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":

"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.
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."

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?

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 19:3-9
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.

As 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?

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:
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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

More on this later.

(later edit) This post is continued in, "Search the scriptures? OK!"

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

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.

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.