Comments on: Q & A – The Community of Christ and Latter-day Saints http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/13/q-a-the-community-of-christ-and-latter-day-saints/ A Mormon Blog Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:58:00 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Liz http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/13/q-a-the-community-of-christ-and-latter-day-saints/#comment-80470 Liz Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:21:31 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/q-a-the-community-of-christ-and-latter-day-saints/#comment-80470 <strong>Liz...</strong> Just wanted to drop you a quick note to say thank you for a great resource.There is nothing else like your site on the net today. My friends are just going to love this site once I let them know about it.... Liz…

Just wanted to drop you a quick note to say thank you for a great resource.There is nothing else like your site on the net today. My friends are just going to love this site once I let them know about it….

]]> By: By Common Consent » Dialogue 40/3 (2007) http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/13/q-a-the-community-of-christ-and-latter-day-saints/#comment-80469 By Common Consent » Dialogue 40/3 (2007) Sun, 09 Sep 2007 01:43:54 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/q-a-the-community-of-christ-and-latter-day-saints/#comment-80469 [...] Study in Failed Prophecy, 1930 to 1970″ Dave blogged with us for a little bit this summer (here, here and here) and is found wielding some of his Religious Studies skillz in an analysis of some [...] [...] Study in Failed Prophecy, 1930 to 1970″ Dave blogged with us for a little bit this summer (here, here and here) and is found wielding some of his Religious Studies skillz in an analysis of some [...]

]]> By: Jeff Spector http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/13/q-a-the-community-of-christ-and-latter-day-saints/#comment-80468 Jeff Spector Thu, 16 Aug 2007 15:17:21 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/q-a-the-community-of-christ-and-latter-day-saints/#comment-80468 David, Thanks for that explanation on ordination. David, Thanks for that explanation on ordination.

]]> By: Razorfish http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/13/q-a-the-community-of-christ-and-latter-day-saints/#comment-80467 Razorfish Thu, 16 Aug 2007 02:15:03 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/q-a-the-community-of-christ-and-latter-day-saints/#comment-80467 Re # 80, Thank you.. Re # 80,

Thank you..

]]> By: David Howlett http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/13/q-a-the-community-of-christ-and-latter-day-saints/#comment-80466 David Howlett Wed, 15 Aug 2007 23:45:59 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/q-a-the-community-of-christ-and-latter-day-saints/#comment-80466 #83--Ray--Yes, it was a self-conscious choice for this post on ordination. In my writing in general, I try to be more gender-inclusive in terms of pronouns. I'm not offended by the use of masculine pronouns, though. Thanks #83–Ray–Yes, it was a self-conscious choice for this post on ordination. In my writing in general, I try to be more gender-inclusive in terms of pronouns. I’m not offended by the use of masculine pronouns, though.

Thanks

]]> By: Ray http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/13/q-a-the-community-of-christ-and-latter-day-saints/#comment-80383 Ray Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:35:43 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/q-a-the-community-of-christ-and-latter-day-saints/#comment-80383 David, I've noticed that you have used "her" and "she" almost exclusively when talking about ordination and leadership in the CofC. (the original post and the last comment) Is that a conscious decision based on a Mormon audience, a conscious decision you use generally, a recent CofC focus, a subconscious usage due to general public sentiment, or something else entirely? I really am interested in this. It isn't meant as a criticism, at all. David,

I’ve noticed that you have used “her” and “she” almost exclusively when talking about ordination and leadership in the CofC. (the original post and the last comment) Is that a conscious decision based on a Mormon audience, a conscious decision you use generally, a recent CofC focus, a subconscious usage due to general public sentiment, or something else entirely?

I really am interested in this. It isn’t meant as a criticism, at all.

