notes on paper scraps and attached them to the pages of the Bible with straight pins. Abogadissimo came to be able to recognize the handwriting of all the scribes. It was a wonderful experience.

Maybe how sticky notes were invented?😉

Yes, I’m acquainted with that. 
 

The professor to whom you refer is (was) the late Robert J. Mathews of BYU. You’re right that the C of C (then RLDS) folks were very cooperative in allowing him free rein to compare the notes with the published translation. Through his work, our Church leaders gained confidence in the publication of what came to be called the Joseph Smith Translation. It largely due to the efforts of Professor Mathews that excerpts from the JST were included as footnotes and an appendix with the Church’s 1978 edition of the King James Bible, a study aid that continues to bless us today. 

Edited September 11, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[2BizE]

I do not know much about the CoC, but there are doctrines and policies, that I do like much better than the Brighamite church.  John Hamer is a 70 with the CoC and he frequently posts comments on other boards and has done several interviews on this topic.  They don ordained women to the priesthood, and there is a female Apostle, just like Junia in the times of old.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I do not know much about the CoC, but there are doctrines and policies, that I do like much better than the Brighamite church.  John Hamer is a 70 with the CoC and he frequently posts comments on other boards and has done several interviews on this topic.  They don ordained women to the priesthood, and there is a female Apostle, just like Junia in the times of old.

Both the gender and the apostolic status of Junia are in dispute. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junia_(New_Testament_person)

 

I’ve never seen the term “Brighamite” used to refer to the Church of Jesus Christ except in disrespect or disparagement. The functional counterpart would be to refer to members of the Community of Christ as “reorganites.”

Edited September 12, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, I’m acquainted with that. 
 

The professor to whom you refer is (was) the late Robert J. Mathews of BYU. You’re right that the C of C (then RLDS) folks were very cooperative in allowing him free rein to compare the notes with the published translation. Through his work, our Church leaders gained confidence in the publication of what came to be called the Joseph Smith Translation. It largely due to the efforts of Professor Mathews that excerpts from the JST were included as footnotes and an appendix with the Church’s 1978 edition of the King James Bible, a study aid that continues to bless us today. 

Thanks. I know he didn’t work with Brother Matthews. This is the project he was involved with…

https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-6-no-3-2005/new-discoveries-joseph-smith-translation-bible

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. I know he didn’t work with Brother Matthews. This is the project he was involved with…

https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-6-no-3-2005/new-discoveries-joseph-smith-translation-bible

Ah, OK. What you are referring to obviously transpired much later than what I had in mind. 

[Bob Crockett]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Both the gender and the apostolic status of Junia are in dispute. 
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junia_(New_Testament_person)

 

I’ve never seen the term “Brighamite” used to refer to the Church of Jesus Christ except in disrespect or disparagement. The functional counterpart would be to refer to members of the Community of Christ as “reorganites.”

"Josephite."   The two terms are commonly used within the COC and also by the LDS Church in the late nineteenth century.  You might recall there were significant court battles over the ownership of the Kirtland, Nauvoo and Independence temples where that distinction was made. https://slife.org/list-of-denominations-in-the-latter-day-saint-movement/

Also:  Strangites, Cutlerites, Hedrickite, Bickertonites.

Edited September 12, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[Maureen]

On 9/10/2021 at 3:33 PM, esodije said:

...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.

If the CofC believe in the Trinity, then they believe that the Father and Son are distinct persons. JS's first vision usually describes the Father and Son are seperate beings. Any Trinitarian would not describe the Father and Son as "beings", because in the Trinity there is only one being and that is God. Therefore the Father and Son are distinct "persons".

M.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 9/12/2021 at 11:02 AM, Bob Crockett said:

"Josephite."   The two terms are commonly used within the COC and also by the LDS Church in the late nineteenth century.  You might recall there were significant court battles over the ownership of the Kirtland, Nauvoo and Independence temples where that distinction was made. https://slife.org/list-of-denominations-in-the-latter-day-saint-movement/

Also:  Strangites, Cutlerites, Hedrickite, Bickertonites.

Use of the term “Brighamite” strikes me at best as a relic from the far distant past. 
 

I’m always careful to refer to the Community of Christ by that name (once in a while, I’ll abbreviate it to “C of C,” as I have done in this thread). People will suit themselves, after all, but I don’t think it unreasonable to expect that as a matter of courtesy they not refer to one’s faith group in a manner that is apt to sound grating, dissonant or offensive. 
 

Added later: If there ever was a good reason to use these archaic nicknames, it long ago ceased to exist. These days, the two churches can easily be differentiated simply by using their respective preferred names: Community of Christ or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Edited September 16, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Use of the term “Brighamite” strikes me at best as a relic from the far distant past. 
 

