Talk:Community of Christ
|
|
| Contents |
Initial copyright issues
Most of the text in this article is the same as that found at http://kalamazoocommunityofchrist.com/History/history.html. An explanation is in order if the Wikipedian who placed this here wants to keep it here. --mav 07:53 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
Liberalism
In an exchange with an LDS layman, I was told that the LDS regard the Community of Christ as "extremely liberal", but he could not explain what this meant. Could anyone familiar with this group shed light on this perspective? Mkmcconn 20:31 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Your interlocutor probably is referring to the fact that unlike the Latter-day Saints, the CofC has become much more like mainstream Christianity over time. LDS, I guess, are much more legalistic in following its principles, while CofC has become lax about things like the Word of Wisdom, tithing, priesthood, etc. B 21:00, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Copyright
how is it possible that the Community of Christ owns the manuscripts and the copyright for Smith's work? I certainly understand that they may own the manuscripts, but how can there be ANY copyright on works over 100 years old?
By all standards I know of, these works _MUST_ be public domain. Am I missing somthing?????? Rick Boatright 03:05, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The text of the Book of Mormon is indeed public domain. The only thing that the CofC and the LDS Church can have copyrights on is the way the book is presented, such as formatting, study aids, footnotes, etc. COGDEN 15:50, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It is also true that some manuscripts were never published during Smith's lifetime - in these cases, the copyright would be owned by the Church.
Community of Christ owns the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon which was later microfilmed. The original manuscript was divided between the LDS and RLDS, but was in poor condition, and only a few pages owned by the LDS remain usable. CofC also owns the manuscript of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible which had been kept by Emma Smith. Since it was not published until 1867 its copyright was maintained longer. --Blainster 23:10, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Comparisons
Could there be some information regarding the difference in beliefs between the CofC and the LDS? --Brookswilliams 22:39, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- This should be its own article. -Visorstuff 16:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Emma
I removed the section on Emma Smith for two reasons. First, it incorrectly states Emma was not at the meeting when she and Joseph Smith III were accepted into the Reorganization. In fact, Emma accompanied her son to the Amboy meetings as Joseph Smith III detailed in his Memoirs and as noted in the minutes.
Second, it incorrectly gives the impression that Emma was not involvement in the Reorganization. In fact, Emma was asked to oversee creation of first hymnbook of the Reorganization (1861, Cincinnati) though her level of involvement is unknown. She supplied her husband's manuscripts that the Reorganization printed as Joseph Smith Jr.'s translation of the Bible. She also gave several interesting interviews for the Reorganization's paper, the Saints' Herald. (For more on Emma read Mormon Enigma (http://www.press.uillinois.edu/pre95/0-252-06291-4.html))
In an case, I don't think her level of involvement was significant enough to even mention her in this short article on an entire faith movement.
- It is obvious that she was involved in playing music, hymns, and attending meetings, however, it has been widely disputed if she was at the meeting where her membership was transferred without rebaptism. Many think that was added in to his Memoiors, when other historical documents of Colonel Bidamon's and Emma's seem to conflict and not allow for her to physically be at those meetings. However, I agree, it hardly warrants her beign in the article. At portions of the past century, an emphasis on her membership generated quite heated exchanges between scholars and historians of the two denominations. -Visorstuff 16:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Leadership
I moved the bulk of the "Recent Change in Leadership" article to a new article on W. Grant McMurray.
Liberalism revisited
I used to be a member of the RLDS/CoC church until about 2 and a half years ago. It's true that the church has moved away from the far-right leanings it used to share with their Mormon brethren, but they do still maintain the typical conservatism that accompanies most maistream religion. --KoopaTroopa211 01:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This perspective is interesting. Actually most observers would describe the churches tradtitionally known as "mainline protestant" (Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian Church (USA), Evangelical Lutheran, United Church of Christ, American Baptist, and Disciples of Christ) as the most liberal American tradition, except for the Unitarian Universalist church. The Community of Christ has more theological congruence with the "seven sisters" than others which are more usually described as conservative. Also, the use of the term "far-right" as a descriptive label is more suggestive of a political than a theological category--Blainster 23:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
JS III Letter
I need some help in clarifying something here - is the letter referred to the Hoffmann forgery? The date seems dubious.
- (A letter, dated January 17, 1844, was discovered in which Joseph Smith, Jr., wrote concerning his son, Joseph Smith III: "For he shall be my successor in the Presidency of the High Priesthood and a Seer, and a Revelator and a Prophet unto the church which appointment belongeth to him by blessing and also by right.")
We need to clarify who owns the letter and if it is legitimate. I know there were two such floating around during the 80s. I'm going to remove from the article until this is resolved. I'm fine with it being included, but we need to confirm the source before adding it in. -Visorstuff 16:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think this is referring to the hoffman forgery also - I haven't heard of anything else on that date and a google search yeilded nothing. forgery info (http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/trackingch6a.htm). User:Trödel/sig 16:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Supreme Court decision
I removed the following sentence, Significantly, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that it is the original LDS denomination. It is unclear to me that the court decision indicated was rendered by the US Supreme Court. The article mentions later on that it was an Ohio court decision. The editor who added this statement needs to provide a reference. If it is verified, it should be placed in the appropriate section, not in the lead paragraph of the article. --Blainster 23:51, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Your assumption is correct. The court decision in question was rendered by the Court of Common Pleas, Lake County, Ohio, February 23, 1880, not the Sumpreme Court. The standard historical interpretation of the court decision for the past 120+ years has been that it gave the RLDS/Community of Christ ownership of the Kirtland Temple and declared it legal successor of the church founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. A phrase from the findings of fact reads, "And the Court do further find that the plaintiff, the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, is the true and lawful continuation of, and successor to the said orginal Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, organized in 1830, and is entitled in law to all its rights and property." It is only in the last few years with the detailed research of Community of Christ member, Kim Loving, that this misinterpretation has been realized. The findings of fact have no legally binding since the case was dismissed. Loving's research was published posthumorously by the Mormon History Association. See: Kim L. Loving, "Ownership of the Kirtland Temple: Legends, Lies, and Misunderstandings," Journal of Mormon History 30 (Fall 2004), pp. 1-80. --Dbolton 23:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)