Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- 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: 14:34:59 03/27/11 Sun
Author: George
Subject: Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church)
In reply to: Lois 's message, "Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church)" on 11:20:25 03/27/11 Sun

>>Doctrine and Covenants 111 refers to marriage as being
>>between a man and a woman. Though Doctrine and
>>Covenants 111is not a revelatory statement, its
>>preface states that "the church knows no other law of
>>marriage than that which is set forth here."
>>-------
>>
>>Submitted by Lois
>>
>Of course I must point out that it should be quite
>easy for the c-not-of-c to ignore Section 111 since
>nothing in the c-not-of-c has ever been revelatory.
>Probably the last revelatory guidance given was Sunday
>April 8, 1962. This was given through W. Wallace Smith
>and was rejected.
>
>(excerpt)
>"The elders have the power to cause the work to rise
>or fall. My yoke is easy and my burden light when ye
>are diligent and not slothful. Even the Melchesidec
>Priesthood can be influenced by the evil designs of
>scheming men. Satan is moving in many guises and only
>constant adherence to the gospel can allow my purpose
>to move among my people."
>------
>
>Submitted by Lois
>

Lois, the priesthood and leadership seem to be baffled as to why the majority of the membership will not obey their fiats, except passively (and probably resistantly as well.) When God ordains a prophet, he expects the people to obey that prophet.

The revelation given by W. Wallace was rejected. W. Wallace's appointment as a prophet cannot be questioned, even by the most fundamentalist of church members. What happened was that the church rejected the revelation W. Wallace gave from God, and so God gave the church what it deserved -- the crooked so-called prophet and priesthood who make up their own purported revelations as they go along.

But switcheroo is the province of pathological liars and sociopaths. The liberal leaders wanted to be known as the true authority of the RLDS church as the continuation of the 1830 church until they got control of all its property, and had excommunicated everyone who would not go along with them. NOW, they want to legitimatize homosexuality so (along with their unbiblical and unhistorical "another Jesus") they have a nonhistorical unscriptural, and fantastical "another RLDS church") that they want to be known as.

Real Jesus

Born of a virgin

Is fully divine and human

has all authority

Is the only way to salvation

Died for the sins of mankind

Resurrected to eternal life

Dwells in heaven with God

Will return to judge the world

THE 'NOTHER JESUS

Was born the same way everybody else is

May be more than a man, but not God

Is only an authority when the church quoting him to malcontents

Belongs to a sort of "Salvation League" of gods, who all participate equally

Was tragically murdered for no reason

Was not resurrected, but continues as a ghostly elemental presence (or even just a concept) for those who are "inspired."

Nobody really knows where he is, because he may be only a concept

Is not going to make a triumphal physical return, because if he exists as an entity at all, he is incorporeal.

Some of us on this forum have been criticized for allegedly proclaiming that salvation comes from "believing the right things" about Jesus. Looking at the situation from the liberalist POV, that salvation is a product an the open market of religion participated in by various franchisees, consider this:

When you are looking to purchase an automobile, does it matter what you believe about the car? Don't you just go and buy one, and drive it where you want to go?

That's a fallacy. What if you believe the car you are looking at is a new car, but it really isn't? Would you advise someone not to purchase a used car that is being passed off as new, or are you sensitive to the buyer's tender feelings, and let him just believe whatever he wants to believe?

What if he believes that the car has never been wrecked and does not have a bent frame, even though you have the carfax that says it has and does? If he chooses not to believe you or the report, does what he believe matters after he buys the car? Should he be angry with you for interfering with his belief, especially if he is your brother and you only want what's best for him?

The real RLDS church is the 1830 church founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. As such, it teaches that the Book of Mormon is literally true, teaches that the Inspired Version is an English rendering of what the original Greek and Hebrew mss. would say if complete and unmarred mss still existed and had been translated into English.

The 'nother RLDS church teaches that it has nothing to do with the 1830 restoration of the gospel. It is a church founded by Joseph Smith, III in 1860 on his own cognizance. It has nothing to do with Mormonism, except the belief that its leadership are semidivine by virtue of their hotline to the Godhead.

Does it matter what you believe. Well, if you are going to court to sue for possession of real estate belonging to the original church, what you believe might be important. If you are going to court to sue over who is a member and isn't, and over who is a legitimate RLDS priest, and who isn't, it might be important.

What you believe about a car that you bought isn't important. Until you put the key in the ignition and find out that it doesn't even have an engine.

George

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

Replies:

Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- john, 15:39:18 03/27/11 Sun

Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- George, 19:55:08 03/27/11 Sun