Russell assigns a fair amount of the liberalization of RLDS leaders to their geographical proximity to the Pentecostal heartland and their education in protestant seminaries. It seems to me that this same time period is onset of the New Mormon History. While this movement was challenging to many in the LDS tradition, I imagine that it was cataclysmic to the RDLS tradition. What role did the New Mormon History play in the institutional shift?

Russell also briefly mentioned the Supreme Directional Control movement in the 1920′s. This corresponds to the LDS churches correlation in response to polygamous schismatic groups. Is this just a coincidence?

And as one who grew up in Platte City, MO, I welcome Russell aboard.

Your assessment of the difference in the influence liberals in the Utah and the Missouri churches interests me. I have two comments regarding this:

First comment: What you say agrees with the opinion that I’ve formed while watching the RLDS/CoC church change, which is this (and I understand it to be a pretty common conception): Because of the isolation of the early Utah church and its tradition of founding schools, colleges, and universities, the Utah church developed a rich tradition of intellectualism, beginning with Orson Pratt (who obviously figures in RLDS/CoC history, too) and including Brigham Roberts, James Talmage, and John Widsoe. The RLDS/CoC church developed no such tradition, so that when members and top leaders over the past 40 years obtained a graduate education, they had no traditional basis for assimilating and understanding the new information in the context of faith. As a consequence, the post WWII democratization of the university and the accompanying rush to college left a generation of RLDS members detached from the basis of their religion. I’m curious to hear your reaction to this point of view (which is rather obviously biased in favor of the Utah church’s understanding).

Second comment: I strenuously disagree with your assessment based on class. For some time, Utah Mormons been more affluent than average. But the gradual movement away from the insistence on seeing “our church as ‘the one true church.’” has been largely rhetorical, has been brought on by growth rather than income, and has drawn primarily on pre-existing similarities between Mormonism and other Christian denominations (rather than compromises).

But I have two questions about the religious identity of the RLDS/CoC membership.

First question: Since RLDS/CoC church has jettisoned the restoration and authority claims of Joseph Smith, why would someone want to join it? The church doesn’t seem much different from the Methodists, and if you’re going to be a methodist, why not just join a Methodist church? (After all, Methodists make better methodists than RLDS/CoC’ers.)

Second question: Do RLDS/CoC’ers still call themselves Mormons? If not, what is the commonly used term for members (since I’m hoping that “member of the Community of Christ” is considered too cumbersome).

Fascinating interview and great article, Bill. Great work.

These folks are intent on waiting specifically for two things. First they wait for God to reveal a new prophet and two for that prophet to receive the Temple ordinances. I really didn’t think about it that much until this article. Bill mentioned the temple’s mission briefly but at key points in his discussion. Was the fact that the new CoC Temple is devoid of the promised ordinances viewed as an apostasy of sorts?

And I second DKL, this is a great article. I am moved by the restorationism of these folks.

My question is whether the CoC gets many lateral transfers from the LDS community?
As part of that question, I’m wondering if the CoC would feel “Mormon-without- the-polygamy/racial/conservative-baggage” to many LDS Saints.

I’m active LDS. The rationale for the question is that the CoC is Mormon in background, but without 3 of our LDS-Mormon millstones:

1. polygamy
2. The race-based restriction of priesthood and temple privileges.
3. The pride associated with construing one’s church (or nation) as the “only true” one.

And, you’ve involved women in your priesthood structure more than we have.

When I’m talking with formerly active LDS Saints who are now active in other churches, I wonder if the CoC turns out to be a good fit for many LDS people.

Thanks for the interview, also.

This corresponds to the LDS church’s correlation in response to polygamous schismatic groups during the same time period.

Well, so did the LDS Church! I think Mr. Russell is right about the RLDS Church, but why did the LDS Church lose its “edge” and move from dissent into the mainstream? Setting aside polygamy, there are many innovative elements of the early LDS church that dissented from the mainstream – women giving blessings – and that the LDS church no longer tolerates. Why? Or is that another one of those obvious questions that everyone else knows but me? I guess this is a case by case analysis depending on what the issue is, but I’m just wondering.