The whole last few paragraphs of this piece are self-congratulatory, overly biased, and smug. And yet the LDS on this board are falling over themselves to praise the piece. John could have done a good job clarifying the myths without all the implicit criticism of the LDS position.

Isn’t this in DIRECT opposition to what the Saviour told Joseph in Doctrine & Covenants section 1:5e

” And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually—

You have done a wonderful job of clearing up myths of the Community of Christ and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

By the way, you and Michael also did a fine job organizing the Restoration Studies Symposium a couple of weekends ago.

George Smith sent me a box of books to further my education about the writings and Book of Mormon investigations of B. H. Roberts. I was delighted. I have B. H. Robert’s book but enjoyed the essay in American Apocrypha anyhow.

Let me share another story with you. Many years ago, I worked in advertising. One of the books I read during that time was one called “Positioning”. It related to advertising and the names of successful products. It said there were thousands of very good products that failed to sell simply because of their names. That set me to thinking about the name of the church. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It was a horrible long name that did not roll off the tongue easily. I couldn’t help but think it would not “sell”.

I bought another copy of the book and sent it to President Sheehy. He wrote to me to tell me he was traveling to California that weekend and would read the book in flight.

It was not long after that that the church decided to change it’s name. I always wondered how much that book had to do with that decision.

When we built our new church building in 1999, we decided to call it Crossroads Community of Christ. A year later, the church changed it’s name.

However, I am constantly amazed at the rumours which fly around among the LDS about the RLDS/CofC, and I take every opportunity to put people right when the chance presents itself. So congrats once again on this site – a splendid idea.

It would contain at least one story from his childhood that you’ve heard in ten or more general conference talks, and it would be entirely in passive voice

Such a comment is unkind, unnecessary and far from uplifting. I’m sure, if looked for, there could be found something to mock in each person’s style of speaking. I have a great love and respect for President Monson and find his conference talks to be of great value. One last thought, since when is charisma the yard stick by which revelation is measured?

“Recognizing that the perception of truth is always qualified by human nature and experience, there is no official church creed that must be accepted by all members. However, through the years various statements, such as those listed below, have been developed to present the generally accepted beliefs of the church. All people are encouraged to study the scriptures, to participate in the life and mission of the church, and to examine their own experiences as they grow in understanding and response to the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

I am extremely progressive in my beliefs and as you intimated earlier, the Bible is also a book that has been changed over and over again down through the centuries. It too is a testimony of men about their personal experience with God and not dictated or written by God as some tend to believe. Some passages changed as orthodox beliefs changed down through the centuries and some writers even added parts of chapters to the original.

Going back to the topic of removing doctrines, I wonder if the LDS church can move D&C 132 and the BoA to a “historical appendix”.

Mahalo from Hawaii.

Max Lawson

LDS people have a similar problem with all sorts of history, when a leader makes a statement that is contrary to the record. For example, because Joseph Jr. later denied involvement with the Danites and put the blame on Sampson Avard, many faithful believers actually believe that Joseph Smith had limited or even no involvement with the Danites. The problem arises when the prophet’s statements are contravened by the facts.

Re#52 Nick, thats exactly what went through my mind too … But you never know, there may be surprises ahead…

Re#57 John H: Thanks for those examples. I guess one difference between the RLDS and LDS is that the RLDS/CofC membership through the World Conference can challenge and eventually drop doctrine using their system of checks and balances while the LDS just stop talking about some doctrines until they drop out of sight.

I picked up a CoC edition of the D&C in Kirtland several years ago and have found it to be an interesting contrast to the LDS version. Is there an online resource with with the text of the deleted passages?

Also, to chime in with Kaimi, in my less than extensive travels, I’ve yet to meet a CoC tour guide that failed to make it clear that polygamy was a Utah innovation and that Joseph Smith Jr. had no part in it. I’ve often felt that this was pointed out to clearly LDS tourists in an effort to point out the them how wrong Brigham Young was. Other than that I’ve found the guides to be very informative and friendly. Certainly they are less preachy, as you pointed out in a blog entry some time ago. Is there any effort to educate college age guides about the history of polygamy and to ask them to not put forth provocative (or even contrary to historical fact) opinions on the matter?