]]> By: David Howlett http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/13/q-a-the-community-of-christ-and-latter-day-saints/#comment-80465 David Howlett Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:10:12 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/q-a-the-community-of-christ-and-latter-day-saints/#comment-80465 #81--Jeff--There is a different use of calling and ordination between the CofC and LDS. It took me a while to realize this as guide in Kirtland. Most CofC would use these to describe different parts of the same process that we would see as priesthood ordination (not a general ordination to Aaronic or Melchisedek priesthood, but ordination to a particular office contained within these orders). A person may be "called" to an office at any time in their life and may remain in that office until they die or are "superannuated" through a formal ceremony when they are incapable of functioning any longer in that office (due usually to physical incapacity in old age). This recognizes their lifetime service and recognizes that their ministry is now changing. A calling to a particular office happens when the pastor feels that someone has a particulatar ministry in an office. This may happen through the pastor discerning this through prayer, having a dream, or simply God's still small voice speaking to her. A mission center conference approves the calling and the ordination happens in the individual's congregation. An individual may be ordaine to any office at any time in her life. For offices above elder, higher authorities discern these calls. #81–Jeff–There is a different use of calling and ordination between the CofC and LDS. It took me a while to realize this as guide in Kirtland. Most CofC would use these to describe different parts of the same process that we would see as priesthood ordination (not a general ordination to Aaronic or Melchisedek priesthood, but ordination to a particular office contained within these orders). A person may be “called” to an office at any time in their life and may remain in that office until they die or are “superannuated” through a formal ceremony when they are incapable of functioning any longer in that office (due usually to physical incapacity in old age). This recognizes their lifetime service and recognizes that their ministry is now changing.

A calling to a particular office happens when the pastor feels that someone has a particulatar ministry in an office. This may happen through the pastor discerning this through prayer, having a dream, or simply God’s still small voice speaking to her. A mission center conference approves the calling and the ordination happens in the individual’s congregation. An individual may be ordaine to any office at any time in her life. For offices above elder, higher authorities discern these calls.

]]> By: Jeff Spector http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/13/q-a-the-community-of-christ-and-latter-day-saints/#comment-80464 Jeff Spector Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:00:27 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/q-a-the-community-of-christ-and-latter-day-saints/#comment-80464 David, Can you so over the way that the CofC assigns Priesthood? Is it more of a calling than an ordination? When I was in Kirtland years ago, I encountered a 70 year Deacon and an 18 year Elder. I thought they told me that they are called to those positions and then released rather than the "age-based" ordinations the LDS have. Thanks, David,

Can you so over the way that the CofC assigns Priesthood? Is it more of a calling than an ordination? When I was in Kirtland years ago, I encountered a 70 year Deacon and an 18 year Elder. I thought they told me that they are called to those positions and then released rather than the “age-based” ordinations the LDS have.

Thanks,

]]> By: David Howlett http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/13/q-a-the-community-of-christ-and-latter-day-saints/#comment-80463 David Howlett Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:59:38 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/q-a-the-community-of-christ-and-latter-day-saints/#comment-80463 #76--Razorfish--Yes, I think that, at this point in history, faiths that do not require a good amount of commitment will decline. Years ago, I read a 1990s study by a sociologist that took up the "Why Strict Churches are Strong" question posed in the 1970s. Laurence Iannaconne (or something like that) argued tht a faith community has to achieve "optimal strictness" to deal with the issue of "free riders"--those who gain the benefits without the sacrifice. If a faith is not strict enough, there will be little incentive for people to stay part of it if all can get the benefits; however, if it is too strict, it will likewise decline. For instance, the Bagwan Rashneesh maintained optimal strictness by moving to Antelope, Oregon, and requiring something of his members that required a definite sacrifice on their parts. However, few probably would have followed him to the Arctic Circle if he had chosen that site instead. This observation, of course, is completely amoral. After all, when we start referring to other human beings as merely "free riders" that have to be minimized to maintain a strong faith community, we have taken a large step away from the Jesus of the gospels who welcomed all. Of course, this same Jesus did ask His followers to leave all and follow Him, too. So, we have a paradox between full inclusion and full commitment. Does the CofC require less of its people than it once did? Yes, and no. Change does not mean less sacrifice--it may even mean more, actually. The current emphasis on "discipleship" in the Community of Christ is in response to a feeling that many had of "what do we believe now?" In addition, there is a large emphasis now on "identity formation" and "core values." This may simply be rhetorical bunting, but, as an active member, I feel that something important is happening in the movement with these moves. It's almost as if a corner has been turned and a new assurance has come that, yes, we will be okay in the days ahead. We won't just drown in a cacauphony of voices; we do have something real and definite to proclaim to the world. At least, that's how I have seen it. Now, as for Joseph Smith, I think that your observation is a fair assessment of the consensus poisition in the Community of Christ. When you talk to individual members, you will receive many different answers, but if you imagine all of those answers as points on a graph, they probably will form a pattern like you set out--Joseph as inspired at times, tragically flawed, and having something to say to the larger Church that inhabits the earth. #76–Razorfish–Yes, I think that, at this point in history, faiths that do not require a good amount of commitment will decline. Years ago, I read a 1990s study by a sociologist that took up the “Why Strict Churches are Strong” question posed in the 1970s. Laurence Iannaconne (or something like that) argued tht a faith community has to achieve “optimal strictness” to deal with the issue of “free riders”–those who gain the benefits without the sacrifice. If a faith is not strict enough, there will be little incentive for people to stay part of it if all can get the benefits; however, if it is too strict, it will likewise decline. For instance, the Bagwan Rashneesh maintained optimal strictness by moving to Antelope, Oregon, and requiring something of his members that required a definite sacrifice on their parts. However, few probably would have followed him to the Arctic Circle if he had chosen that site instead.

