Underground Latter Day Saints

kiwimac · Mar 19, 2009

Yet the RLDS/CoC does represent itself as one among many Evangelical Christian churches, intentionally misleading people into thinking that it is a typical Protestant church body--the point raised in the OP here. The facts speak otherwise about that alleged identity, and we merely say that it is wrong of the church to do this. If others think that it is not wrong, we nevertheless do, and for some of the reasons I've listed here in case anyone wants to know the reasons.

You are entitled to your opinion no matter how factually challenged it might be.

Albion · Mar 19, 2009

kiwimac said:
You are entitled to your opinion no matter how factually challenged it might be.
[/color][/size][/size][/color][/font]

Of course I am, and especially so when I am NOT "factually challenged," right?

It is not necessary to use the exact words "We are a routine Protestant church like all those others" in order to intentionally convey that impression to listeners, you know.

What's more, the decision of the RLDS to present itself as just another Protestant Christian church and to shed its Mormon background and reputation was well-publicized in this country at the time when the church changed its name to "Community of Christ" and when every local RLDS congregation began removing its RLDS logos, etc. The point is that it's not as though we are guessing at something here; it's already been widely reported and discussed in the North American press, if perhaps not so also in your country.

A New Dawn · Mar 19, 2009

Albion said:
Of course I am, and especially so when I am NOT "factually challenged," right?

It is not necessary to use the exact words "We are a routine Protestant church like all those others" in order to intentionally convey that impression to listeners, you know.

What's more, the decision of the RLDS to present itself as just another Protestant Christian church and to shed its Mormon background and reputation was well-publicized in this country at the time when the church changed its name to "Community of Christ" and when every local RLDS congregation began removing its RLDS logos, etc. The point is that it's not as though we are guessing at something here; it's already been widely reported and discussed in the North American press, if perhaps not so also in your country.

You keep going on and on and have not produced one post that was factual in nature. Just because it is your opinion over those who were members of the church, who actually know something about it, that it presents itself as "a routine Protestant church" doesn't make it so. You have not produced one belief that contradicts the Bible, you have not done anything to uphold your side of a discussion. This is not a discussion as much as it is a thread where you have decided to trash something based on it's name.

I'm sorry that you are so closed to learning something about a group you know nothing about. I'm sure Jesus would be pleased at your ability to throw stones.

JasonV · Mar 19, 2009

A New Dawn said:
You have not produced one belief that contradicts the Bible...

Being "ordained" by men to be a prophet is unheard of in the Bible. How's that for a start?

kiwimac · Mar 19, 2009

Funny, you don't look old enough to have been about in OT times because that is the only way you could possibly know that.

JasonV · Mar 19, 2009

kiwimac said:
Funny, you don't look old enough to have been about in OT times because that is the only way you could possibly know that.

Oh I'm not. But the record indicates that prophets were specifically called by God, and did not need the sanction of any man or men to fulfill their calling.

Of course, we could break out the D&C of the CoC and point out doctrinal issues between it and orthodoxy, but what's the point?

A New Dawn · Mar 19, 2009

JasonV said:
Being "ordained" by men to be a prophet is unheard of in the Bible. How's that for a start?

You know, all sorts of denominations have ordinations of people into priesthood offices that were not in evidence in the Bible, so I'm not seeing why you (or anyone else) is complaining about this type of ordination. I don't agree that it is an office, or that it needs ordination to make one a prophet, but then, I don't recall seeing a pope in the Bible, or an archbishop for that matter.

If you are going to point out a problem, I'd suggest pointing out a problem that your own church doesn't commit, either.

kiwimac · Mar 19, 2009

JasonV said:
Oh I'm not. But the record indicates that prophets were specifically called by God, and did not need the sanction of any man or men to fulfill their calling.

Of course, we could break out the D&C of the CoC and point out doctrinal issues between it and orthodoxy, but what's the point?

You could indeed do that but that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the Community of Christ apparently TRYING to convince others that they are 'just another protestant church' which they are not interested in doing and never have been.

JasonV · Mar 19, 2009

A New Dawn said:
You know, all sorts of denominations have ordinations of people into priesthood offices that were not in evidence in the Bible, so I'm not seeing why you (or anyone else) is complaining about this type of ordination. I don't agree that it is an office, or that it needs ordination to make one a prophet, but then, I don't recall seeing a pope in the Bible, or an archbishop for that matter.

A pope or archbishop is just a bishop. Those are in the NT.

If you are going to point out a problem, I'd suggest pointing out a problem that your own church doesn't commit, either.

My church doesn't accept the D&C, the so-called Inspired Version of the Bible, or any concept of an ordained prophet/president.

My church isn't orthodox either, but I don't care. :preach:

A New Dawn · Mar 19, 2009

JasonV said:
A pope or archbishop is just a bishop. Those are in the NT.

Nice way to skirt the issue. The shoes of the fisherman has been elevated to a position it never had in the NT church.

JasonV · Mar 19, 2009

A New Dawn said:
Nice way to skirt the issue. The shoes of the fisherman has been elevated to a position it never had in the NT church.

Show me one practice or teaching that hasn't?

A New Dawn · Mar 19, 2009

JasonV said:
Show me one practice or teaching that hasn't?

There likely isn't, so to complain that one group falsely elevates or ordains a person to a priesthood office that never existed, when all groups practice the same thing, is an interesting concept. That is why I prefer to stick to Biblical teachings.

And I'm interested to know which teaching of the RLDS church (not it's priesthood structure) is unBiblical, as has been accused.

