Re: General Denominational (Dis)Information -- Mamusz' Restoration Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 22:56:16 09/07/11 Wed
Author: George
Subject: Re: General Denominational (Dis)Information
In reply to: john 's message, "Re: General Denominational (Dis)Information" on 18:30:21 09/06/11 Tue

Anybody care to note that the text of 111 itself makes disclaimer that it is "not a revelation." It is only the preface that claims it is. I will have to get out my Kirtland edition and see what it says about the section. Apologetic prefaces are not revelations, so a preface cannot disclaim a section as a revelation. Only another revelation can do that. One of the new revelations to the CofC prophet (whomever he will be after the next shakedown cruise) will be a revelation stating that the epistle to the Romans is an "epistle," not a revelation from God.

But, since the CofC is going to ditch the pre1860 revelations by claiming those were to a completely different entity, the CofC can get rid of the Pauline epistles by claiming that those were written to the church founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 30, and have nothing to do with the church founded by Joseph Smith, III in AD 1860. How easily everything can be fixed -- like a fight, a traffic citation, or an election.

>SECTION 111

>This section on marriage is not a revelation. It was
>prepared while the Book of Doctrine and
>Covenants was being compiled and was read by W. W.
>Phelps at the general assembly of August 17,
>1835. It was adopted unanimously by that assembly as
>part of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. It
>has been retained in every edition of the book
>published by the Reorganization, and the church knows
>no other law of marriage than that which is set forth
>here.
>
>111:1a According to the custom of all civilized
>nations, marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies:
>111:1b therefore we believe, that all marriages in
>this Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints should be
>solemnized in a public meeting, or feast, prepared for
>that purpose:
>111:1c and that the solemnization should be performed
>by a presiding high priest, high priest,bishop, elder,
>or priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are
>desirous to get married, of being married by other
>authority.
>111:1d We believe that it is not right to prohibit
>members of this church from marrying out of the
>church, if it be their determination so to do, but
>such persons will be considered weak in the faith of
>our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
>
>111:2a Marriage should be celebrated with prayer and
>thanksgiving; and at the solemnization, the persons to
>be married, standing together, the man on the right,
>and the woman on the left, shall be addressed, by the
>person officiating, as he shall be directed by the
>Holy Spirit; and if there be no legal objections, he
>shall say, calling each by their names:
>111:2b "You both mutually agree to be each other's
>companion, husband and wife, observing the legal
>rights belonging to this condition; that is, keeping
>yourselves wholly for each other, and from all others,
>during your lives?"
>111:2c And when they have answered "Yes," he shall
>pronounce them "husband and wife" in the name of the
>Lord Jesus Christ, and by virtue of the laws of the
>country and authority vested in him:
>111:2d "May God add his blessings and keep you to
>fulfill your covenants from henceforth and for
>ever. Amen."
>
>111:3 The clerk of every church should keep a record
>of all marriages solemnized in his branch.
>
>111:4a All legal contracts of marriage made before a
>person is baptized into this church, should be
>held sacred and fulfilled.
>
>111:4b Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been
>reproached with the crime of fornication, and
>polygamy: we declare that we believe that one man
>should have one wife; and one woman but one husband,
>except in case of death, when either is at liberty to
>marry again.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>Lois wrote:
>>>
>>>(snip Windland's turgid rant against Christianity)
>>>>
>>>>HISTORY
>>>>
>>>>The church was legally organized on April 6, 1830,
>in
>>>>Fayette, New York. Following the assassination of
>>>>founder Joseph Smith Jr. in 1844, the church split
>>>>into multiple groups. Joseph Smith III succeeded his
>>>>father and was ordained prophet-president of this
>>>>denomination on April 6, 1860.
>>>>
>>>>And then this is what they turn around and say in
