The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit might be able to hear 20 minutes of oral argument from each side on November 17. Not much to report other than that.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Appellee's Brief
Here is the brief filed by Devon Park's attorneys in the appeal. We're still fighting!
Monday, May 10, 2010
A Divorce of Religion by Neil Simmons
This is a true story.
They had a long and reasonable marriage with the usual conflicts over money and who was responsible for various household chores. But late in life, an issue arose that led to their divorce.
She became convinced that she had a right to the authority and position equal to that of her husband. He believed she had a vital role of importance, but a different one than he. He had the scripture on his side, she had political correctness on her side. Her insistence to obtain and exercise an authority exactly equal to the husband in the family became so stressful that her husband decided to move out of their home, leaving her in charge of what had been their mutual possessions.
Nevertheless, he continued to regard himself as a married man and provided for himself only the most modest personal items while he looked forward to a possible reconciliation. Sadly, his various efforts to discuss the possible modalities of reconciliation were always rebuffed.
Meanwhile, after courting a number of others who upheld her rights, she chose to marry again, taking a new name and a radically altered view of her role in the household. She changed the way she conducted herself in public and the past interests and beliefs she once shared with her first husband she now abandoned.
After her remarriage and the taking of her new name, he was astonished to be served by a lawsuit which forbade him to use his own name. She argued that she had long used his name and even though she no longer intended to use the name of her ex-husband, she had the right to his name because, like the possessions he had left behind, she had obtained the legal right to deprive him of his own name.
The husband in this sad story is the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The wife is now known as the Community of Christ.
The male and female heads of the household had a long and productive relationship, until the female side of the church insisted upon taking on the role previously held by male priesthood. This insistence provoked a divorce within the church, with the female side continuing in possession of all the effects of the household, while the male side was dispossessed and became known as the independent Restoration Branches.
These independent Restoration Branches continued to insist that they were a continuation of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This was their heritage and it had been theirs for more than a hundred years. Even though they were not in physical possession of the family properties, they continued to ask for a formal meeting for reconciliation which was never granted.
Meanwhile the female side of the RLDS church courted other organizations, making her commitment to the World Council of Churches and moving that process forward by changing her name to the Community of Christ.
Imagine the shock of the independent Restoration Branches when the Community of Christ went to court to obtain a legal way to ban the Restorationists from using their own name. The COC then sued two of these branches, declaring that they did not have a lawful right to use the name (RLDS) by which these branch members had been identified for more than a hundred years.
Let us appeal to justice here. This is a simple case of divorce. The Community of Christ is the former wife. The Restoration Branches, the former husband. The wife has retained all property. The husband was willing to move out of the family properties without any legal argument.
After the husband (Restoration Branches) made a plea to the Community of Christ to release the RLDS name to them, the leaders of the Community of Christ asked their lawyers to find a way to prevent the Restoration Branches from using or exercising their right to use their RLDS name.
In 2005-6 the Community of Christ quietly secured a “trademark” designation of the name of the RLDS church, and then attacked these Restoration Branches for using the name through lawsuits. It is clear that the Community of Christ has legally registered the RLDS name in order to prevent Restoration Branches from using it.
These are the facts of the case. What is justice? Members of the local community and members of the Community of Christ ought to be able to see that a grave injustice is being done to the Devon Park branch. It has cost them nearly a half million dollars to defend their right to use the name of the church in which they were baptized and have been members of for their entire lives.
Notice that at the same time as the Community of Christ has declared that the Devon Park members cannot use their RLDS name, they themselves have changed all their recorded membership to the “Community of Christ.” So members of Devon Park branch who were baptized and confirmed members of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can request their membership card; but when it is sent to the member, it will declare that they are a member of the Community of Christ. If that is not hypocrisy, it is very close to it.
Members of the local community should expect better from the leadership of the Community of Christ who claim to stand for peace and justice in the world but practice legal warfare on innocent ones they claim are part of their own membership. Members of the Community of Christ ought to be outraged by the leadership attempt to keep the ”husband” in this analogy from using his own name and that they have used the money of it’s contributors to do so.
This matter will be argued before a court of appeals this year because the tiny Devon Park branch is determined not to surrender the heritage it has held for decades and not to be bullied by the COC. But we ordinary citizens and church members ought to be able to render a sensible judgment on this matter and pressure those leaders of the COC who pursue the lawsuit to drop it.
They had a long and reasonable marriage with the usual conflicts over money and who was responsible for various household chores. But late in life, an issue arose that led to their divorce.
She became convinced that she had a right to the authority and position equal to that of her husband. He believed she had a vital role of importance, but a different one than he. He had the scripture on his side, she had political correctness on her side. Her insistence to obtain and exercise an authority exactly equal to the husband in the family became so stressful that her husband decided to move out of their home, leaving her in charge of what had been their mutual possessions.
Nevertheless, he continued to regard himself as a married man and provided for himself only the most modest personal items while he looked forward to a possible reconciliation. Sadly, his various efforts to discuss the possible modalities of reconciliation were always rebuffed.
Meanwhile, after courting a number of others who upheld her rights, she chose to marry again, taking a new name and a radically altered view of her role in the household. She changed the way she conducted herself in public and the past interests and beliefs she once shared with her first husband she now abandoned.
After her remarriage and the taking of her new name, he was astonished to be served by a lawsuit which forbade him to use his own name. She argued that she had long used his name and even though she no longer intended to use the name of her ex-husband, she had the right to his name because, like the possessions he had left behind, she had obtained the legal right to deprive him of his own name.
The husband in this sad story is the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The wife is now known as the Community of Christ.
The male and female heads of the household had a long and productive relationship, until the female side of the church insisted upon taking on the role previously held by male priesthood. This insistence provoked a divorce within the church, with the female side continuing in possession of all the effects of the household, while the male side was dispossessed and became known as the independent Restoration Branches.
These independent Restoration Branches continued to insist that they were a continuation of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This was their heritage and it had been theirs for more than a hundred years. Even though they were not in physical possession of the family properties, they continued to ask for a formal meeting for reconciliation which was never granted.
Meanwhile the female side of the RLDS church courted other organizations, making her commitment to the World Council of Churches and moving that process forward by changing her name to the Community of Christ.
Imagine the shock of the independent Restoration Branches when the Community of Christ went to court to obtain a legal way to ban the Restorationists from using their own name. The COC then sued two of these branches, declaring that they did not have a lawful right to use the name (RLDS) by which these branch members had been identified for more than a hundred years.
Let us appeal to justice here. This is a simple case of divorce. The Community of Christ is the former wife. The Restoration Branches, the former husband. The wife has retained all property. The husband was willing to move out of the family properties without any legal argument.
After the husband (Restoration Branches) made a plea to the Community of Christ to release the RLDS name to them, the leaders of the Community of Christ asked their lawyers to find a way to prevent the Restoration Branches from using or exercising their right to use their RLDS name.
In 2005-6 the Community of Christ quietly secured a “trademark” designation of the name of the RLDS church, and then attacked these Restoration Branches for using the name through lawsuits. It is clear that the Community of Christ has legally registered the RLDS name in order to prevent Restoration Branches from using it.
These are the facts of the case. What is justice? Members of the local community and members of the Community of Christ ought to be able to see that a grave injustice is being done to the Devon Park branch. It has cost them nearly a half million dollars to defend their right to use the name of the church in which they were baptized and have been members of for their entire lives.
Notice that at the same time as the Community of Christ has declared that the Devon Park members cannot use their RLDS name, they themselves have changed all their recorded membership to the “Community of Christ.” So members of Devon Park branch who were baptized and confirmed members of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints can request their membership card; but when it is sent to the member, it will declare that they are a member of the Community of Christ. If that is not hypocrisy, it is very close to it.
Members of the local community should expect better from the leadership of the Community of Christ who claim to stand for peace and justice in the world but practice legal warfare on innocent ones they claim are part of their own membership. Members of the Community of Christ ought to be outraged by the leadership attempt to keep the ”husband” in this analogy from using his own name and that they have used the money of it’s contributors to do so.
This matter will be argued before a court of appeals this year because the tiny Devon Park branch is determined not to surrender the heritage it has held for decades and not to be bullied by the COC. But we ordinary citizens and church members ought to be able to render a sensible judgment on this matter and pressure those leaders of the COC who pursue the lawsuit to drop it.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Daniel is again being thrown into the lion’s den
From my mom's Independence Examiner guest column:
Submitted to The Examiner
Posted May 04, 2010 @ 12:08 AM
Independence, MO
By Holly McLean
Independence
What are the similarities of Daniel and the Lion’s Den and the [Community of Christ] vs. Devon Park?
Daniel was a faithful servant of God and the king. Because of his honesty and integrity, both God and the king were very pleased with him. The princes of the king knew this and were very jealous. They wanted to get rid of Daniel. They watched him closely trying to find some fault.
The only thing they discovered was that Daniel made a habit of praying every morning, afternoon and evening in an open way. Since the princes could think of nothing else, they devised a plan to use this against him. There was no law against praying to God, so they went to the king, saying they wanted to honor him by writing a law that no one could pray to anyone but the king for 30 days or they would be thrown into the lion’s den. The whole purpose was to make a law that they knew Daniel would break. The king was fooled and signed the law believing he was being honored.
As soon as the law was signed, the princes went to see if Daniel would pray, in order to turn him in for violating the order of the king. Of course, Daniel did not change his beliefs or habits, so the princes ran to the king and told him that he must keep his word and throw Daniel into the lion’s den.
How is this similar? The Community of Christ leadership knew the restoration branches were proclaiming the fullness of the gospel and continuing to practice the original RLDS doctrines under the name they have held for decades, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They did not want the restoration people to continue to do this, even though they no longer practice or teach these doctrines and are using a new name for themselves, Community of Christ. For the sole purpose of squelching the RLDS restorationists, these COC leaders devised a way to stop them by using the law.
In 2005, the COC quietly filed for trademark rights to the RLDS name, knowing that the restoration people were already using it to continue to describe themselves and their religious beliefs. Once they obtained them in December 2006, the suing of churches began. In spring of 2007, the COC filed suit against South Branch in Raytown. Next, they came after Devon Park in Independence. Once the suits began, the COC leaders started blaming the restoration branches that were being sued for violating the law.
In a recent interview with The Examiner newspaper, the spokesperson for the COC said, “Any suffering they have is self-inflicted. They made a decision that they were not going to abide by the law.”
Yet, it is obvious this law is only in place because the COC trademarked the name and therefore, the heritage of the name, in order to create a law for the purpose of stopping the RLDS restoration movement from continuing to proclaim the gospel and its true doctrines by the name they always have.
