Reorganized -- Community of Christ
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Christ

Interesting, they have added and continue to add to the Doctrine and Covenants (their version).

I note that the church that Emma (JS?) founded is in many ways more enlightened and forthright than the big LDS movement (I hesitate to say mainstream in this context), and lacks many of the skeletons. Apparently they have repudiated the Book of Mormon's racism and any other racism in JS's writings. They are all but agnostic on the Book of Mormon's origins, forthrightly recognizing the absurdity of any claim to historicity. They are aggresively eccumenical. Am I correct that they were not polygamists? Did they have a priesthood ban? If so, they seem to have explicitly addressed and repudiated and condemned that too. Not a bad legacy for Emma (and Joseph?).

I don't know if they had a priesthood ban, but they gave the priesthood to their women several years ago, I believe.

There you go. LDS Church, see your future. Maybe someday the sects will reunite.

RLDS is going the way of the dodo bird.

Exactly. But at least they'll have some good feelings from SU as they slowly dissappear.

The RLDS have at least two women apostles.

http://www.cofchrist.org/news/GeneralInfo.asp

They will die honorably. An enviable fate.

No, they are not dying honorably, because they have not stayed true to the vision of Joseph and Emma. They have traded whatever birthright they had, for mainstream status.

They will soon be Episcopalians. And Episcos are also going the way of the dodo bird.

I guess it's a nice legacy except for the fact that they rarely mention Joseph (or Emma), or much of anything other than being a church of peace. There are a number of conservative congregations (such as around Nauvoo) that still look to their founding, and revere Joseph. but the main body of the church would prefer that the history just kind of go away. There has been a lot of infighting and schisms because of these issues.

It also wasn't great for them that their last President resigned, saying he had "made some inappropriate choices", although I don't think that has been as big an issue as the doctrinal changes.

Oh dear
 

Can I get a show of hands as to how many people really take Seattle Ute seriously on discussions of Mormonism. I am well aware of problems with BoM historicity, etc., and the potential to interpret BoM teachings in certain places as racist, but because the great Seattle Ute spins it that one would have to be a moron to see things any other way is ridiculous. Sorry, maybe it is just late, but it seems most of Seattle Ute's posts, that I recall at least, have the same pompous - 'hey I am a big smart guy, my opinion is beyond repraoch and therefore you would be an idiot to try to claim different views when it comes to Mormonism's veracity, historicity, etc.'. Give me a break, there are so many things that are unsettled and uncertain that I believe no one can really say one way or another on veracity claims. Your act is tiring. Maybe I should go to bed as I am tired and grumpy.

Dan, actually, I am much more harsh than you.

Never noticed. You would think he was either an asshole or a dickhead, or both.

I have a copy of the CoC's D&C.

He's playing with us, because psychologically he wishes to justify his decision, he does not wish to examine his decision but gladly looks for evidence that justifies his own decisions. Most people do this, just not as conspicuously as he.

My wife and I toured their temple in Independence once about ten years ago. Nothing like an LDS temple in terms of function, more like a large meetinghouse. Aesthetically, it was mostly very nicely done, although I didn't take much to the nautilus look.

It was a slow day, so we had our own private tour guide, and he was pretty friendly and open. Towards the end of the tour, we asked about the lack of Joseph Smith. He took us to a small but nicely decorated room where they had some historical items of Joseph's, and said people were allowed to come here to meditate.

"Church of peace" was exactly the overall impression we got from the tour. While I'm all for peace, if that is all a church gives you, why have a church at all? Just go to kindergarten once a week and you can get as much substance.

I disagree. It's inconcievable to me that anyone seemingly as smart as you would consider "unsettled or uncertain" the Book of Mormon's historicity or etiology. Inconcievable. I'm tempted to wonder about what else is going on beyond simple hard headed analysis and common sense. Maybe I'm just narrow minded but I doubt it since I have good company. As we've established, academia doesn't even take these questions seriously. The only thing that gives you a case for uncertainty is nothingness. Vacuousness does not a case make. It's not uncertain, not by well established scientific standards. Did you know there's tons of archeological evidence of Marathon, Thermopylae, and Salamis? (Literally tons and tons in terms of sheer mass.)

Please. I'm trying to help you. That you resort to such cliched characterizations of me is really disappointing. You have the audacity to say such things after going on at length here about what a horrifying bore Mormon services are.

Interesting that of all my posts this one would set Dan off. I'm simply contrasting RLDS's history and doctine with big LDS's. He has not challenged the accuracy of my summary from a factual standpoint nor has anyone else. Jeff Lebowski confirmed that RLDS has women priesthood holders and Waters noted it has women apostles. Apparently what made Dan angry is that I said RLDS is more enlightened than big LDS and lacks big LDS's skeletons.

