The Bible took thousands of years to put together. Before Moses, there were no scriptures or 10 commandments. Before Isaiah, there was no Book of Isaiah. Before Christ, there was no New Testament. Our church believes the God wants to talk to us, just as he talked to Moses, Isaiah, Christ, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul. The Bible is a record of “changes” over the centuries. One needs only look at Baptism, the Last Supper, the Law of Circumcision, or dietary laws to see some changes in religious practices within the Bible itself.

Yes, God is unchanging, but man is not. Christians no longer follow the Law of Moses (even though Christ did). So yes, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, but he gives us new scriptures when he wants us to know more. We don’t believe God is done talking to us, and that’s why we have more scriptures. God loves us ans wants to talk to us just like he loved ancient Jews and Christians and talked to them.

If you’d like to know more about Mormons and race, I encourage you to click on this link. I’ve talked about it quite extensively.

FireTag, thanks as well for your information. You answered a couple of my questions, but raise about 10 more. I’ll try to glean as much as I can on my own from the resources available before I circle back on this topic, if needed.

Thanks for the info on 2nd Anointings. That is certainly not talked about in the church.

FireTag, I look forward to your Sorenson posts.

I think that I’ve got about 3 posts in mind for Sorenson’s “Ancient American Setting…” already. I find it really impressive when he gets the plate tectonics wrong, gets the oceanography wrong, gets the DNA evidence of the arrival timing in America wrong, but when you correct those things, his map pops out anyway, so I’ll definitely want to talk about some of those points in my blog.

LDSinT:

MH has a post he put up on Mormon Matters which I think he titled “Interview with the Community of Christ” in which he consolidates a number things said by John Hamer, Margie Miller, and me at various posts on this blog. If you haven’t read that, it may help clarify in general.

To answer your specific questions, we see the evidence of the Holy Ghost working in many places in the world to establish the Kingdom. We believe that the Restoration is an essential element of that work, but not a sufficient element of that work. So it would be fair to say we believe we are “a” true, divinely inspired church, but not “the one and only” such church. Having a one and only true church — believing the right things about Jesus and having the right sacraments — is seen as different from believing in Jesus and following his leadings. The church is supposed to be a gateway to Jesus, not a gatekeeper from Jesus.

Fifty years ago, we would have believed we were the one and only, and you folks had gone into apostasy like everyone else.

With that orientation comes the focus (or even an overfocus) on specific mission related to building Zion, while not paying attention to the afterlife. It has become something of a cultural virtue among us (I don’t argue that it’s theologically sound in every respect, because I think the Spirual side of man can thereby get neglected) to serve without worrying about one’s eternal reward. We think the “elect”, when we don’t glitch over the term entirely, are those who are so worried about the fates of others they stop worrying about their own status. So we are trying to go ever more into the world and make it take on the characteristics of peace and justice and hope and joy — the characteristics of Zion — everywhere. It’s the exact opposite of isolationist.

The church does not have a GOAL of getting smaller; it is consuming itself, in my opinion, on trying to maintain itself so it can Zionize the world. But it cannot. I have records of our membership from various world church sources for the CofChrist going back to 1880 that show our growth and decline in North America is absolutely independent of anything we do. More missionary effort = same result. Less missionary effort = same result. More liberalism = same result. More conservatism = same result. Etc. Our size is controlled from outside the church, in the larger society, so I PERSONALLY believe we have to pack up our tents like Lehi and head out into the “wilderness” outside our Jerusalems, because that’s where our future is being decided.

Since your denomination is 100 times our size in the US according to Pew, you are far less in a tail-trying-to-wag-the-dog situation than we are, but the limited data I’ve seen indicate your peak membership (God not intervening externally directly in society) will peak in about 20 years at about 2% of the population. III Nephi has Jesus saying some interesting things about that situation.