As did the princes in Daniel’s day, The Community of Christ leadership has purposefully created a situation that challenges the heritage of the RLDS restoration believers by creating a trademark infringement that they now point to as proof of law violation. Will the court see through this or will they throw the RLDS originalists into the lion’s den?
Submitted to The Examiner
Posted May 04, 2010 @ 12:08 AM
Independence, MO
By Holly McLean
Independence
What are the similarities of Daniel and the Lion’s Den and the [Community of Christ] vs. Devon Park?
Daniel was a faithful servant of God and the king. Because of his honesty and integrity, both God and the king were very pleased with him. The princes of the king knew this and were very jealous. They wanted to get rid of Daniel. They watched him closely trying to find some fault.
The only thing they discovered was that Daniel made a habit of praying every morning, afternoon and evening in an open way. Since the princes could think of nothing else, they devised a plan to use this against him. There was no law against praying to God, so they went to the king, saying they wanted to honor him by writing a law that no one could pray to anyone but the king for 30 days or they would be thrown into the lion’s den. The whole purpose was to make a law that they knew Daniel would break. The king was fooled and signed the law believing he was being honored.
As soon as the law was signed, the princes went to see if Daniel would pray, in order to turn him in for violating the order of the king. Of course, Daniel did not change his beliefs or habits, so the princes ran to the king and told him that he must keep his word and throw Daniel into the lion’s den.
How is this similar? The Community of Christ leadership knew the restoration branches were proclaiming the fullness of the gospel and continuing to practice the original RLDS doctrines under the name they have held for decades, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They did not want the restoration people to continue to do this, even though they no longer practice or teach these doctrines and are using a new name for themselves, Community of Christ. For the sole purpose of squelching the RLDS restorationists, these COC leaders devised a way to stop them by using the law.
In 2005, the COC quietly filed for trademark rights to the RLDS name, knowing that the restoration people were already using it to continue to describe themselves and their religious beliefs. Once they obtained them in December 2006, the suing of churches began. In spring of 2007, the COC filed suit against South Branch in Raytown. Next, they came after Devon Park in Independence. Once the suits began, the COC leaders started blaming the restoration branches that were being sued for violating the law.
In a recent interview with The Examiner newspaper, the spokesperson for the COC said, “Any suffering they have is self-inflicted. They made a decision that they were not going to abide by the law.”
Yet, it is obvious this law is only in place because the COC trademarked the name and therefore, the heritage of the name, in order to create a law for the purpose of stopping the RLDS restoration movement from continuing to proclaim the gospel and its true doctrines by the name they always have.
As did the princes in Daniel’s day, The Community of Christ leadership has purposefully created a situation that challenges the heritage of the RLDS restoration believers by creating a trademark infringement that they now point to as proof of law violation. Will the court see through this or will they throw the RLDS originalists into the lion’s den?
Court Order over Church Name = Same Tactic as Nazis
Why do I say this lawsuit is "evil"?
It was a vital part of Hitler's plan in taking over Germany to get "supreme directional control" over the church. He accomplished this by endorsing the campaign of bishop Ludwig Muller in the rigged church elections of July, 1933. (our 1984) Muller was a Nazi stooge. Muller's election caused the German church to not only change it's doctrines but also it's name, becoming the "Reich Church." This caused a divide between two factions, the "German Christians" (the pro-Nazi "Christians") who retained control over the old organization and the "young Reformers" (the real Christians who opposed Nazism) who had to rebuild and establish their own small independent congregations and seminaries from scratch just like the Restoration Branches have, until Hitler required all Protestant churches to be acknowledged by the Reich Church, at which time they were completely shut down or went underground.
During the 1933 election, the opposition to Muller was prevented from distributing their literature (it was seized by the Gestapo) by a court order from a judge on the basis that they were using the name of the original church - the same name used by the "German Christians." I don't want to accuse anyone in the CoC of Nazism or antisemitism but the parallel is obvious. If he hadn't gained total control over the church in Germany, Hitler would never have been able to carry out the Holocaust because the Christians would have organized and stopped it. But with their church hijacked, their independent congregations outlawed and a court order preventing them from even using their own name, there was nothing they could do. Many of the leaders of the independent movement in Germany who never gave in ended up in the concentration camps or were executed in prison. (Dietrich Bonhoeffer)
When the devil wants to carry out a big plan, he always has to find a way to silence the church, and this lawsuit is a very old tactic, right out of his playbook.
It was a vital part of Hitler's plan in taking over Germany to get "supreme directional control" over the church. He accomplished this by endorsing the campaign of bishop Ludwig Muller in the rigged church elections of July, 1933. (our 1984) Muller was a Nazi stooge. Muller's election caused the German church to not only change it's doctrines but also it's name, becoming the "Reich Church." This caused a divide between two factions, the "German Christians" (the pro-Nazi "Christians") who retained control over the old organization and the "young Reformers" (the real Christians who opposed Nazism) who had to rebuild and establish their own small independent congregations and seminaries from scratch just like the Restoration Branches have, until Hitler required all Protestant churches to be acknowledged by the Reich Church, at which time they were completely shut down or went underground.
During the 1933 election, the opposition to Muller was prevented from distributing their literature (it was seized by the Gestapo) by a court order from a judge on the basis that they were using the name of the original church - the same name used by the "German Christians." I don't want to accuse anyone in the CoC of Nazism or antisemitism but the parallel is obvious. If he hadn't gained total control over the church in Germany, Hitler would never have been able to carry out the Holocaust because the Christians would have organized and stopped it. But with their church hijacked, their independent congregations outlawed and a court order preventing them from even using their own name, there was nothing they could do. Many of the leaders of the independent movement in Germany who never gave in ended up in the concentration camps or were executed in prison. (Dietrich Bonhoeffer)
When the devil wants to carry out a big plan, he always has to find a way to silence the church, and this lawsuit is a very old tactic, right out of his playbook.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
A look back at the RLDS church of May, 1980 - Thirty Years Ago
This article was retyped by me from a Xerox copy of pages from some unknown Restoration publication from an unknown year. I think it speaks to what's happened over the past thirty years in the RLDS movement.
Professor Paul Jones - May, 1980
Professor Paul Jones was employed by the RLDS church for an in-depth Survey and Report, and Progress of New Curriculum and Research of Paper.
The following report was transcribed from a tape made at the meeting in which Professor Jones presented his findings to the Presidency, Apostles, Bishops and other personnel.
Judd: . . . I thought it would be interesting to all of [us] to hear his reactions to the paper that was delivered to us in March. The Foundation for the Eighties which I guess has since been revised and condensed into an outline, but still is being used as a basis of the church program for the 1980s. So I have asked Paul to begin a discussion by sharing with us what he feels about the paper. Paul has had exposure to RLDS people for ten or fifteen years and for some reason finds us interesting. He has been involved with a variety of RLDS people and so I think this will be an interesting session.
Jones: OK. Let me tell you what I've done. Do you know who I am at all? I teach at St. Paul School of Theology and my field is Philosophical Theology. I've worked with your church - twelve years ago in the Joint Council asked that I be a resource for them as an education [missing text here] as in-closed door and all that. Since then I've been involved - I know most of your operational line people more than -- er -- I know very few grass roots people. I know all of your joint councils and your bishops and your presidents and have done tutoring work with some of them and all that, and so it's kind of a strange relationship that I have with you. And I've been accused of being a closet saint by several of my colleagues and wonder when I'm going to join because I do have a certain kind of fascination with you. And I'll share some of that with you. I'll try to be as honest as i can. I'm not going to do a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of this paper. I don't think it's worth it. I've read it -- you can look at it -- I'm aware of this. And it's going to be somewhat informal. I'm going to try to challenge you some.
I want to make some more general comments about your church. As I see your church you're in a transition. You probably think that you're doing something weird that's never been done before. My regret is that you're doing something that every church like you has always done -- you're doing it just the way they've always done it and you are as predictable as any sociological analysis ever was and I resent it because I think you're unique and I get tired when you're not unique -- so there.
You're in the process of transition from a sect-type to a church-type. You're becoming respectable after a heritage of disrespect. You were outcasts; you were hunted; you were burned out; you were weirdos and you're not weird any more. Most of the people I have [met] are safely, middle-class to upper middle-class, red-white-and blue patriotic, leading in the American dream people. And as you become respectable, you're trying to make your church respected. And in the process of doing that, you are losing your uniqueness, and as you lose your uniqueness, you are losing the very thing in the name of which you've always believed been evangelical. You've always had something unique to sell people that intrigued them, that fascinated them, because you were different. But as you become respectable, some of you are embarrassed - every embarrassed - by the very things that have made you what you are. You're caught, and you don't know whether to give them up. You don't know what to do and you're caught in the middle.
Now, most of you that I know in this transition have wanted to demythologize, take the things that have been unique and demythologize them, translate them in such a way that they are acceptable, that they are modern, and for the most part they are part of the Christian heritage of the middle -- nothing in excess would probably be the characteristic of where you are.
I think that boring. I find that paper boring. It could have been written by Presbyterians or Methodists -- probably not Baptists, but most of the churches at the center could have written just about exactly what you've got. And see, I could deal with Presbyterians and say that's a nice paper, the Christology isn't bad -- a little funny on Zion, and you know the human condition is a little more optimistic than I would like. You know that I could play with the Presbyterians but not you -- you make me angry. You're better than to be like -- I don't want you to be Protestants. We've got more Protestants than we know what to do with. Now please stay out of the Protestant camp and either give up or be who you uniquely are -- that's I guess what I'm saying.
Now what that really means for me is to quit demythologizing, and what I want from you is transfigured re-mythologizing. And what I'd like you to do is to return to the spirit out of which you were founded. I don't mean you have to get all messed over with gold plates and all those kinds of stuff -- I don't mind if you wish to. But somehow you need to go through the literal letter that has offended some of you to create a spirit of how you came into being in the very beginning and then, in the resurrection to re-image what you're about that is more faithful to your uniqueness than some of these qualifications that some of you have been doing battle with.
Now I think -- now I like you better than you like yourselves? I like your heritage better than you like your heritage and i think part of that is because I have a creative distance from you. I don't have to fight all your fights; I don't have to go out to the stakes and mess with some of the trivia that you have to mess with; I don't have to work daily with fundamentalist saints that drive you up a wall and make you, you know, what you are; I don't have to mess with that. So it means I can have a creative distance from your heritage in which I can begin to dream with your heritage. I wish somehow there was some way I could help you back away from your heritage just enough -- this creative distance -- to bring a new appreciation to what you are about.
