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: 15:37:37 03/27/11 Sun
Author: john
Subject: Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church)
In reply to: George 's message, "Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church)" on 23:38:08 03/26/11 Sat

read to the end of that court decision george... this court case does not say what you think it does...

john

>The Reorganized Church has twice in the civil
>courts "been sustained as the seccessor to the
>original church presided over by the Martyr Joseph
>Smith," The courts at the time ruled
>
>And the Court do further find that the Plaintiff,
>the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
>Saints, is the True and Lawful continuatin of, and
>successor to the said original Church of Jesus Christ
>of Latter-Day Saints, organized in 1830, and is
>entitled in law to all its rights and property.
>Court of Common Pleas,
>Lake County, Ohio
>see journal entry
>February term, 1880
>
>Still another decision, by a Judge Phuilips, in the
>Circuit Court of the United States for the Western
>District of Missouri in the so-called Temple Lot Suit
>in 1894, generally sustained the decision previously
>quoted.
>
>In that suit James Whitehead, former secretary of
>Joseph Smith, Jr. swore under oath:
>
>I recollect a meeting that was held in the winter
>of 1843, at Nauvoo, Illinois, prior to Joseph Smith's
>death, at which the appointment was made by him,
>Joseph Smith, of his successor. HIs son, Joseph, was
>selected as his sucessor. Joseph Smith did the
>talking. At that meeting Joseph Smith, the present
>presideing officer of the complainant church, was
>selected by his father as his successor. He was
>ordained and aoninted at that meeting. Hyrum Smith,
>the Patriarch, anointed him, and Joseph his father
>blessed him and ordained him, and Newell K. Whitney
>poured the oil on his head, and he was set apart to be
>his father's successor in office, holding all the
>powers that his father held.
>Plaintiff's Abstract
>Temple Lot Suit, p. 28
>
>From
>THE MAZE OF MORMONISM
>Dr. Walter Martin
>Second Printing, 1983
>Copyright 1962, 1978 by Walter Martin
>(Revised and enlarged 1978)
>Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 78-66067
>ISBN 0-88449-017-3
>
>It appears that in the late 1880's, when the RLDS
>church wanted to gain control of all the property left
>behind by the original church founded in 1830, it was
>more than happy to claim to be the original church,
>and did such a good job of doing it that the courts
>believed it. The RLDS church also stated "Even the
>covenant of marriage is set forth in its exact terms
>in the section on marriage published in the "Book of
>Covenants" during the life of Joseph Smith (1835
>edition). This covenant was approved by the church an
>dpublished to the world, by approval of the prophet,
>with the specific commandment that marriage should be
>solemnized in a "public meeting." (quote from
>"Differences that Persist)
>
>It finally dawns on me what is going on. The Community
>of Christ, apart from the question of whether it is in
>fact the RLDS church, or just pretending to be, has to
>throw Joseph Smith, Jr. under the bus, not to escape
>orthodox disapproval of Joseph Smith, Jr. Quite the
>contrary. The covenant on marriage established as the
>legal rule for the original church (which the RLDS
>church, claiming to be the original church, has always
>followed. This rule of the RLDS church states that
>marriage is to be between "one man and one woman."
>The reason that the CofC wants to disassociate itself
>from the RLDS church (but not, of course the RLDS real
>estate and investments) is that under church rules of
>the RLDS, same-sex marriages cannot be performed. AT
>this time, the church performs what can be called
>"same sex shacking up ceremonies" so that homsexuals
>and lesbians can celebrate an out of wedlock sexual
>relationship before the church, and "opposite sex
>shacking up ceremonies" so that heterosexual couples
>who haven't bothered to divorce their previous spouses
>can celebrate their out of wedlock sexual relationship
>before the church. However, the homosexuals are
>unhappy that they don't have the sanctitiy of marriage
>to salve their bruised egos, so the RLDS covenant of
>marriage has to go, and it has to go NOW.
>
>The CofC's backhanded rejection of Joseph Smith, Jr.
>has nothing to do with seeking orthodox approval, and
>"non-cult" status. What has happened is that the CofC
>leaders want a different kind of cult, and have to
>extricate themselves from any connection with the RLDS
>church to get rid of the few orthodox ideas and
>teachings that the RLDS were known and praised for.
>This flat out fraud perpetrated to make people believe
>the CofC is not the RLDS (original 1830 church) has
>absolutely nothing to do with trying to dissociate
>itself from the evil reputation of Mormonism. It is
>trying to distance itself from the evil reputation of
>heterosexuality and marital fidelity.
>
>George
>
>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.
>RLDS Doctrine and Covenants Section 111:4
>RLDS D&C 1919
>Lamoni, Iowa

[ 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) -- George, 19:59:22 03/27/11 Sun
- Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- john, 07:46:37 03/28/11 Mon
  - Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- Lois, 10:07:04 03/28/11 Mon
    - Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- john, 18:48:15 03/28/11 Mon
      - Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- john, 18:53:05 03/28/11 Mon
        Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- Lois, 19:17:19 03/28/11 Mon
        Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- George, 19:57:17 03/28/11 Mon
        Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- john, 07:06:21 03/29/11 Tue
        Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- George, 20:13:12 03/29/11 Tue
        Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- john, 21:23:32 03/29/11 Tue
        Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- George, 22:17:02 03/29/11 Tue
        Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- Lois, 22:55:46 03/29/11 Tue
        Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- George, 00:19:38 03/30/11 Wed
        Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- Lois, 01:42:23 03/30/11 Wed
        Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- George, 08:23:36 03/30/11 Wed
        Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- john, 17:17:37 03/30/11 Wed
        Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- Lois, 18:22:40 03/30/11 Wed
        Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- john, 18:47:56 03/30/11 Wed
        Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- George, 19:23:05 03/30/11 Wed
        Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- George, 19:22:01 03/30/11 Wed
        Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- john, 07:04:02 03/29/11 Tue
        Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- Lois, 10:27:26 03/29/11 Tue
        Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- George, 19:53:22 03/28/11 Mon
      - Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- George, 19:38:34 03/28/11 Mon
      - Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- George, 19:50:50 03/28/11 Mon
  - Re: Why the Community of Christ no longer wants to be known as RLDS (the original 1830 church) -- George, 19:35:46 03/28/11 Mon