Room4all · Mar 22, 2009

I sure hope all you people figure out who the real christians are cause my heads spinnin trying to keep up with all your spin.

The fact remains that the Mormons are christians as are the RLDS/COC are all your saying they are not doesnt change anything.

They follow christ...perhaps in a manner more suited than I've witnessed here. If this is your brand of christianity...call me a satanist!!

JasonV · Mar 23, 2009

A New Dawn said:
There likely isn't, so to complain that one group falsely elevates or ordains a person to a priesthood office that never existed, when all groups practice the same thing, is an interesting concept. That is why I prefer to stick to Biblical teachings.

Creating new offices and ordaining one a prophet are two different things. You cannot make such a comparison.

And I'm interested to know which teaching of the RLDS church (not it's priesthood structure) is unBiblical, as has been accused.

How about D&C 76 for starters? Men becoming gods, three levels of heaven, ring any bells?

A New Dawn · Mar 23, 2009

JasonV said:
Creating new offices and ordaining one a prophet are two different things. You cannot make such a comparison.

They are perfectly comparable. In the RLDS church, the prophet is not ordained as a prophet, he is ordained as the president of the high priesthood. An OT priesthood office redefined. No different than a creation of an office that the NT church never had. Both are guilty of creating something out of nothing.

How about D&C 76 for starters? Men becoming gods, three levels of heaven, ring any bells?

That would be section 132 in the LDS D&C. Never a part of the RLDS D&C (as has been pointed out a few times already in this thread).

JasonV · Mar 23, 2009

A New Dawn said:
They are perfectly comparable. In the RLDS church, the prophet is not ordained as a prophet, he is ordained as the president of the high priesthood. An OT priesthood office redefined. No different than a creation of an office that the NT church never had. Both are guilty of creating something out of nothing.

So one becomes the prophet of the CoC by virtue of being the President of the High Priesthood?

That would be section 132 in the LDS D&C. Never a part of the RLDS D&C (as has been pointed out a few times already in this thread).

Since I'm very well aware that LDS and RLDS scriptures are different, I went out of my way to make sure that wasn't the case. http://www.centerplace.org/hs/dc/rdc-076.htm

A New Dawn · Mar 23, 2009

JasonV said:
So one becomes the prophet of the CoC by virtue of being the President of the High Priesthood?

Yes. I'm pretty sure that "prophet" is out of vogue in the CoC, anyway.

Since I'm very well aware that LDS and RLDS scriptures are different, I went out of my way to make sure that wasn't the case. http://www.centerplace.org/hs/dc/rdc-076.htm

And? Section 76 says nothing about becoming a god. That wasn't even brought into the arena of belief in the early church until the King Follett's Sermon, given only a few months before Joseph Smith was killed. Section 76 was given in 1832, more than 12 years earlier. Section 132 in the LDS D&C wasn't even given doctrinal status till 20 or so years after JS was killed. It was certainly never included in the RLDS D&C, considering JS,III, did all he could to disprove the validity of all of those later "revelations".

JasonV · Mar 23, 2009

A New Dawn said:
And? Section 76 says nothing about becoming a god. That wasn't even brought into the arena of belief in the early church until the King Follett's Sermon, given only a few months before Joseph Smith was killed. Section 76 was given in 1832, more than 12 years earlier. Section 132 in the LDS D&C wasn't even given doctrinal status till 20 or so years after JS was killed. It was certainly never included in the RLDS D&C, considering JS,III, did all he could to disprove the validity of all of those later "revelations".

Might be nice if you would actually read it.

[Sec 76:5e] they are they who are the church of the Firstborn;
[Sec 76:5f] they are they into whose hands the Father has given all things:
[Sec 76:5g] they are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fullness, and of his glory, and are priests of the Most High after the order of Melchisedec, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the only begotten Son:
[Sec 76:5h] wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God; wherefore all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs, and they are Christ's, and Christ is God's; and they shall overcome all things;

A New Dawn · Mar 23, 2009

JasonV said:
Might be nice if you would actually read it.

I have read it many times. The RLDS interpret it to mean that we are God's (indicating possession), we become son's of God by accepting the (restored) gospel and being baptized into the church.

kiwimac · Mar 23, 2009

[Sec 76:5e] they are they who are the church of the Firstborn;
[Sec 76:5f] they are they into whose hands the Father has given all things:
[Sec 76:5g] they are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fullness, and of his glory, and are priests of the Most High after the order of Melchisedec, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the only begotten Son:
[Sec 76:5h] wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God; wherefore all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs, and they are Christ's, and Christ is God's; and they shall overcome all things;

This passage has to do with the adoption of Christians into God. This has nothing to do with becoming Gods.

Although I will point out that some of the Old Catholic churches in line with the Orthodox teach the dogma of Theosis. Finally both a New Dawn and I have been members of the CoC, I was an elder and minister in that denomination. Perhaps we might actually know that of which we speak?

Underground Latter Day Saints

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian

Facilitator

God is bigger than the boogeyman!

JasonV

Guest

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian

JasonV

Guest

God is bigger than the boogeyman!

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian

JasonV

Guest

God is bigger than the boogeyman!

JasonV

Guest

God is bigger than the boogeyman!

Holding on to God...

JasonV

Guest

God is bigger than the boogeyman!

JasonV

Guest

God is bigger than the boogeyman!

JasonV

Guest

God is bigger than the boogeyman!

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian

Similar threads