When I see what you're doing, it's stuff I see all the time -- management by objectives that just kills all that you're doing. There's just middle-class acceptability, middle-class ethos. You're in the midst of a conservative, liberal, radical split that's going to do you in unless you find some way of transcending that issue. But instead you take sides in it and insist on being liberal in the midst of it. I think you've got to transcend it with a new deal because the terms with which you're fighting your battles are past. They aren't creative and I find them boring.
I like your movement into an international focus. There's a tremendous possibility of learning what Zion means as a creative leaven in the midst of these various cultural contexts. The fear I've got is that you'll become more pluralistic and once again lose any focus of what it is you're really about.
I think you're suffering horrendously from small-church inferiority in the light of the church growth movement that is running rampant around the denominations. You're small and that makes you feel inferior so you too are going to sell the least common denominator to get more warm bodies so that you too can feel good if you're doing something significant. And you're losing your salt in the midst of your sale.
I think the key thing that's going on in your church now is that you are on a theological crisis. You really don't know who you are theologically, and because of that you're going to try, by programs, to supplement or to bypass what is really congenitally sick in your hearts. You really should discover the genius and uniqueness and what you should be on fire about as I am on fire about you - I'm excited about you. I don't find you excited about you. No wonder you have trouble selling yourself cause you don't believe it anymore -- that's what I'm sensing from you. And, you know, if you could really get your theological heart together with re-imagings and excitement, the rest is going to take care of itself. But because that's missing then you've got to have programs of this - and that's what your paper says to me in a way that drives me nuts.
Now in terms of the theological crisis I think the place of Joseph Smith - you don't know what to do with Joseph Smith. I think the legitimacy of the Joseph Smith saga is hard for you to know - and what to do with the Book of Mormon is a real cross for you to bear. But I think that mostly what I want to talk to you about is the status of the RLDS doctrines and images that infect you. I think that you're demythologizing things and that's what I want to stop.
Now, let me just look at your paper and then I'm going to tell you where I am. I find that the paper has typical middle-class church goals. Your key is growth and expansion. How unimaginative you can be. You know, it's not like you work for McDonald hamburgers or something. You will not very little sense of faithfulness, commitment - any of those kinds of stuff, very very little. You even choose the liberal theology terms! No wonder your conservatives don't trust you! My goodness, you're not even subtle about it! You know - evangelism for you is care, call and process. You call your program Faith to Grow - we should know that when we water the daisies. It's programmaticly oriented and what I'm saying is that this is theology of the church of the middle. There's very little sense of justice in it. All you want to talk about is reconciliation. There's a linear sense. Your whole movement has been linearity movement, becoming and so on. The emotion is fixed, growing depth of continuity, potential. Somebody has dead processed theology right through this whole thing, realizing the potentiality where you find yourself. There are vague principles - love, peace, equity, harmony - they are your basic principles. You know, it sounds like Unity Village. "The word for today is baloney," that kind of stuff. In fact, there is very little controversial about that whole document except in the face of the conservatives. Then that becomes conservative. Remember the old days of the Protestant church when the Protestants didn't know what they believed; they just knew they hated the Catholics. If the Catholics painted it blue, we like red; if they ere for the Eucharist, we beloved in the Word. You know, without the Roman Catholic Church we couldn't survive because we had to be opposed to something else. And oh, we weren't anything because we didn't stand - I'm beginning to sense this with this - that you make sense only in being anti-conservatives. This document doesn't make any sense without the conservatives that you're trying to either dupe, fool, change, cuddle or evangelize. I doubt it - you know it really doesn't, this is only half of your church. Now I just want to bypass that whole talk you know, and see what we can do.
Now, what I like about you in this document. There's a very open view of scripture, sense of ongoing revelation, there's a very liberal but not a particularly bad view of Zion - and that was good. I think the major thing I liked in that paper was the intensification of the vision of grace. You've been so works-oriented. You've had such a hard time believing in the grace of God who forgives and initiates. That's kind o works-drivenness. I like the feel of grace at the close of that paper, and I think it is something of a new dimension in your heritage and I welcome that. OK, so much for that.
Now, where am I with you? I'd like to talk a little bit about what I see in your heritage that I'm excited about. I'd like to try to excite you about it; I don't see it in the paper very much because when you talk about Zion you really don't get excited about Zion - you try to show that the conservative view of Zion is inadequate. And that's really what this paper is about. Now these are some of the things that I see about your background and your heritage - just excites me with new possibilities. If you'll just come alive and sell it, I'll join because you are what you're supposed to be, the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ in the face of the churches that have lost it. And most have lost it, including you, and the task is the task that Joseph Smith set for you - the restoration of the gospel - to all the church.
One of the key things is certainly Zion. You know it's beautiful and what I like about Zion is the fleshly quality of it. Many people - most theologians talk bout the kingdom and it's very ethereal; it's a principle, you can't get a hand on it. Joseph Smith knew that it had flesh and blood and concrete. It was genuinely incarnational rather than spiritual. He really understood Zion and it really seems to me to be the truth of the Biblical understanding. So when you start talking about Zion for me I think there are five dimensions of it that I see in your heritage that are absolutely essential.
1. One is what I call Zionic Personality. I think (hope) there is such a thing as a human being that's Zionic in nature, and that's what you're talking about when you say sanctification, transformation and so on. You know, is there such a thing as being Zion - it's a matter of being a whole and complete human being. It's to get away from the idea of the Christian faith being spiritual or one dimensional because you're really talking about being to the glory of God, driving to the glory of God [missing text here] talk about what you get away from [missing text here] itself. An upset male, female crying, articulate, you know, the whole human being that we split in half between male and female, feminine and masculine - all that kind of stuff - to really begin to understand what it means to be Zion, to have a Zionic personality, a new person to creative a new human being.
2. Second, Zionic Principles. If somehow you could take the principles of what Zion is all about and begin to place it everywhere - I don't know a whole lot about what you do at the Sanitarium but what a unique place that would be to begin again to talk about preventive health rather than crisis intervention. You talk about wholistic existence; you talk about the spiritual, the physical, the economic, the social - and the medical as part of one who is whole and complete. And what you do is to do medicine by teams not by technology alone, and that's a new approach to one's body, one's self - that's Zionic. That's using the Zionic principles that you can put them into architecture, into law in every dimension of the human being is a cry to be Zionic and what it's about and so on.
3. Third, Zionic Process. I think there is such a thing as a Zionic process. Jesus talked about it and said it was the leaven, the loaf, the seed, the mustard seed, the salt and so on. Learn what it means to be a leavening process in everything that you're about.
4. Fourth, I believe in Zionic community. I believe you need to create communities that are signal beams communities, foretaste communities. TWA does better in creating, corporate, communal, and other kinds of living contexts that appeal to the wholeness of the human spirit; they excite me with what they are doing with mortar and with glass and with sound and so on to instill and make ecstatic the human spirit. OK Zionics, what are you doing? Do you know the condominiums and cardboard boxes and kitchen cabinets of Zion? America is producing homes that frustrate the human spirit. And as the people of Zion, you know. You know in Nauvoo the way in which the street plan was understood. Now America's crying for people like you who have a sense of what that means.
5. Fifth and last, I want to talk about the Zionic Kingdom. You know, I really do want to talk about historic promise. I think what this country has longed for [is] a sense of vision, a sense of promise, a sense of ongoingness - you know there was a call to his nation - it was of a Kingdom nature - we lost it; we don't know where it keeps us going; we don't know if it's going now, but you are the people that believe what the promise of history is for.
But I want to say that without it the Old Testament makes absolutely no sense and the New Testament is baloney!
Some other principles that I see - your of storehouse and stewardship - oh, that's exciting kind of stuff if you get away fro the literal reading of it all. Take a careful look at economic sharing. I think that you are fundamentally socialist at heart. I'd like to see you demonstrate the degree to which "to each according to their ability, from each according to their needs" can become a working way of lifestyle. r country is dying because we have lost it. The storehouse idea.
OK, the idea of ongoing revelation. I think the church is really questionable because we somehow understand revelation as complete and finished. But I think what you do is have a strong doctrine in the Holy Spirit, even at the point of vision, and with that there's the capacity to learn how to discern what the spirit is about. Instead of going back to doctrine go back to this. What you are about is the belief that the Holy Spirit isn't an it; the Holy Spirit is the Living God now in our world, talking to Peter and talking to each one of us; pulling the church, luring the church. It's a matter of discerning at this point in history what the Lord would have your church to be about. You really believe that; you are led by the ongoing word of the Spirit. Your heritage is filled with it.
Fourth, the idea of a chosen people. That's a very biblical understanding that God chooses people for a special purpose. Now what happens is that every time that the chosen people believe that they're the only ones - they can say they are blessed or something of that sort, they relish the benefits God has honored them with. No, God is the one that calls them to death, to cross over, to the Red Sea and to fail.
And I really believe that that's what you're about - you are a chosen and special people - not because you're better but that God has called you to a task that you must do, and if you do nothing then it's against God. I think you're called I really think you're called; I think you're also ashamed of the call.
Next, the whole idea of linear pilgrimage. As I read scripture, what is so important the people of God move. Now when God came to Abram and said saddle up, we're moving out and Abram said where are we going and God said I'll tell you later. That's your heritage. You don't pitch your tents. You're forever moving, living. The whole idea of pilgrimage is so important.
OK, next I like your idea of a disciplined, faithful community. You know - no you don't - you know what the cost of discipleship means.
When Bonhoeffer suffered, you know that the Grace of Jesus Christ is expensive. It will cost you your life before it is done; it costs you money; it costs everything. It is a total way of life. To be bitten by Jesus Christ is a horrendous thing because you have to give your whole life... There is no lukewarm stuff. You get this in one sense in the people who were waiting supposedly for the call to move from Australia to the gathering place. Now what do you want to do with that? Listen to what that is. The willingness to pitch in and lose everything.
OK, the idea of prophetic leaven, that somehow your task is to be taught in being a leaven in every dimension of human life that you're in. Incredible power.
Next, martyrdom. Your church is a martyred church. If any kind of a church should be able to identify with the suffering and oppressed it ought to be you. Because you know what it is to be burned out and raped and have no home. Any idea of how sensitive you can be to the women's issue, the black issue, the liberation stuff.
You ought to have a tremendous sense of compassion about he world's hurt.
OK, next - the whole idea of the kingdom as being of this earth. I think I have mentioned before, Jesus prayed thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. I don't know of any church that has believed that more than you. You went over half this continent trying to find it as a matter of fact.
Next, your passion with and intrigued by and compassion for the native American. I think the Native American people, it's life-style, it's religion, their ecology about the Earth, their sensibility to death and creation, the oneness of spirit and body - the church is crying to discover that. I think you are somewhat unique in having a sensitivity to the part that the native American can play. And I think it goes or can go into your kind of sensitivity to the indigenous cultures of the world. You are more sensitive and more able to relate to them.