Your earlier posts on this topic intrigue me. Not sure how much you’ll feel inclined provide in a response, but some initial questions are:

1- Can’t tell if the CoC hangs on to the belief that it is “the one and only” as the LDS Church does. If so, I don’t understand the goal of reducing your numbers to the brink of obscurity (the “cracks”). What is the good you intend to accomplish, if not the salvation of God’s children?
2- I get the older slogan, but given the desire for smallness, I’m not sure what you mean by “Zionize the world and the evangelism will follow.” Do you mean carving out a “world” from among the zionists (isolation) and then going forth to bring in the elect?

You reference “The Elect hear my voice” and Alma 13:3 (one of my favorite chapters in the BofM). I find it interesting that in both the key is the free exercise of agency manifested in hearing, exercising faith, and doing good works. These come about because of our choices and not because God made us that way. The BofM makes it clear that the “highly favored” of God gain that status through obedience. WE decide if we are the elect, highly favored, etc. Of course, agency was in full force in the pre(mortal)-existence and we are placed in circumstances on the earth due to our choices and progression there. God’s unhindered view of eternity gives Him the foreknowledge to place us in these circumstances and “call” us to the work. God’s foreknowledge + our agency –> “Many are called, but few are chosen.” We always have the choice to underperform or reject our callings outright, which of course affects our future circumstances.

As far as the second anointing goes, it seems to be practiced today as often as is required (or merited). I don’t have all the details, but our prior stake president personally new nine individuals who had received it and I know three others. The three I know are regular “Joe” members. One of my greatest spiritual experiences happened in the temple during a veil worker training when the trainer put his arm around my shoulder, looked me straight in the face, and described the Savior to me from his personal visitations. As the training progressed through the shift, he told me of several personal encounters including one in which the Savior appeared to a small group of sisters during an endowment session. I treat the details as extremely personal and I’m not attempting to “wow” anyone by disclosing what I have. My point is simply that it does happen and the Lord is not constrained in this area.

Thanks for the good material, everyone. Learning a lot from these exchanges.

I think I have to agree with you that if a person spoke in tongues today, the church would frown on it. I don’t know that they would find themselves on the outside of the church, unless they persisted in telling the story. I know the general authorities say that some miracles are not meant to be shared. Perhaps this is why the church doesn’t emphasize some of these early miracles in the Kirtland Temple. I think it would be cool to have some of these experiences today, though I wonder how well they would be accepted today.

As for dancing, I’m reminded that King David danced before the Lord. The Biblical story is interesting, because 1 of his wives thought he was immodestly dressed. Certainly there are scriptures which seem to indicate more celebratory worship services than our somber displays in the temples and churches today. I read the book Great Basin Kingdom by Leonard Arrington, and he said that early church leaders came from Puritan New England. Now that’s interesting that Puritans like Brigham Young seemed to have no problem dancing in the temple, but it sure seems like the Puritan somber form of worship seems to dominate Mormon temple and church services today. I’d really like to see us let our hair down a bit. I agree that it might bring in the spirit, though it will definitely take some getting used to for many members who are used to our somber services.

FireTag, I’ll have to pick up Sorenson again. I had to stop to keep up with my book club books (which can be dry as well.) Maybe I’ll find him less dry now. I think we only have a few books left for the year. If we continue the club, I’ll have to suggest it for next year so I can write a post on it and we can discuss it! Are you reading “An American Setting for the Book of Mormon” or another book. I did like his “Mormon’s Map” much better (perhaps it was because it had more pictures.)

I am not PERSONALLY comfortable with speaking in tongues and have never seen it. (inspired dreams about directions in my life seem to be more how the Spirit works with me when It has to get my attention in a hurry!) It’s accepted among us theologically, and speaking under the influence of the Spirit is certainly often practiced. I do think we have a few “Contemporary Christian Ministry” Congregations — think of them as special “wards” — where tongues are sometimes reported.

I presume your denomination is Pentecostal. What has been your experience?

MH:

Sorenson isn’t dry at all. He’s about to convince me about the “East” being the Gulf Coast. I just found a plausible volcanic candidate for Moroni’s drowning that makes sense in the plate tectonic framework. Fun to come.