>>>>order to gain admittance into the National Council
>of
>>>>Churches:
>>>>
>>>><>
>>>>page 2
>>>>
>>>>The Membership and Ecclesial Relations Committee
>>>>(MERC) of the General Assembly of the National
>>Council
>>>>of the Churches of Christ in the USA and Church
>World
>>>>Service recommends to the 2010 General Assembly that
>>>>the membership application of the Community of
>Christ
>>>>(COC) be approved. This recommendation is based on a
>>>>careful review of written materials provided by the
>>>>COC,
>>>>
>>>>page 3
>>>>
>>>>It is always important at the onset of any
>discussion
>>>>of the spiritual roots of Community of Christ to
>note
>>>>that its founder is not [Joseph Smith] of the Church
>>>>of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
>>>>Saints (LDS), but his son, Joseph Smith III,
>>>>---------------
>>>>
>>>>How can they have two distinctly different
>histories?
>>>>By their own logic Grant McMurray, who resigned
>>>>suddenly as president, was the founder of the
>>>>Community of Christ. That is when they changed their
>>>>name from Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of
>>Latter
>>>>Day Saints to Community of Christ. Maybe they should
>>>>get their history straight for their website.
>>>>
>>>>Submitted by Lois
>>>
>>>I tend to agree, Lois.
>>>
>>>This is all about same-sex marriage. Section 111 of
>>>the Doctrine and Covenants states that marriage is
>>>between a man and a woman. Since past RLDS
>conferences
>>>have voted that this revelation is still binding on
>>>the post 1860 church, the only way to get rid of it
>is
>>>to claim that the RLDS church never existed before
>>>1860. That allows them to discard Joseph Smith, Jr.'s
>>>doctrines and practices entirely, from rebaptism to
>>>heterosexual marriage. That renders all revelations
>>>from Joseph, Jr. as quaint and obsolete as Wycliff's
>>>Bible translation.
>>>
>>>If the Communitarian church is a reality and not a
>>>fiction, I would expect that its real inception
>>>occurred during the administration of Mr. McMurray.
>>>And, of course, if later the Communitarians want to
>>>jettison something from Joseph Smith, III, they will
>>>move the beginning of the church 140 years after
>1860.
>>>Just think. Someday they may find Dr. Smith's
>>>revelations just aren't kinky enough and decide to
>get
>>>rid of them. After all, Dr. Smith is in lineal
>>>descent from Joseph Smith, Jr. Getting rid of him
>>>would completely get rid of the Smith family's
>"taint"
>>>(as the liberals see it.) But that will be past his
>>>human lifespan, so he won't have to deal with such an
>>>insult.
>>>
>>>What a bill of goods the leadership sold the NCC.
>>>After all, the Unitarians and the Mormons couldn't
>get
>>>into the NCC. The LDS don't want to, but the
>>>Unitarians get to participate as back-of-the-bus
>>>passengers. So the Communitarians have pulled off a
>>>great feat. Not wonderful, but great. Don't think
>that
>>>the exMormon forum participants haven't noticed this
>>>sudden change, and haven't compared it to the kind of
>>>mind control practiced by the LDS church and the
>>>Communist Party.
>>>
>>>George
>>>
>>>Links removed because they drive the Voy computer
>>>nuts.
>>
>>
>>You are absolutely right, George. I hadn't realized
>>that of course Section 111, having been adopted in
>>1835 would somehow have to be repudiated.
>>
>>Doctrine and Covenants
>>
>>. . . at the general assembly of August 17, 1835.
>>It was adopted unanimously by that assembly as part of
>>the Book of Doctrine and Covenants.
>>
>>[Sec 111:2a] Marriage should be celebrated with prayer
>>and thanksgiving; and at the solemnization, the
>>persons to be married, standing together, the man
>>on the right, and the woman on the left, shall be
>>addressed, by the person officiating, as he shall be
>>directed by the Holy Spirit; and if there be no legal
>>objections, he shall say, calling each by their names:
>>
>>[Sec 111:2b] "You both mutually agree to be each
>>other's companion, husband and wife, observing the
>>legal rights belonging to this condition; that is,
>>keeping yourselves wholly for each other, and from
>>all others, during your lives?"
>>
>>[Sec 111:4b] Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has
>>been reproached with the crime of fornication, and
>>polygamy: we declare that we believe that one man
>>should have one wife; and one woman but one husband,
>>except in case of death, when either is at liberty to
>>marry again.
>>-------
>>
>>Lois

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]