There's something about you, and I don't know what it is, that makes you more interested -
Next, you in your heritage have known what it is to be in but not of this world or any world. It doesn't mean you're worldly, but it means that you refuse to be fundamentally American. That's what I call radical monotheism. You refuse all idolness. You haven't always done this well, but in the heart of your faith you will permit no idols. You march to another drummer in the midst of all the people of the world. You were a separate nation, you were a separate people, and you were accountable only to God. That's why kings and queens and so on would come and see you - you have to be dealt directly. They didn't go through the State Department. The State Department had no control over you. You were not of this kind of nation. You were of your own specialty. You were a sanctuary in the midst of insanity in the culture.
Next you have an incredible capacity for full sacramental life. You know most Protestants only have two sacraments and the only reason they have them are they are the only two Jesus is reported to have served. You have many. And I like what is en-christened in your sacraments, that somehow the word of God is to be known and heard and experienced and blessed in the sacrament that is physically affirmed at every defining joint of life, of being, from the beginning to the end. There's the liturgy; there's the marking of passage. There's the whole, whether it's baptism, funeral, or whether it's health or whether it's sexuality - you have an incredibly full and rich sense of the sacramental.
Next, whatever number it is - you've always had a unique concern for the poor in your midst ----
Next, I think you have tried not to have a theology, you have tried to understand what it meant to theologize. For your theology isn't a belief, it is a series of I believe this, I believe that. It seems to me at your heart, it is a total orientation. Your theology is how you do what you do and it's a good thing. It isn't like you got an education and you're got a social this and you've got a religious dimension. Religion is not one dimension of youre life; it 's the total oriented program. It's what you really are.
Next, I'm almost done -- I like you; I like what you are about. It's your mission to all the church. The whole idea of restoration to me is the fact that in one sense your mission is to the world but in another sense your mission to the faithful. To the fact that they are in a state of apostasy, and therefore a willingness on your part to move your life in the tasks set out for you. Restoration is the name of the game. It doesn't mean that you're to be restored; it means that your task is to see that the church is restored with the hope that in restoration you won't be needed by God anymore. It is your willingness to empty yourself for the sake of the restoration, of the total giving, nothing restored in place of this.
Next, you seem to have a unique capacity for the aesthetic. I don't understand that. I don't know where that comes from exactly. Maybe it is because for you body is always spirit in a sense that cement and bricks always are to the glory of God.
That's part of you, that's important. I don't know why, but to have great ... and so on - it's to be a saint - that's all, whatever it is.
----
Professor Paul Jones was asked by Peter Judd in May of 1980 to share his reactions to the subject paper regarding the "Faith to Grow" program. He has/had been used by the Church for 10 to 12 years, as a resource person in the field of religion.
The paper, "Foundation for the Eighties" is a very diluted form of the Gospel as revealed to the Church through the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. in the 1800's. The paper was delivered by Clifford Cole.
Professor Jones after having worked with the Church of several years, knew the complete background int he preparation of the subject paper. The paper itself does not take a stand as forcibly as he does in his critique. The background for the above paper can be found in the Position Papers (1967) and the Presidential Papers (1979).
He accuses the church leaders of losing their uniqueness. He indicated that many of them are embarrassed - very embarrassed by the very things that made them what they are. And as he makes his remarks, he finds them boring in their approach. He indicates the "Paper" could have been written by Presbyterians or Methodists. He suggests that they should reverse their course of activity or they could run their vessel ashore. They are in complete perplexity about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith Jr.
What can we do as we read this report? Bear your testimony, be vocal and demand that the truth be taught and adhered to!
I don't agree with everything Professor Jones said. I didn't post this to lift him up but in hopes that people will read this and think about what's happened with the Community of Christ and Restoration Branches movement today. What a different path we could have followed if we had kept steadfast in what made us who we are! It is this unique RLDS position he mentions that is important to Devon Park, that makes us willing to risk everything to keep the name of the church. It is the unique RLDS position that the Community of Christ leadership want to destroy - to make illegal, and it appears that they will stop at nothing to accomplish this.
Despite how black things look right now, I believe that the church will be organized again. I have no doubt about that right now. As we move forward, I hope we remember our first love and do not become lukewarm or lose touch with what makes us who we are.
Professor Paul Jones - May, 1980
Professor Paul Jones was employed by the RLDS church for an in-depth Survey and Report, and Progress of New Curriculum and Research of Paper.
The following report was transcribed from a tape made at the meeting in which Professor Jones presented his findings to the Presidency, Apostles, Bishops and other personnel.
Judd: . . . I thought it would be interesting to all of [us] to hear his reactions to the paper that was delivered to us in March. The Foundation for the Eighties which I guess has since been revised and condensed into an outline, but still is being used as a basis of the church program for the 1980s. So I have asked Paul to begin a discussion by sharing with us what he feels about the paper. Paul has had exposure to RLDS people for ten or fifteen years and for some reason finds us interesting. He has been involved with a variety of RLDS people and so I think this will be an interesting session.
Jones: OK. Let me tell you what I've done. Do you know who I am at all? I teach at St. Paul School of Theology and my field is Philosophical Theology. I've worked with your church - twelve years ago in the Joint Council asked that I be a resource for them as an education [missing text here] as in-closed door and all that. Since then I've been involved - I know most of your operational line people more than -- er -- I know very few grass roots people. I know all of your joint councils and your bishops and your presidents and have done tutoring work with some of them and all that, and so it's kind of a strange relationship that I have with you. And I've been accused of being a closet saint by several of my colleagues and wonder when I'm going to join because I do have a certain kind of fascination with you. And I'll share some of that with you. I'll try to be as honest as i can. I'm not going to do a paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of this paper. I don't think it's worth it. I've read it -- you can look at it -- I'm aware of this. And it's going to be somewhat informal. I'm going to try to challenge you some.
I want to make some more general comments about your church. As I see your church you're in a transition. You probably think that you're doing something weird that's never been done before. My regret is that you're doing something that every church like you has always done -- you're doing it just the way they've always done it and you are as predictable as any sociological analysis ever was and I resent it because I think you're unique and I get tired when you're not unique -- so there.
You're in the process of transition from a sect-type to a church-type. You're becoming respectable after a heritage of disrespect. You were outcasts; you were hunted; you were burned out; you were weirdos and you're not weird any more. Most of the people I have [met] are safely, middle-class to upper middle-class, red-white-and blue patriotic, leading in the American dream people. And as you become respectable, you're trying to make your church respected. And in the process of doing that, you are losing your uniqueness, and as you lose your uniqueness, you are losing the very thing in the name of which you've always believed been evangelical. You've always had something unique to sell people that intrigued them, that fascinated them, because you were different. But as you become respectable, some of you are embarrassed - every embarrassed - by the very things that have made you what you are. You're caught, and you don't know whether to give them up. You don't know what to do and you're caught in the middle.
Now, most of you that I know in this transition have wanted to demythologize, take the things that have been unique and demythologize them, translate them in such a way that they are acceptable, that they are modern, and for the most part they are part of the Christian heritage of the middle -- nothing in excess would probably be the characteristic of where you are.
I think that boring. I find that paper boring. It could have been written by Presbyterians or Methodists -- probably not Baptists, but most of the churches at the center could have written just about exactly what you've got. And see, I could deal with Presbyterians and say that's a nice paper, the Christology isn't bad -- a little funny on Zion, and you know the human condition is a little more optimistic than I would like. You know that I could play with the Presbyterians but not you -- you make me angry. You're better than to be like -- I don't want you to be Protestants. We've got more Protestants than we know what to do with. Now please stay out of the Protestant camp and either give up or be who you uniquely are -- that's I guess what I'm saying.
Now what that really means for me is to quit demythologizing, and what I want from you is transfigured re-mythologizing. And what I'd like you to do is to return to the spirit out of which you were founded. I don't mean you have to get all messed over with gold plates and all those kinds of stuff -- I don't mind if you wish to. But somehow you need to go through the literal letter that has offended some of you to create a spirit of how you came into being in the very beginning and then, in the resurrection to re-image what you're about that is more faithful to your uniqueness than some of these qualifications that some of you have been doing battle with.
Now I think -- now I like you better than you like yourselves? I like your heritage better than you like your heritage and i think part of that is because I have a creative distance from you. I don't have to fight all your fights; I don't have to go out to the stakes and mess with some of the trivia that you have to mess with; I don't have to work daily with fundamentalist saints that drive you up a wall and make you, you know, what you are; I don't have to mess with that. So it means I can have a creative distance from your heritage in which I can begin to dream with your heritage. I wish somehow there was some way I could help you back away from your heritage just enough -- this creative distance -- to bring a new appreciation to what you are about.
When I see what you're doing, it's stuff I see all the time -- management by objectives that just kills all that you're doing. There's just middle-class acceptability, middle-class ethos. You're in the midst of a conservative, liberal, radical split that's going to do you in unless you find some way of transcending that issue. But instead you take sides in it and insist on being liberal in the midst of it. I think you've got to transcend it with a new deal because the terms with which you're fighting your battles are past. They aren't creative and I find them boring.
I like your movement into an international focus. There's a tremendous possibility of learning what Zion means as a creative leaven in the midst of these various cultural contexts. The fear I've got is that you'll become more pluralistic and once again lose any focus of what it is you're really about.
I think you're suffering horrendously from small-church inferiority in the light of the church growth movement that is running rampant around the denominations. You're small and that makes you feel inferior so you too are going to sell the least common denominator to get more warm bodies so that you too can feel good if you're doing something significant. And you're losing your salt in the midst of your sale.
I think the key thing that's going on in your church now is that you are on a theological crisis. You really don't know who you are theologically, and because of that you're going to try, by programs, to supplement or to bypass what is really congenitally sick in your hearts. You really should discover the genius and uniqueness and what you should be on fire about as I am on fire about you - I'm excited about you. I don't find you excited about you. No wonder you have trouble selling yourself cause you don't believe it anymore -- that's what I'm sensing from you. And, you know, if you could really get your theological heart together with re-imagings and excitement, the rest is going to take care of itself. But because that's missing then you've got to have programs of this - and that's what your paper says to me in a way that drives me nuts.
Now in terms of the theological crisis I think the place of Joseph Smith - you don't know what to do with Joseph Smith. I think the legitimacy of the Joseph Smith saga is hard for you to know - and what to do with the Book of Mormon is a real cross for you to bear. But I think that mostly what I want to talk to you about is the status of the RLDS doctrines and images that infect you. I think that you're demythologizing things and that's what I want to stop.
