Evidence of this might be found in serving of the sacrament only once a month instead of weekly; calling their stake local units “congregations” instead of wards; using the terms pastor and evangelist (while definitely scriptural and mentioned by Joseph Smith) but not in the normal parlance of the early church; totally rejecting baptism for the dead; using the cross at least by the 1950′s, referring to the sacrament as communion by the 1970′s and referring to the ordainces as sacraments by the 1980′s. The Independence Temple dedication itself was with the exception of one mention of “Joseph & Emma Smith” was totally lacking any reference or music uniquely restoration. (I was pleasantly surprised to see the Sacred Grove depicted in etched glass though). Perhaps the name change and calling women to the priesthood could be added to the list. However, since the name was cumbersome (as well as embarrasing to some) and women receiving the priesthood was done by way of direct revelation they in themselves are not evidence of such an attitude

.

The precedent for “emeritus” has been well established since W. Wallace Smith named his son Wallace B. Smith as his successor, so I’m sure that will be followed by Steve as well.

What was unusual about Grant’s resignation was that he declined to name his successor — and that has always been done in the past, even when prophets held the office until death. We’ll see whether Steve names his successor, or allows the “full quorum” status of the Presidency to lapse, devolving the power to select the prophet to the Twelve.

Notice, however, even were that to be the case, there is not yet precedent for whom the Twelve would pick; it could be any High Priest in the church. Historically prophets have been chosen from lineal descendents who were being previously prepared as councilors to the prophet, from the church’s secretay, and from the senior Apostle. It could be a junior apostle as well, for example.

The book From Mission to Madness, which I bought at the CoC Kirtland Temple visitors center had some interesting quotes about Brigham and Emma’s feelings towards each other and how Joseph’s financial arrangements for the church (or lack thereof) left Emma in an awkward position.

It also had an interesting quote from David Hyrum Smith, in the time of his life where he suffered from mental illness, where he sharply accused his mother of deceiving him regarding his father’s participation in polygamy. Although it could have been a point of vindication for the “Brighamite” reader, it was ultimately a sad moment because of the events in David Hyrum’s life that leading to and culminating with that moment.

Like Firetag, I hope there will be more fruitful dialogue in the future. Did President Hinckley and President McMurray connect in a fruitful way, or was it just long enough for the photo opportunities that took place?

I had a coworker at a college job that I had know for months. One day, my car was broken down at the LDS institute and I asked her for a ride back there after work. When she saw the sign that said “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” she told me that she was also a “Mormon”. I was a little surprised, as I had seen her smoking on breaks day after day. She told me that she was RLDS. So, by her culture, she seemed to identify with the “Mormon” appellation.

I remember my last trip to Nauvoo, we skipped the CoC visitors center and went EARLY to the JS Homestead, where the guides were in the midst of a special tour for their young summer interns. They politely explained that this was not one of their regular tours, but invited us to join with them regardless. I was appreciative of their flexibility. I regret moments when members of my family were not such respectful guests towards their CoC hosts at CoC historical sites. I am also saddened to read of the disappointing experiences CoC members at Liberty Jail, etc. It seems that the hosts should have the experience and talents to adapt the presentations to edify all restorationist believers who desire a meaningful connection to these sites. I wish, in fact, that the Nauvoo Temple had been rebuilt with the ground level assembly room being open to all, rather then BEHIND the recommend desk. It would be a good spot for interdenominational meetings.

Exactly what I’ve noticed! Thank you MH and Hawkgrrl, both of you helped me to see this more clearly. I had a feeling that surely the fact that she had left the church didn’t go unnoticed by leaders and Saints alike. Thanks again.

Thanks to all who made this post possible.

I don’t know if you’ve been following the new thread talking about the church being more open to academia. I guess Emma is a bit like Galileo somewhat. While Galileo was thought of as a heretic, his stance is pretty much taken for granted now, and he is being accepted more by the Catholic church. I think Emma could become similar in nature. I don’t know if you saw my polygamy post, but I believe polygamy is not a true teaching. As such, Emma would be right, and be gaining some new respect for her position.

On the other hand, I don’t believe the church supports my thinking, so I guess I shouldn’t try to insinuate that the church is backing away from polygamy. However, I think it is incredibly difficult to separate Emma from Joseph. Even Emma’s “rehabbed” image talks about her faithfulness to Joseph, and ignores her problems with polygamy. The lessons we hear about Emma deal with the parts of her history that are in harmony with current LDS beliefs and practices. You will never hear anything about Emma after June 1844 (Joseph’s death) in a church setting–all of the references to her are prior to Joseph’s death, where she seemingly put up a good front for the church. Everything she did prior to that is honorable (excepting polygamy of course, which isn’t really talked about historically anyway.)