I’m always careful to refer to the Community of Christ by that name (once in a while, I’ll abbreviate it to “C of C,” as I have done in this thread). People will suit themselves, after all, but I don’t think it unreasonable to expect that as a matter of courtesy they not refer to one’s faith group in a manner that is apt to sound grating, dissonant or offensive. 

When David Smith (Joseph's son) was called by the Reorganized Church to serve as a missionary in the Salt Lake Valley, and had his nervous breakdown there, the papers that covered it (including the Deseret News) used "Josephites" to describe the reorganized church, and the Tribune referred to the Brighamites.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

When David Smith (Joseph's son) was called by the Reorganized Church to serve as a missionary in the Salt Lake Valley, and had his nervous breakdown there, the papers that covered it (including the Deseret News) used "Josephites" to describe the reorganized church, and the Tribune referred to the Brighamites.

Again, a relic of a long-past era when mutual hostility and mistrust prevailed, as noted in this 1995 Deseret News  piece:

https://www.deseret.com/1995/9/9/19191973/a-spirit-of-sharing-has-closed-the-gap-between-lds-rlds

 

A SPIRIT OF SHARING HAS CLOSED THE GAP BETWEEN LDS, RLDS

By Deseret News  Sep 9, 1995, 12:00am MDT

Joel Campbell, Staff Writer

Share this story

• Share this on Facebook (opens in new window)
• Share this on Twitter (opens in new window)
• SHAREAll sharing options

Far different from a century ago when each group labeled each other the "Brighamites" and the "Josephites," attitudes between the RLDS and LDS churches have been accommodating and warming in recent years.

"We want a cordial relationship with all Christian churches. We have special reasons to have a particularly warm, cordial relationship with the LDS Church because of common heritage," said Roger Yarrington, communications director for the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.In the 1960s and 1970s, scholars and researchers from the two churches began building bridges as they examined an early common history.

 

 

Edited September 13, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[2BizE]

5 hours ago, Maureen said:

If the CofC believe in the Trinity, then they believe that the Father and Son are distinct persons. JS's first vision usually describes the Father and Son are seperate beings. Any Trinitarian would not describe the Father and Son as "beings", because in the Trinity there is only one being and that is God. Therefore the Father and Son are distinct "persons".

M.

The original 1830 edition of the BoM certainly reflected Joseph’s belief in the trinity.  It was later updated in 1835 to reflect Joseph’s mind change from a trinity godhead to what it is today. Even the 1832 version of the First Vision, the first version recorded, does not indicate there were multiple beings, but rather a single Angel.

[Maureen]

57 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

The original 1830 edition of the BoM certainly reflected Joseph’s belief in the trinity.  It was later updated in 1835 to reflect Joseph’s mind change from a trinity godhead to what it is today. Even the 1832 version of the First Vision, the first version recorded, does not indicate there were multiple beings, but rather a single Angel.

Yes, Joseph Smith's beliefs in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost did indeed evolve over the years. The Lectures on Faith description of the Godhead compared to how the Godhead is described in The COJCOLDS website is quite different. I don't know for sure if Joseph Smith ever used the exact words of "separate beings" but the LDS Church's own website uses those words for describing the Godhead.

M.

[JustAnAustralian]

2 hours ago, 2BizE said:

but rather a single Angel.

The 1832 version describes the Lord, but yes, only one individual. The reference to "angel" is the appearance of who would later be identified as Moroni.   https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-summer-1832/3#full-transcript

[JustAnAustralian]

1 hour ago, Maureen said:

I don't know for sure if Joseph Smith ever used the exact words of "separate beings" but the LDS Church's own website uses those words for describing the Godhead.

JSPP has this from June 1843

Quote

Peter and Stephen testify that they saw the son of man standing on the right hand of God, any person that has seen the heavens opened, knows that there are three personages in the heavens who hold the keys of power and one presides over all  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-d-1-1-august-1842-1-july-1843/219

So not the exact phrase "separate beings", but "three personages"

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, 2BizE said:

The original 1830 edition of the BoM certainly reflected Joseph’s belief in the trinity.  It was later updated in 1835 to reflect Joseph’s mind change from a trinity godhead to what it is today. Even the 1832 version of the First Vision, the first version recorded, does not indicate there were multiple beings, but rather a single Angel.

 

1 hour ago, Maureen said:

Yes, Joseph Smith's beliefs in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost did indeed evolve over the years. The Lectures on Faith description of the Godhead compared to how the Godhead is described in The COJCOLDS website is quite different. I don't know for sure if Joseph Smith ever used the exact words of "separate beings" but the LDS Church's own website uses those words for describing the Godhead.

M.