Now, let me just look at your paper and then I'm going to tell you where I am. I find that the paper has typical middle-class church goals. Your key is growth and expansion. How unimaginative you can be. You know, it's not like you work for McDonald hamburgers or something. You will not very little sense of faithfulness, commitment - any of those kinds of stuff, very very little. You even choose the liberal theology terms! No wonder your conservatives don't trust you! My goodness, you're not even subtle about it! You know - evangelism for you is care, call and process. You call your program Faith to Grow - we should know that when we water the daisies. It's programmaticly oriented and what I'm saying is that this is theology of the church of the middle. There's very little sense of justice in it. All you want to talk about is reconciliation. There's a linear sense. Your whole movement has been linearity movement, becoming and so on. The emotion is fixed, growing depth of continuity, potential. Somebody has dead processed theology right through this whole thing, realizing the potentiality where you find yourself. There are vague principles - love, peace, equity, harmony - they are your basic principles. You know, it sounds like Unity Village. "The word for today is baloney," that kind of stuff. In fact, there is very little controversial about that whole document except in the face of the conservatives. Then that becomes conservative. Remember the old days of the Protestant church when the Protestants didn't know what they believed; they just knew they hated the Catholics. If the Catholics painted it blue, we like red; if they ere for the Eucharist, we beloved in the Word. You know, without the Roman Catholic Church we couldn't survive because we had to be opposed to something else. And oh, we weren't anything because we didn't stand - I'm beginning to sense this with this - that you make sense only in being anti-conservatives. This document doesn't make any sense without the conservatives that you're trying to either dupe, fool, change, cuddle or evangelize. I doubt it - you know it really doesn't, this is only half of your church. Now I just want to bypass that whole talk you know, and see what we can do.
Now, what I like about you in this document. There's a very open view of scripture, sense of ongoing revelation, there's a very liberal but not a particularly bad view of Zion - and that was good. I think the major thing I liked in that paper was the intensification of the vision of grace. You've been so works-oriented. You've had such a hard time believing in the grace of God who forgives and initiates. That's kind o works-drivenness. I like the feel of grace at the close of that paper, and I think it is something of a new dimension in your heritage and I welcome that. OK, so much for that.
Now, where am I with you? I'd like to talk a little bit about what I see in your heritage that I'm excited about. I'd like to try to excite you about it; I don't see it in the paper very much because when you talk about Zion you really don't get excited about Zion - you try to show that the conservative view of Zion is inadequate. And that's really what this paper is about. Now these are some of the things that I see about your background and your heritage - just excites me with new possibilities. If you'll just come alive and sell it, I'll join because you are what you're supposed to be, the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ in the face of the churches that have lost it. And most have lost it, including you, and the task is the task that Joseph Smith set for you - the restoration of the gospel - to all the church.
One of the key things is certainly Zion. You know it's beautiful and what I like about Zion is the fleshly quality of it. Many people - most theologians talk bout the kingdom and it's very ethereal; it's a principle, you can't get a hand on it. Joseph Smith knew that it had flesh and blood and concrete. It was genuinely incarnational rather than spiritual. He really understood Zion and it really seems to me to be the truth of the Biblical understanding. So when you start talking about Zion for me I think there are five dimensions of it that I see in your heritage that are absolutely essential.
1. One is what I call Zionic Personality. I think (hope) there is such a thing as a human being that's Zionic in nature, and that's what you're talking about when you say sanctification, transformation and so on. You know, is there such a thing as being Zion - it's a matter of being a whole and complete human being. It's to get away from the idea of the Christian faith being spiritual or one dimensional because you're really talking about being to the glory of God, driving to the glory of God [missing text here] talk about what you get away from [missing text here] itself. An upset male, female crying, articulate, you know, the whole human being that we split in half between male and female, feminine and masculine - all that kind of stuff - to really begin to understand what it means to be Zion, to have a Zionic personality, a new person to creative a new human being.
2. Second, Zionic Principles. If somehow you could take the principles of what Zion is all about and begin to place it everywhere - I don't know a whole lot about what you do at the Sanitarium but what a unique place that would be to begin again to talk about preventive health rather than crisis intervention. You talk about wholistic existence; you talk about the spiritual, the physical, the economic, the social - and the medical as part of one who is whole and complete. And what you do is to do medicine by teams not by technology alone, and that's a new approach to one's body, one's self - that's Zionic. That's using the Zionic principles that you can put them into architecture, into law in every dimension of the human being is a cry to be Zionic and what it's about and so on.
3. Third, Zionic Process. I think there is such a thing as a Zionic process. Jesus talked about it and said it was the leaven, the loaf, the seed, the mustard seed, the salt and so on. Learn what it means to be a leavening process in everything that you're about.
4. Fourth, I believe in Zionic community. I believe you need to create communities that are signal beams communities, foretaste communities. TWA does better in creating, corporate, communal, and other kinds of living contexts that appeal to the wholeness of the human spirit; they excite me with what they are doing with mortar and with glass and with sound and so on to instill and make ecstatic the human spirit. OK Zionics, what are you doing? Do you know the condominiums and cardboard boxes and kitchen cabinets of Zion? America is producing homes that frustrate the human spirit. And as the people of Zion, you know. You know in Nauvoo the way in which the street plan was understood. Now America's crying for people like you who have a sense of what that means.
5. Fifth and last, I want to talk about the Zionic Kingdom. You know, I really do want to talk about historic promise. I think what this country has longed for [is] a sense of vision, a sense of promise, a sense of ongoingness - you know there was a call to his nation - it was of a Kingdom nature - we lost it; we don't know where it keeps us going; we don't know if it's going now, but you are the people that believe what the promise of history is for.
But I want to say that without it the Old Testament makes absolutely no sense and the New Testament is baloney!
Some other principles that I see - your of storehouse and stewardship - oh, that's exciting kind of stuff if you get away fro the literal reading of it all. Take a careful look at economic sharing. I think that you are fundamentally socialist at heart. I'd like to see you demonstrate the degree to which "to each according to their ability, from each according to their needs" can become a working way of lifestyle. r country is dying because we have lost it. The storehouse idea.
OK, the idea of ongoing revelation. I think the church is really questionable because we somehow understand revelation as complete and finished. But I think what you do is have a strong doctrine in the Holy Spirit, even at the point of vision, and with that there's the capacity to learn how to discern what the spirit is about. Instead of going back to doctrine go back to this. What you are about is the belief that the Holy Spirit isn't an it; the Holy Spirit is the Living God now in our world, talking to Peter and talking to each one of us; pulling the church, luring the church. It's a matter of discerning at this point in history what the Lord would have your church to be about. You really believe that; you are led by the ongoing word of the Spirit. Your heritage is filled with it.
Fourth, the idea of a chosen people. That's a very biblical understanding that God chooses people for a special purpose. Now what happens is that every time that the chosen people believe that they're the only ones - they can say they are blessed or something of that sort, they relish the benefits God has honored them with. No, God is the one that calls them to death, to cross over, to the Red Sea and to fail.
And I really believe that that's what you're about - you are a chosen and special people - not because you're better but that God has called you to a task that you must do, and if you do nothing then it's against God. I think you're called I really think you're called; I think you're also ashamed of the call.
Next, the whole idea of linear pilgrimage. As I read scripture, what is so important the people of God move. Now when God came to Abram and said saddle up, we're moving out and Abram said where are we going and God said I'll tell you later. That's your heritage. You don't pitch your tents. You're forever moving, living. The whole idea of pilgrimage is so important.
OK, next I like your idea of a disciplined, faithful community. You know - no you don't - you know what the cost of discipleship means.
When Bonhoeffer suffered, you know that the Grace of Jesus Christ is expensive. It will cost you your life before it is done; it costs you money; it costs everything. It is a total way of life. To be bitten by Jesus Christ is a horrendous thing because you have to give your whole life... There is no lukewarm stuff. You get this in one sense in the people who were waiting supposedly for the call to move from Australia to the gathering place. Now what do you want to do with that? Listen to what that is. The willingness to pitch in and lose everything.
OK, the idea of prophetic leaven, that somehow your task is to be taught in being a leaven in every dimension of human life that you're in. Incredible power.
Next, martyrdom. Your church is a martyred church. If any kind of a church should be able to identify with the suffering and oppressed it ought to be you. Because you know what it is to be burned out and raped and have no home. Any idea of how sensitive you can be to the women's issue, the black issue, the liberation stuff.
You ought to have a tremendous sense of compassion about he world's hurt.
OK, next - the whole idea of the kingdom as being of this earth. I think I have mentioned before, Jesus prayed thy kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. I don't know of any church that has believed that more than you. You went over half this continent trying to find it as a matter of fact.
Next, your passion with and intrigued by and compassion for the native American. I think the Native American people, it's life-style, it's religion, their ecology about the Earth, their sensibility to death and creation, the oneness of spirit and body - the church is crying to discover that. I think you are somewhat unique in having a sensitivity to the part that the native American can play. And I think it goes or can go into your kind of sensitivity to the indigenous cultures of the world. You are more sensitive and more able to relate to them.
There's something about you, and I don't know what it is, that makes you more interested -
Next, you in your heritage have known what it is to be in but not of this world or any world. It doesn't mean you're worldly, but it means that you refuse to be fundamentally American. That's what I call radical monotheism. You refuse all idolness. You haven't always done this well, but in the heart of your faith you will permit no idols. You march to another drummer in the midst of all the people of the world. You were a separate nation, you were a separate people, and you were accountable only to God. That's why kings and queens and so on would come and see you - you have to be dealt directly. They didn't go through the State Department. The State Department had no control over you. You were not of this kind of nation. You were of your own specialty. You were a sanctuary in the midst of insanity in the culture.
Next you have an incredible capacity for full sacramental life. You know most Protestants only have two sacraments and the only reason they have them are they are the only two Jesus is reported to have served. You have many. And I like what is en-christened in your sacraments, that somehow the word of God is to be known and heard and experienced and blessed in the sacrament that is physically affirmed at every defining joint of life, of being, from the beginning to the end. There's the liturgy; there's the marking of passage. There's the whole, whether it's baptism, funeral, or whether it's health or whether it's sexuality - you have an incredibly full and rich sense of the sacramental.
Next, whatever number it is - you've always had a unique concern for the poor in your midst ----
Next, I think you have tried not to have a theology, you have tried to understand what it meant to theologize. For your theology isn't a belief, it is a series of I believe this, I believe that. It seems to me at your heart, it is a total orientation. Your theology is how you do what you do and it's a good thing. It isn't like you got an education and you're got a social this and you've got a religious dimension. Religion is not one dimension of youre life; it 's the total oriented program. It's what you really are.