It is just curious to me why the LDS church still honors her though, because wouldn’t she be considered an apostate for having left the church and even denounced one of the then-fundamental practices of the religion (being of course polygamy)? It seems that if she spoke out about things she disliked during a time where that would be really unacceptable, especially for a woman to have done, it seems that the LDS church would want to sort of distance themselves from her instead of just focusing on the time that she was married to Joseph.

I mean not to provoke or suggest that she shouldn’t be honored, I am just curious as to the thought process that says she’s still an honorable member.

Emma’s influence on her son is undoubted. The three prophets that followed Joseph III into the mid-20th Century, were her grandsons, and the sixth prophet was her great-grandson. The preservation of our Scriptural forms of the Bible was also essential. Yet, once Joseph III was in place she was content to largely stay out of our history, as if she felt her work was done, except to defend the reputation of her husband in the eyes of non-Mormons.

It would certainly be true that the CofChrist holds Emma in high regard and her actions as ESSENTIAL to the formation of the RLDS. As we approach the remembrance of our 150th Anniversary, her contributions will be more heavily noted in our activities.

But we do not consider her as the founder. We trace our origins to local leaders outside of Nauvoo in the Midwest who rejected polygamy and held their congregations together on the basis of their original priesthood ordinations before JS death until Joseph III had his own experience of call in 1860, and was accepted by the already reorganized church as Prophet/President.

Most prominent among these local leaders were Jason Briggs and Zenas Gurley. This wiki entry looks like RLDS history 101 as we used to teach it — nothing pops out at me as incorrect, anyway.

MH:

What you’ve said about William Smith and the position of Presiding Patriarch also looks right. As you see above, we have a long history of leaving top leadership positions unfilled until we understand them better and who God wishes to put in them. Joseph III felt that he did not understand the role of the Presiding Patriarch, and left it unfilled for a long time. In fact, there have been unfilled offices in the councilors of the first presidency, the Twelve, or the presiding bishopric at times into the mid-20th Century (and may be again).

Left Field:

My mother was Secretary to the Stake Bishop (Financial Officer) for a number of years when I was growing up, so I spent a lot more time in the basement of that office than I wanted to in summers as a boy. Thanks for bringing back some memories.

I think you’re right about William wanting to become Presiding Patriarch, but Joseph Smith III refused. My memory was a little rusty there. But I did some digging, and came across this Wikipedia entry, which I believe is pretty accurate. It is well-footnoted, and agrees with my memory (albeit weak) of William Smith. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Smith_(Latter_Day_Saints)#Later_involvement_with_Latter_Day_Saint_groups

On October 6, 1845, over a year after the assassinations of his brothers Joseph and Hyrum, Smith was disfellowshipped from the church and removed from the Quorum of the Twelve by Brigham Young, the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.[15] Smith responded by submitting a statement to an anti-Mormon newspaper in which he compared Young to Pontius Pilate.[16] As a result of Smith’s statement, Young excommunicated him for apostasy on October 19.[12]

In 1878, Smith became a member of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS Church),[17] which was organized in 1860 with Smith’s nephew, Joseph Smith III, as its leader. The majority of Smith’s followers also became members of the RLDS Church. While Smith believed that he was entitled to become the presiding patriarch or a member of the Council of Twelve Apostles of the RLDS Church, his nephew did not agree and William Smith remained a high priest in the RLDS Church for the remainder of his life.[22]

That’s odd. I was under the impression that William Smith wanted to be Presiding Patriarch but the RLDS refused. I was under the impression that he eventually went west and joined the LDS.

Our Faith and Beliefs

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.

Whenever I went there to vote, I often took the opportunity to wander around, read the bulletin boards and help myself to pamphlets. One day I went in during the week and spoke to someone working in the stake office. I wanted to find out when services were, although it turned out to be a year or two before I got around to it. She said that they had both “traditional” and “contemporary” services. I would guess the younger demographic would gravitate to the latter, but still it was surprising that there weren’t even a few younger members, or that those attending the traditional services wouldn’t have children who attended with them.

Going off on a tangent, I’ve often wondered why LDS Church policy prohibits the use of church buildings as polling places. It would seem to be a good opportunity to generate goodwill, get people in the building, looking around, and perhaps feel comfortable enough to come back for a visit, as I did at the RLDS Church. On the other hand, you’d have to scrupulously avoid any appearance of proselyting. It would be a total disaster to have some over-enthusiastic missionaries or ward mission leader thinking it would be a good idea to work the polling lines.