Here’s how the FAIR website deals with this old critics’ chestnut about Joseph’s supposedly “evolving” view of Deity:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Did_Joseph_Smith_begin_his_prophetic_career_with_a_"trinitarian"_idea_of_God%3F

[dinoaurpaint]

Hi Everyone,

Going to make an introduction post sometime.

This information is out there. Let me post some links.

"A Brief Comparison of the Community of Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)" (2013): (PDF) Cof C LDS--Quick Reference 24 Jan 2013 | Steven Shields - Academia.edu

CofC Prophet-President Steve Veazey on Mormon Stories: 590-592: Stephen M. Veazey, Prophet-President of Community of Christ (Formerly RLDS Church) - Mormon Stories

"LDS Misconceptions about Community of Christ" by Retire BYU Professor Richard G. Moore: LDS-Misconceptions.pdf (ensignpeakfoundation.org)

I'm also in the know that Casey Paul Griffiths from BYU and Andrew Bolton (retired CofC Apostle) are editing an interfaith dialogue book that they hope to be out in 2022. While people connect at historical functions, BYU has created an interfaith dialogue group between Latter-day Saints and CofC. The people from that group split up some topics that they are going to write about.

Official BYU Interfaith Dialogue Page page: Community of Christ & Latter-day Saint Dialogue (byu.edu)

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, dinoaurpaint said:

Hi Everyone,

Going to make an introduction post sometime.

This information is out there. Let me post some links.

"A Brief Comparison of the Community of Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)" (2013): (PDF) Cof C LDS--Quick Reference 24 Jan 2013 | Steven Shields - Academia.edu

CofC Prophet-President Steve Veazey on Mormon Stories: 590-592: Stephen M. Veazey, Prophet-President of Community of Christ (Formerly RLDS Church) - Mormon Stories

"LDS Misconceptions about Community of Christ" by Retire BYU Professor Richard G. Moore: LDS-Misconceptions.pdf (ensignpeakfoundation.org)

I'm also in the know that Casey Paul Griffiths from BYU and Andrew Bolton (retired CofC Apostle) are editing an interfaith dialogue book that they hope to be out in 2022. While people connect at historical functions, BYU has created an interfaith dialogue group between Latter-day Saints and CofC. The people from that group split up some topics that they are going to write about.

Official BYU Interfaith Dialogue Page page: Community of Christ & Latter-day Saint Dialogue (byu.edu)

 

Thanks for this excellent information and welcome to the forum!

[Esrom]

On 9/9/2021 at 12:08 PM, bOObOO said:

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.

The "odd reason" was that Joseph Smith Jr. reportedly gave his son a father's blessing when Joseph lll was age 11, in which he was told he would be his successor.  This was consistent with an 1841 revelation that the earth would be blessed through Joseph's seed.  The 1844 dispute over succession was initially related to who would act as "guardian" of the church until Joseph lll reached adulthood.  That likely would have been Hyrum, who was also blessed as a successor, if he hadn't also been killed with Joseph.  Brigham Young asserted that as senior member of the Quorum of the 12, he should assume leadership.  Emma believed her son would one day become Joseph's successor.  Lineal succession is frequently found in the scriptures, particularly the Old Testament and Book of Mormon.  The office of Patriarch in the LDS church followed lineal succession (via Hyrum's line) until it was discontinued around 1979.  Interestingly, Brigham Young and many early LDS apostles ordained their sons as apostles as a form of lineal succession.   It's a fascinating subject for research.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Esrom said:

The "odd reason" was that Joseph Smith Jr. reportedly gave his son a father's blessing when Joseph lll was age 11, in which he was told he would be his successor.  This was consistent with an 1841 revelation that the earth would be blessed through Joseph's seed.  The 1844 dispute over succession was initially related to who would act as "guardian" of the church until Joseph lll reached adulthood.  That likely would have been Hyrum, who was also blessed as a successor, if he hadn't also been killed with Joseph.  Brigham Young asserted that as senior member of the Quorum of the 12, he should assume leadership.  Emma believed her son would one day become Joseph's successor.  Lineal succession is frequently found in the scriptures, particularly the Old Testament and Book of Mormon.  The office of Patriarch in the LDS church followed lineal succession (via Hyrum's line) until it was discontinued around 1979.  Interestingly, Brigham Young and many early LDS apostles ordained their sons as apostles as a form of lineal succession.   It's a fascinating subject for research.

And had he remained faithful to what his Father restored Joseph III may very well have led the Church.  During his lifetime Joseph wanted Hyrum to lead the Church organization as that was his Patriarchal right.  Joseph planned to preside over a higher order of priesthood.

In the end both roles became combined under the President of the Church.  But it took several decades for the Presiding Patriarch to be removed for exactly the reason of confusion over Church leadership.  (D&C 124)