I submit that I have not gone out on a limb calling more enlightened no history of polygamy, repudiation of B of M racist passages, no priesthood ban or explicit repudiation and condemnation of it, allowing women to hold the priesthood, and agnosticism concerning the B of M origins. Clearly I not Dan have mainstream science and our national public virtue on my side.

Funny. This is close to my impression of the visitors center on Temple Square.

Your tour must have missed the new visitor building on the SE corner of temple square. And the Joseph and Hyrum statue by the temple. And the Joseph Smith Memorial Building (former Hotel Utah) with the huge JS statue in the foyer. And the Church History Museum across the street to the West.

It's interesting how our biases affect our perception of reality.

I didn't know there was a new VC. I can't comment until I check it out. Since my comment was about the VC your other observations are inapposite.

Come on. Every few months you argue that the church is embarrassed of JS and use your temple square visit as evidence. Given the context of your post above, I think you were making the same case again. It just isn't true.

Going for the capillary.

Four. And one of them's the secretary. LOL.

What's your point? They're not so enlightened after all? I know you know the secretary of a corporate board isn't the same thing as common usage. Lame, Tex.

Just trying to add a little levity. Sorry, I'll try to be more cranky.

If the LDS church had two female apostles, who would the other one be (Sheri Dew would be the first, obviously)?

Sharlene Wells or is it Sharlene Hawkes?

Julie Beck.

I would say Elaine Jack and Chieko Okazaki, but I'm not sure the male leaders in the church are ready to tangle with these two.

They would be vault to the top of the list in terms of influence and popularity as well as relevance.

Why can't they set up a new category of GA, something like "The Council of Sisters/Women". Or establish a council among the Relief Society that has GA status.

Seattle Ute
 

I am not angry, it was a little late night grumpiness after seeing another post of your making your own bootstrapping arguments. Let me clarify that when you said it was this particu;ar post of your that set me off in some way, you are wrong. I do not care so much the actual topic you were discussing related to Mormonism per se, just that I read your post (and, BTW I only read maybe 10 posts per day total on the sight as I am usually just lightly scanning and periodically commenting and getting involved) and it seems that whenever you post you are quite fond of lifting yourself by yanking your boots up into the air. I do not care to play the part of the apologist, those days are a decade behind me.

In my studies on Mormonism I know enough to be able to call you on your BS. Once I did it is no surprise that you dug in your heels (like a good little contra-Mormonism apologist) and reiterated your position with more bravado. I could talk with you point by point on different topics of historicity, but it would take too long and I really just am not interested in it enough to debate you. You try to claim I have not specifically refuted your claim, but I really do not care. The way you are trying to set up this debate structure is to make me provide masses of data on small issues to make a case that you are not justified in the general claim you made. No, I am not going to play by your rules. If you want to support your claims with minutia and data for various issues and assertions to show that you are justified in making the conclusive statment you did, then so be it. I suspect you will have as much excitement to do that than I have to do the same that you would want me to do with presenting evidences.

You know, a couple thousdand years ago everyone KNEW that man and other creatures had not been on the earth prior to Adam. A thousand years ago the consensus KNEW that earth was flat. 500 years ago the consensus KNEW that the earth was the center of the universe. Today Seattle Ute KNOWS all sorts of things. Well, I don't know a whole lot, but I do KNOW from years of my own study that Seattle Ute cannot make the blanket claim he did that I first commented on. Your absolutist comments are for the most part laughable. but the more you may choose to argue against me I suspect you will make more comments to the effect that you really really really were correct with a cherry on top.

I like the female council idea. Kind of reminds me of my mission, where two of the best missionaries were sisters. We told our AP's that these two sisters should be called as Assistant AP's. Not sure if they liked the idea.

I have heard from multiple people that Okazaki has already tangled heavily with church leaders and she's been on the losing end. Apparently some of the brethren don't agree with some of her "doctrines."

I would nominate Brooke White.

It's meaningless to consider what people thought they knew over five-hundred years ago (except arguably for the Greek Isles and othere Greek-influenced parts in ancient times) because until the seventeenth century there was no such thing as a scientific ethos. The world was ruled by superstition and tradition, and the idea of an examined world or empiricism was unheard of much less even foreign.

Seizing on the (scientific ethos) that nothing can be known for sure and there are always gaps in our understanding to defend the posibility of Book of Mormon historicity is the same thing we hear from Creationists in response to science. Such conclusory assertion and sheer speculation isn't a genuine and critical search for truth.

Jewel and Katherine Heigl

They will be out of business soon
 

and then the Church will buy the rest of the Nauvoo historical sites.