Next, I'm almost done -- I like you; I like what you are about. It's your mission to all the church. The whole idea of restoration to me is the fact that in one sense your mission is to the world but in another sense your mission to the faithful. To the fact that they are in a state of apostasy, and therefore a willingness on your part to move your life in the tasks set out for you. Restoration is the name of the game. It doesn't mean that you're to be restored; it means that your task is to see that the church is restored with the hope that in restoration you won't be needed by God anymore. It is your willingness to empty yourself for the sake of the restoration, of the total giving, nothing restored in place of this.
Next, you seem to have a unique capacity for the aesthetic. I don't understand that. I don't know where that comes from exactly. Maybe it is because for you body is always spirit in a sense that cement and bricks always are to the glory of God.
That's part of you, that's important. I don't know why, but to have great ... and so on - it's to be a saint - that's all, whatever it is.
----
Professor Paul Jones was asked by Peter Judd in May of 1980 to share his reactions to the subject paper regarding the "Faith to Grow" program. He has/had been used by the Church for 10 to 12 years, as a resource person in the field of religion.
The paper, "Foundation for the Eighties" is a very diluted form of the Gospel as revealed to the Church through the Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. in the 1800's. The paper was delivered by Clifford Cole.
Professor Jones after having worked with the Church of several years, knew the complete background int he preparation of the subject paper. The paper itself does not take a stand as forcibly as he does in his critique. The background for the above paper can be found in the Position Papers (1967) and the Presidential Papers (1979).
He accuses the church leaders of losing their uniqueness. He indicated that many of them are embarrassed - very embarrassed by the very things that made them what they are. And as he makes his remarks, he finds them boring in their approach. He indicates the "Paper" could have been written by Presbyterians or Methodists. He suggests that they should reverse their course of activity or they could run their vessel ashore. They are in complete perplexity about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith Jr.
What can we do as we read this report? Bear your testimony, be vocal and demand that the truth be taught and adhered to!
I don't agree with everything Professor Jones said. I didn't post this to lift him up but in hopes that people will read this and think about what's happened with the Community of Christ and Restoration Branches movement today. What a different path we could have followed if we had kept steadfast in what made us who we are! It is this unique RLDS position he mentions that is important to Devon Park, that makes us willing to risk everything to keep the name of the church. It is the unique RLDS position that the Community of Christ leadership want to destroy - to make illegal, and it appears that they will stop at nothing to accomplish this.
Despite how black things look right now, I believe that the church will be organized again. I have no doubt about that right now. As we move forward, I hope we remember our first love and do not become lukewarm or lose touch with what makes us who we are.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
A new Independence Examiner story spreads false information - Again!
Several times the newspapers have reported that the battle is over. Over and over again they've gotten the facts wrong. Not every story has been altogether false but today's story "Church loses appeal in suit to use RLDS name and logos" certainly is. We've only just filed the appeal, we haven't lost it! But of course, if it's in the newspaper, it must be true.
The story also basically says our claim that the CoC's only communication with us has been legal threats is false because they sent us a letter. The letter that the story refers to was a cease and desist letter. That's what a legal threat is! There has been no negotiation or two-way communication, not because channels have been closed on our end but because channels have been closed on their end. That's the truth, which this story spins and distorts beyond recognition.
The point of this propaganda campaign that the CoC's public relations people have been running since this began is to make sure we can't raise the money to actually mount a defense. People naturally don't want to back a losing cause, so the opposition has done their best to get the newspapers reporting that we've lost every few months which they've been doing since the preliminary injunction.
We're not going to let this stop us. This Saturday, an event is being held to raise money for our legal defense fund. Click here for details.
Also my mom (Holly McLean) has written a piece about why the name of the church is important to us that I hope people will read and consider.
The story also basically says our claim that the CoC's only communication with us has been legal threats is false because they sent us a letter. The letter that the story refers to was a cease and desist letter. That's what a legal threat is! There has been no negotiation or two-way communication, not because channels have been closed on our end but because channels have been closed on their end. That's the truth, which this story spins and distorts beyond recognition.
The point of this propaganda campaign that the CoC's public relations people have been running since this began is to make sure we can't raise the money to actually mount a defense. People naturally don't want to back a losing cause, so the opposition has done their best to get the newspapers reporting that we've lost every few months which they've been doing since the preliminary injunction.
We're not going to let this stop us. This Saturday, an event is being held to raise money for our legal defense fund. Click here for details.
Also my mom (Holly McLean) has written a piece about why the name of the church is important to us that I hope people will read and consider.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Independence Examiner story & JCRB proposals
Yesterday, on the front page of the Examiner, "World Conference: Converts welcome without rebaptism". Nothing unexpected there, I suppose. I don't subscribe to the Examiner so my apologies for not getting this up till today.
Devon Park has recently elected a new pastor, Paul Sinclair, and has submitted the following resolutions to the Joint Conference of Restoration Branches that will meet next week.
Devon Park has recently elected a new pastor, Paul Sinclair, and has submitted the following resolutions to the Joint Conference of Restoration Branches that will meet next week.
Open Invitation to All Believers of the Original Doctrines of the RLDS Church
Submitted by Devon Park Branch
Whereas, the JCRB is a conference that has an ultimate goal of bringing about the Kingdom of God through the blessings of the Lord and the members of His church, and
Whereas, the JCRB invites all who believe in the doctrines received from God through Joseph Smith, Jr and continued through Joseph Smith III, and
Whereas, the church has been fractured in many places and scattered because of the lack of spiritual instruction, study of the scriptures and church history, and the acceptance of doctrines contrary to the original teachings of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and
Whereas, this conference wishes to continue to re-establish a working relationship with all those who hold to the original doctrines whether they still be participating in the Community of Christ or currently not attending a branch and may have been lost in “the dark and cloudy day” that has recently beset us, and
Whereas, some of these members are still in the Community of Christ and are possibly now seeking a home where they can begin to work toward these like goals and realizing the false doctrines such as women in the priesthood, open communion and other doctrines that have been taught and propagated within the COC, and
Whereas, many of these members have been confused, yet trying to find the way God would have them go and now seek to find like believers who want to worship and build up the Kingdom together with others of like mind,
Therefore be it resolved, that the JCRB publish an open letter on its website and in its magazine publications in the next few months that invites members of the COC who are trying to make or have made a decision to leave it, and are looking for a place to go that teaches and practices the original doctrines of the RLDS church, to come and join with us in unity of purpose.
Letter of Invitation to CRE and POZ
Submitted by Devon Park Branch
Whereas, the Lord has said that, ‘If ye are not one, ye are not mine.” (D&C 38:27) and,
Whereas, one of the main goals of the JCRB is to give voice and vote to all members of the church including all priesthood with authority given through the heritage of angelic ministry and all members with authoritative baptism, and
Whereas, our goal is to unify the branches and individual members who wish to build up the Kingdom of God on earth through the laws and doctrines received from God through Joseph Smith, Jr. and continued through Joseph Smith, III, and
Whereas, there are several groups at this time who claim to have these same goals but in recent years have become distanced from one another and from the JCRB for various reasons, and
Whereas, the only actions this body of saints (the JCRB) can take in meeting our goal of unity is to continually pray and invite our brothers and sisters to join us and request that all saints everywhere be discouraged from rhetoric and actions that cause division among the saints and instead encourage all saints to be unified and of one body,
Therefore be it resolved, that the JCRB extend the hand of fellowship by sending an open letter of invitation from this body to the Pastors of Zion and the Conference of Restoration Elders to join together in unity of purpose, asking them to adopt a policy of unity among the saints and to reject any rhetoric of division, and
Be it further resolved, that this letter be written, sent and published by the end of April 2010, and be updated, published and sent again before the 2011 CRE conference.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
"Community of Christ - Finding Peace" video
Using Google's new "Search Stories" tool, I have created a short video of some Google searches related to the story of this lawsuit.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Community of "Peace" Uses Trademark Case to Punish Followers of Traditional RLDS Doctrines
Click here to read the latest Devon Park press release.
It has come to my attention that a small minority of participants in the Joint Conference of Restoration Branches have made proposals hostile to CoC members which will have to be voted on at the upcoming JCRB General Conference. (April 18th-24th) I know that the vast majority of people there, including myself, don't want these hostilities and are glad to welcome any legitimately baptized member of the church including CoC members and I do not believe this will change, ever. The inclusive policy of the JCRB is one of the main things that I believe makes it a legitimate general conference. It is different from any other previous organization of the kind because of it's consistent refusal to stoop to the level of excluding anyone just because we don't like them, don't like some organization they're with or don't agree with their ideas. Every other similar effort has failed to keep this high standard of inclusiveness. We aren't called to be Keeping People Out but instead to be Bringing People In. Too many RLDS folks have forgotten that.
I think what the church ultimately needs is a revival, based on teaching the fundamentals. Of RLDS church doctrine. Which, of course, we can't do publicly at present because of the court order.
It has come to my attention that a small minority of participants in the Joint Conference of Restoration Branches have made proposals hostile to CoC members which will have to be voted on at the upcoming JCRB General Conference. (April 18th-24th) I know that the vast majority of people there, including myself, don't want these hostilities and are glad to welcome any legitimately baptized member of the church including CoC members and I do not believe this will change, ever. The inclusive policy of the JCRB is one of the main things that I believe makes it a legitimate general conference. It is different from any other previous organization of the kind because of it's consistent refusal to stoop to the level of excluding anyone just because we don't like them, don't like some organization they're with or don't agree with their ideas. Every other similar effort has failed to keep this high standard of inclusiveness. We aren't called to be Keeping People Out but instead to be Bringing People In. Too many RLDS folks have forgotten that.
I think what the church ultimately needs is a revival, based on teaching the fundamentals. Of RLDS church doctrine. Which, of course, we can't do publicly at present because of the court order.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Judge orders Devon Park to pay CoC's attorney's fees
Here is the order made by the judge on Wednesday which orders us to pay them $348,184.19. I can tell you right now that this is a logical impossibility that will not happen because no such sum exists in the real world. It's not as if this money is in a bank account somewhere and we can pay it. This is just the judge going along with the CoC's attempt to shut us down completely, which is what this lawsuit has been about from day 1.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Search the scriptures? OK!
(continued from "New False Revelation Justifies Furthering Community of Christ Leadership's Radical Agenda") From Veazey's "Counsel to the Church":
Well, first of all, there is the seventh commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery." The Bible also says that homosexual practices are an abomination worthy of the death penalty under the Mosaic law. Romans 1:26-27 confirms that the practices are still considered, "unseemly" in the New Testament. 1 Corintians 6:9 says that "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind" (The NIV comes right out and says "homosexual offenders") will inherit the Kingdom.