This observation, of course, is completely amoral. After all, when we start referring to other human beings as merely “free riders” that have to be minimized to maintain a strong faith community, we have taken a large step away from the Jesus of the gospels who welcomed all. Of course, this same Jesus did ask His followers to leave all and follow Him, too. So, we have a paradox between full inclusion and full commitment.

Does the CofC require less of its people than it once did? Yes, and no. Change does not mean less sacrifice–it may even mean more, actually. The current emphasis on “discipleship” in the Community of Christ is in response to a feeling that many had of “what do we believe now?” In addition, there is a large emphasis now on “identity formation” and “core values.” This may simply be rhetorical bunting, but, as an active member, I feel that something important is happening in the movement with these moves. It’s almost as if a corner has been turned and a new assurance has come that, yes, we will be okay in the days ahead. We won’t just drown in a cacauphony of voices; we do have something real and definite to proclaim to the world. At least, that’s how I have seen it.

Now, as for Joseph Smith, I think that your observation is a fair assessment of the consensus poisition in the Community of Christ. When you talk to individual members, you will receive many different answers, but if you imagine all of those answers as points on a graph, they probably will form a pattern like you set out–Joseph as inspired at times, tragically flawed, and having something to say to the larger Church that inhabits the earth.

]]> By: Jeff Spector http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/13/q-a-the-community-of-christ-and-latter-day-saints/#comment-80462 Jeff Spector Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:08:08 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/08/q-a-the-community-of-christ-and-latter-day-saints/#comment-80462 Ben, My friends and I had a long runnning debate going about whether the Lord "took away" certain principles from the Saints because of their "unbelief." Can't say that we came to any real conclusion, but it is easy to see where you are coming from. I have always been very intereested in the other branches of Mormonism but have never quite figured out how they could justify their origins based on Priesthood authority. Last might, I saw parts of a show on the WE network on Polygamy. Some folks love it, some have been abused by it. I don't believe I've seen a show or read where the men complained too hard :). Unfortunately, many women and young girls have been severly abused by the situation. Not withstanding that the same sorts of things have occurred in so-called "traditional" marriages. It is unfortunate that the "wacky-o" tend to garner the most attention. Ben,

My friends and I had a long runnning debate going about whether the Lord “took away” certain principles from the Saints because of their “unbelief.” Can’t say that we came to any real conclusion, but it is easy to see where you are coming from. I have always been very intereested in the other branches of Mormonism but have never quite figured out how they could justify their origins based on Priesthood authority. Last might, I saw parts of a show on the WE network on Polygamy. Some folks love it, some have been abused by it. I don’t believe I’ve seen a show or read where the men complained too hard :) . Unfortunately, many women and young girls have been severly abused by the situation. Not withstanding that the same sorts of things have occurred in so-called “traditional” marriages. It is unfortunate that the “wacky-o” tend to garner the most attention.

]]>