Fornication is also forbidden in Scripture. Here is what Jesus had to say on the subject of marriage, divorce and gender identities:
The vast majority of references take a very strict line about these issues. But lest any should fear that their situation is beyond hope, no study of these issues from the Bible could be complete without John chapter 8, where Jesus puts all these things into perspective:
So whence come the arising questions? From where do they arise? I'll tell you where - it's from the far left wing social agenda of the Community of Christ leadership who advocate keeping the church's policy on this out of the hands of the people and up to the World Church officers in order to create "a new community of tolerance" by which they mean, one which accepts openly homosexual individuals in the priesthood and justifies any form of sexuality whatsoever as long as it's regarded not on a basis of right and wrong but instead on the basis of whether it's "responsible" or "irresponsible." This is a standard with no scriptural support which different people will define in different ways, rendering it meaningless.
As Devon Park branch has recently experienced, the modern definition of the word, "tolerance" is actually, "A feeling of extreme (often violent) hatred toward anyone perceived to be intolerant." Liberty, charity and justice are the real virtues, of which the modern conception of "tolerance" is an impostor. Veazey's use of the word in a supposed revelation from god is designed to lull people into acceptance of a whole range of modern philosophical ideas which are totally incompatible with Biblical teaching.
"If the church more fully will understand and consistently apply these principles, questions arising about responsible human sexuality, gender identities, roles, and relationships; marriage; and other issues may be resolved according to God’s divine purposes. Be assured, nothing within these principles condones selfish, irresponsible, promiscuous, degrading, or abusive relationships.Even though I believe the overall document to be false, I hope people will actually do what this part of it says. For what do the Scriptures, in fact, say about issues of responsible human sexuality, gender identities, roles, relationships, marriage, divorce, fornication, adultery and homosexuality?
Faced with difficult questions, many properly turn to scripture to find insight and inspiration. Search the scriptures for the Living Word that brings life, healing, and hope to all. Embrace and proclaim these liberating truths."
Well, first of all, there is the seventh commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery." The Bible also says that homosexual practices are an abomination worthy of the death penalty under the Mosaic law. Romans 1:26-27 confirms that the practices are still considered, "unseemly" in the New Testament. 1 Corintians 6:9 says that "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind" (The NIV comes right out and says "homosexual offenders") will inherit the Kingdom.
Fornication is also forbidden in Scripture. Here is what Jesus had to say on the subject of marriage, divorce and gender identities:
KJV Matthew 19:3-9As to gender identities, Esphesians 5, Colossians 3 and 1 Peter all three affirm that husbands are to be the leaders in the homes. Why doesn't the church teach this?
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
The vast majority of references take a very strict line about these issues. But lest any should fear that their situation is beyond hope, no study of these issues from the Bible could be complete without John chapter 8, where Jesus puts all these things into perspective:
KJV John 8:Some Biblical scholars debate whether this particular passage was in the original documents. But that shouldn't be an issue for Reorganized Latter Day Saints because it's in the Inspired Version too as are all the above references. (If you find one I've missed, please let me know!) So Jesus Himself recognized that even though we shouldn't stone people, adultery is still sin. I think you could easily substitute anyone having committed any of the various forms of this type of sin for the woman caught in adultery. The church's message to them should not be utter condemnation but simply "Go, sin no more." This, of course, necessitates a recognition that the behavior in question is, in fact, sin.
1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
So whence come the arising questions? From where do they arise? I'll tell you where - it's from the far left wing social agenda of the Community of Christ leadership who advocate keeping the church's policy on this out of the hands of the people and up to the World Church officers in order to create "a new community of tolerance" by which they mean, one which accepts openly homosexual individuals in the priesthood and justifies any form of sexuality whatsoever as long as it's regarded not on a basis of right and wrong but instead on the basis of whether it's "responsible" or "irresponsible." This is a standard with no scriptural support which different people will define in different ways, rendering it meaningless.
As Devon Park branch has recently experienced, the modern definition of the word, "tolerance" is actually, "A feeling of extreme (often violent) hatred toward anyone perceived to be intolerant." Liberty, charity and justice are the real virtues, of which the modern conception of "tolerance" is an impostor. Veazey's use of the word in a supposed revelation from god is designed to lull people into acceptance of a whole range of modern philosophical ideas which are totally incompatible with Biblical teaching.
Monday, January 18, 2010
New False Revelation Justifies Furthering Community of Christ Leadership's Radical Agenda
I have already mentioned that the Community of Christ's leadership were planning to pursue further changes to lead their organization even further away from the gospel of the Kingdom. As of yesterday, if any doubt remains in anyone's mind on that point, it should now be dispelled. Their prophet, Steve Veazey, has come out with a new and obviously false revelation that eliminates essential doctrines of the early church in favor of "anything goes" liberal theology where god can change his mind to whatever society happens to think at the moment. The time at which it has come forward is obviously the result of a political calculation to take care of as much of the flack / fallout / response to this as possible before their world conference so it will be accepted with a minimum of resistance. All those who were kicked out of the church in the 1980s for standing firm on the original tenets can now say, "See I told you so" about the slippery slope argument. Abandoning one essential doctrine easily leads to abandoning another and another until you have no principles left at all.
Revelation is not meant to be the result of polling to find out which doctrines were likely to go down well.
From the supposed revelation:
Even putting aside the specific question of rebaptism for the moment, can God behave in the way this revelation describes? Not according to the Bible, which the CoC describes as, "the central book of scripture for the church." (source) So I guess we're supposed to ignore the multiple references in the Book of Mormon and earlier revelations in the Doctrine & Covenants that contradict this. Even in that case, this claim that God can change His mind is still is directly contrary to scripture! See the references below:
THIS NEW DOCUMENT IS NOT A REVELATION FROM GOD for it has God turning around 180 degrees from anything previously said on the subject. Attempting to show that this is in any way consistent with any previous revelation is like trying to show that black is white - it can't be done.
Baptism is the third of the six fundamental principles of the gospel found in Hebrews 6. The position of the RLDS church has always been that RLDS priesthood had the only legitimate authority from God to perform the ordinances of the church (including baptism) and that ministers of the vast majority of other churches in the world did not have this authority, as they were either never ordained or their ordination was not by individuals who themselves had the authority. The authority to preform legitimate ordinances depends on having an unbroken chain of priesthood ordinations which goes back to Christ Himself. So what this amounts to is a fundamental denial of what Joseph Smith Jr. was told by the Lord in the grove, that all the other churches were, "all wrong." (source)
Now either that statement by the Lord is true, or else it is false. If you believe that it is true, you cannot be consistent in believing in this new revelation of Steve Veazey's, for it is a direct denial of that earlier doctrine. From the new document:
The trouble with this is what "all committed followers of Christ" means. The RLDS position has always been "closed-communionist." We believe that the communion is a remembrance of the covenant made between the individual and the Lord in baptism. Veazey's position here is a logical extension of the premise that any church's authority is just as good as another's. So as long as even one Universalist or easy-believism Protestant church exists, "commited followers of Christ" means, simply, anyone. Anyone at all. Communion thus will no longer be a remembrance of an earlier covenant made on an individual level, but simply a community pageant that re-enacts the Last Supper. I can understand how people outside the church might not realize what a huge change this is, but the bottom line is that RLDS closed-communionism has been the position in the past, based on the Book of Mormon, and now the Book of Mormon's commandment on this issue is being ignored.
This reference clearly shows that to partake of the communion, a person had to be baptized. Not anymore, thanks to Steve Veazey who we all know is sooooo much more in touch with the Lord than Nephi or Joseph Smith Jr.
More on this later.
(later edit) This post is continued in, "Search the scriptures? OK!"
Revelation is not meant to be the result of polling to find out which doctrines were likely to go down well.
From the supposed revelation:
Instruction given previously about baptism was proper to ensure the rise and cohesiveness of the church during its early development and in following years. However, .... Individuals previously baptized of water in an attitude of humility and repentance and as an expression of faith in Jesus Christ may become church members through the sacrament of confirmation of the Holy Spirit.
Even putting aside the specific question of rebaptism for the moment, can God behave in the way this revelation describes? Not according to the Bible, which the CoC describes as, "the central book of scripture for the church." (source) So I guess we're supposed to ignore the multiple references in the Book of Mormon and earlier revelations in the Doctrine & Covenants that contradict this. Even in that case, this claim that God can change His mind is still is directly contrary to scripture! See the references below:
KJV Isaiah 55:11 "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it."
KJV James 1:17 "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."
THIS NEW DOCUMENT IS NOT A REVELATION FROM GOD for it has God turning around 180 degrees from anything previously said on the subject. Attempting to show that this is in any way consistent with any previous revelation is like trying to show that black is white - it can't be done.
Baptism is the third of the six fundamental principles of the gospel found in Hebrews 6. The position of the RLDS church has always been that RLDS priesthood had the only legitimate authority from God to perform the ordinances of the church (including baptism) and that ministers of the vast majority of other churches in the world did not have this authority, as they were either never ordained or their ordination was not by individuals who themselves had the authority. The authority to preform legitimate ordinances depends on having an unbroken chain of priesthood ordinations which goes back to Christ Himself. So what this amounts to is a fundamental denial of what Joseph Smith Jr. was told by the Lord in the grove, that all the other churches were, "all wrong." (source)
Now either that statement by the Lord is true, or else it is false. If you believe that it is true, you cannot be consistent in believing in this new revelation of Steve Veazey's, for it is a direct denial of that earlier doctrine. From the new document:
"Serve the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to all committed followers of Christ as a visible witness of loving Christian fellowship and shared remembrance of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection."
The trouble with this is what "all committed followers of Christ" means. The RLDS position has always been "closed-communionist." We believe that the communion is a remembrance of the covenant made between the individual and the Lord in baptism. Veazey's position here is a logical extension of the premise that any church's authority is just as good as another's. So as long as even one Universalist or easy-believism Protestant church exists, "commited followers of Christ" means, simply, anyone. Anyone at all. Communion thus will no longer be a remembrance of an earlier covenant made on an individual level, but simply a community pageant that re-enacts the Last Supper. I can understand how people outside the church might not realize what a huge change this is, but the bottom line is that RLDS closed-communionism has been the position in the past, based on the Book of Mormon, and now the Book of Mormon's commandment on this issue is being ignored.
RLDS 1908 Book of Mormon 3rd Nephi 8:60 "And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly, to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it, for whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul;
61 Therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood, ye shall forbid him; nevertheless ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him, and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name,
62 And if it so be that he repenteth, and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood;
63 But if he repent not, he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered;
64 Nevertheless ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister;
65 For ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them, and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them."
This reference clearly shows that to partake of the communion, a person had to be baptized. Not anymore, thanks to Steve Veazey who we all know is sooooo much more in touch with the Lord than Nephi or Joseph Smith Jr.
(later edit) This post is continued in, "Search the scriptures? OK!"
Thursday, January 14, 2010
What Else Can You Call It?
A difficulty rises up before me as I write these words. Today I was made aware of a court order that I and all members of Devon Park Branch are ordered not to make any use of the term "Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" (Oops) or the initials "RLDS." (Oops, again) This is the name of the church that the founders of the branch were raised in and they have never left it. Never at any point has Devon Park Branch constituted a new or separate church from the one reorganized by Joseph Smith III.
The difficulty arises in the form of a question: How can I discuss the beliefs and history of the RLDS church without mentioning the RLDS church? Starting this month, Devon Park Branch is going to have a preaching series on the fundamentals of what I cannot help but call the RLDS doctrinal position, for there is no other way to describe it. It is by no means unique to "The Devon Park Branch of Jesus Christ's Church" (the name of our non-profit corporation for tax purposes) and calling it, "the doctrinal position of Jesus Christ's Church" is ambiguous/meaningless. While we do think that it's true that our doctrines are the doctrines of Christ's church, (in other words, we think they're correct) saying so would be like calling the platform of the Republican (or Democratic) Party "correct politics." One may view them as correct, but the term "correct politics" doesn't identify them. One may view the doctrines taught at Devon Park as the doctrines of Jesus Christ's church, but the term "doctrines of Jesus Christ's church" doesn't identify them.
I am therefore at a loss as to how I can discuss the relevant issues without violating this court order in some sense. I could perhaps try to invent a new term to describe this unmentionable thing. A common practice is to name the doctrines after someone who espoused them. (i.e. Calvinism describes the theology of John Calvin) But "Josephism" and "Smithism" are also ambiguous because they don't denote whether we're discussing the teachings of Joseph Smith Jr. or those of Joseph Smith III.
Any reasonably specific and accurate description of the position in question would have to denote it's association with the teachings of Joseph Smith III - not merely Joseph Smith Jr. And the term, "Mormonism," since it carries all kinds of irrelevant baggage from it's long use in describing the Brighamite Mormons in Utah, with whom we have very little in common, is simply out of the question.
In stating that Devon Park Branch is a part of the RLDS church, Devon Park is/was certainly seeking members of or parties interested in the RLDS church. When they use the RLDS trademark however, the Community of Christ's leadership isn't interested in reclaiming lost RLDS members. Their goal is to undermine the spread of the original RLDS doctrines which are 180 degrees out of phase with their radical social and political agenda. They believe that they can abuse the U.S. court system to help further that goal, and have thus far been successful.
Traditional RLDS theology, while positive and hopeful, is not soft and fuzzy. It is hard as nails, dealing not with formless generalities but sharp contrasts, fixed principles and tenets that claim to be firm and unalterable statements of fact. When something is true, it holds true universally. RLDS theology does not give the simple, wishy-washy answers (or non-answers) that many people expect and want from religion, for it has, to quote C. S. Lewis, "just that queer twist about it that real things have." Lewis was there describing "Mere Christianity," which I believe RLDS theology to be a logical extension of.
The modern Community of Christ position, on the other hand, has tended toward liberal theology to such a degree that it's message has in many cases become almost unrecognizable. They'll still acknowledge some of the basic concepts some of the time, but the bottom line is that there really isn't all that much to it beyond a general feeling that people ought to get along (universal peace and tolerance) and the idea that we should sue the pants off anyone who still holds the original RLDS position. (OK maybe not quite so universal after all.)
There is very little trace left of the vision of the church's founders in the vision of the Community of Christ's leadership today and anyone who has studied the relevant history can clearly see this. The sweeping changes brought about in the last 25-30 years have fractured the church resulting in a huge loss of membership. And when I say, "loss of membership" I'm not referring to members like those of Devon Park who have formed their own independent organizations, but to members who have left the church, period. More changes planned in the coming years may yet divide the membership further. Their course has been nothing short of destructive to the goal which it is their office to pursue.
The Community of Christ leaders cannot answer the above claims either from the pulpit or in print and are very afraid that their remaining membership will wake up and protest or leave because they realize what's going on. So they think they can silence us through litigation. Whether they succeed or not depends on whether we can raise the funds to pursue an appeals process. To help protect the right to publicly proclaim the original doctrines of the RLDS church in the United States, donate to The Devon Park Legal Defense Fund c/o Elmer Rawlings, Treasurer, 2121 Aqueduct Place, Independence, MO, 64057-1010
The difficulty arises in the form of a question: How can I discuss the beliefs and history of the RLDS church without mentioning the RLDS church? Starting this month, Devon Park Branch is going to have a preaching series on the fundamentals of what I cannot help but call the RLDS doctrinal position, for there is no other way to describe it. It is by no means unique to "The Devon Park Branch of Jesus Christ's Church" (the name of our non-profit corporation for tax purposes) and calling it, "the doctrinal position of Jesus Christ's Church" is ambiguous/meaningless. While we do think that it's true that our doctrines are the doctrines of Christ's church, (in other words, we think they're correct) saying so would be like calling the platform of the Republican (or Democratic) Party "correct politics." One may view them as correct, but the term "correct politics" doesn't identify them. One may view the doctrines taught at Devon Park as the doctrines of Jesus Christ's church, but the term "doctrines of Jesus Christ's church" doesn't identify them.
I am therefore at a loss as to how I can discuss the relevant issues without violating this court order in some sense. I could perhaps try to invent a new term to describe this unmentionable thing. A common practice is to name the doctrines after someone who espoused them. (i.e. Calvinism describes the theology of John Calvin) But "Josephism" and "Smithism" are also ambiguous because they don't denote whether we're discussing the teachings of Joseph Smith Jr. or those of Joseph Smith III.
Any reasonably specific and accurate description of the position in question would have to denote it's association with the teachings of Joseph Smith III - not merely Joseph Smith Jr. And the term, "Mormonism," since it carries all kinds of irrelevant baggage from it's long use in describing the Brighamite Mormons in Utah, with whom we have very little in common, is simply out of the question.
In stating that Devon Park Branch is a part of the RLDS church, Devon Park is/was certainly seeking members of or parties interested in the RLDS church. When they use the RLDS trademark however, the Community of Christ's leadership isn't interested in reclaiming lost RLDS members. Their goal is to undermine the spread of the original RLDS doctrines which are 180 degrees out of phase with their radical social and political agenda. They believe that they can abuse the U.S. court system to help further that goal, and have thus far been successful.
Traditional RLDS theology, while positive and hopeful, is not soft and fuzzy. It is hard as nails, dealing not with formless generalities but sharp contrasts, fixed principles and tenets that claim to be firm and unalterable statements of fact. When something is true, it holds true universally. RLDS theology does not give the simple, wishy-washy answers (or non-answers) that many people expect and want from religion, for it has, to quote C. S. Lewis, "just that queer twist about it that real things have." Lewis was there describing "Mere Christianity," which I believe RLDS theology to be a logical extension of.
The modern Community of Christ position, on the other hand, has tended toward liberal theology to such a degree that it's message has in many cases become almost unrecognizable. They'll still acknowledge some of the basic concepts some of the time, but the bottom line is that there really isn't all that much to it beyond a general feeling that people ought to get along (universal peace and tolerance) and the idea that we should sue the pants off anyone who still holds the original RLDS position. (OK maybe not quite so universal after all.)
There is very little trace left of the vision of the church's founders in the vision of the Community of Christ's leadership today and anyone who has studied the relevant history can clearly see this. The sweeping changes brought about in the last 25-30 years have fractured the church resulting in a huge loss of membership. And when I say, "loss of membership" I'm not referring to members like those of Devon Park who have formed their own independent organizations, but to members who have left the church, period. More changes planned in the coming years may yet divide the membership further. Their course has been nothing short of destructive to the goal which it is their office to pursue.
The Community of Christ leaders cannot answer the above claims either from the pulpit or in print and are very afraid that their remaining membership will wake up and protest or leave because they realize what's going on. So they think they can silence us through litigation. Whether they succeed or not depends on whether we can raise the funds to pursue an appeals process. To help protect the right to publicly proclaim the original doctrines of the RLDS church in the United States, donate to The Devon Park Legal Defense Fund c/o Elmer Rawlings, Treasurer, 2121 Aqueduct Place, Independence, MO, 64057-1010
Court Order Not So Bad?
First let me make clear up front that my opinions are not endorsed or sponsored by the branch or it's pastor David McLean. (My father)
The court order in favor of the Community of Christ today was expected and I believe (Not based on any official statement!!) that we will appeal. Knowing that this is the same judge who issued the preliminary injunction a year ago, it's of course very unlikely that he would have reversed course and ruled in our favor on the permanent one. What this really means is that we can go directly to an appeal without having an expensive trial that would probably have wasted everybody's time because Judge Finner probably had his mind made up last year. (My opinion)
At this point, my understanding is that we have lost the case, but are going to appeal the decision. The irritating thing about this is Finner's extreme position that our small church of 30 members who can barely afford to pay our own lawyers for our defense (We're still trying to raise funds for that!) should also have to pay for the Community of Christ's fancy expensive lawyers, despite the fact that they can't prove that the Community of Christ has ever lost even a single dollar from our use of the name of the church we've always belonged to. Clearly, if we're still struggling to raise the funds for our own defense, there's no way we could have been harming them enough to pay their attorney's fees at any point.
The court order in favor of the Community of Christ today was expected and I believe (Not based on any official statement!!) that we will appeal. Knowing that this is the same judge who issued the preliminary injunction a year ago, it's of course very unlikely that he would have reversed course and ruled in our favor on the permanent one. What this really means is that we can go directly to an appeal without having an expensive trial that would probably have wasted everybody's time because Judge Finner probably had his mind made up last year. (My opinion)
At this point, my understanding is that we have lost the case, but are going to appeal the decision. The irritating thing about this is Finner's extreme position that our small church of 30 members who can barely afford to pay our own lawyers for our defense (We're still trying to raise funds for that!) should also have to pay for the Community of Christ's fancy expensive lawyers, despite the fact that they can't prove that the Community of Christ has ever lost even a single dollar from our use of the name of the church we've always belonged to. Clearly, if we're still struggling to raise the funds for our own defense, there's no way we could have been harming them enough to pay their attorney's fees at any point.
Court Order Grants Summary Judgement to CoC
If this link works, you can read for yourself the court order filed today which basically grants most of the Community of Christ's ridiculous self-serving argument and demands that Devon Park pay the CoC's attorney's fees. I will post my analysis soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)