Talk:Community of Christ

Information Box

I am quite unclear as to what the function of the box on the left hand side is. It contains very little relevent or important information. The image that is being used in the box is also a little strange in that it is not the Community of Christ seal, but a version of it that has been accepted by the US government for use on grave stones for Community of Christ members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.196.251 (talk) 08:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Attendance decline

I'm quite ignorant of the church, but the deleted passage about a decline by 75 percent in Sunday worship catches my interest. The allegedly unclear statistic does, of course, lack information about which exact years the decline refers to, but a reference to the recent schisms gives an approximate time frame which, in light of the dramatically high number, would seem to be adequate.

In what way is a printed source unverifiable? And how about other sources? Does the church provide statistics, as most churches do? If this source is questionable, is it merely because it is critical of the current direction of the church, or are there other reasons?

In my view, an alleged decline in attendance by 75 percent over a few decades is - if true - an important aspect of the article. It seems important to establish the possible factual accuracy of the statement. --Jonund (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the reference is that there is no clarification or context. The reference is also beneath Wiki standards. Where exactly is this publication and who is behind it? If the only source is motivated by POV, is unreliable or self-published, it won't fly - no matter how shocking or seemingly significant it is. I encourage editors to dig deep to find sources if the allegation is correct. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The context is the transformation of the church and the ongoing schism. One might also mention the decline of mainline Protestant churches over the past decades (less pronounced, but still dramatic).

The author is Richard Price and it is available throgh Restoration Bookstore, a conservative fraction of the church. It is not self-published, but represents a part of the church with at least some prominence.

On what grounds could the source be deemed unreliable? The POV-brand appears problematic. As a representant for the historic position of the denomination, facing a radical change in doctrine by the current leadership, it would seem to be equally credible as the other side, if no special circumstances indicate otherwise. To the limited extent that I have checked their material, they seem to be moderate in tone. --Jonund (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I know the Prices - I like the Prices and I do not doubt their sincerity, or even their prowess as amateur historic sleuths. However, I fail to see how they aren't self-publishers. They have always printed their own material and sold it out of their house in Independence (and in recent times at their website). But more significantly, I thought the reference itself was vague and without context. Throwing out numbers and percentages without qualifying them or stating demographic starting points can be misleading and lead to POV-based conclusions. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

75% is a big number, but there has been a decline in membership (and especially active membership). Roger Launius provides the following numbers: In 1994, the annual number of baptisms was 1/3 the average number for the mid-1960s. 25k-50k joined schismatic groups. Contributions down 50% (real $) since 1978. 40% membership (150k still on books) seen as active. Roger D. Launius, "The Reorganized Church, the Decade of Decision, and the Abilene Paradox," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 31, no. 1 (1998): 47-65. 24.233.254.29 (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I added this information to the text. 24.233.254.29 (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Discarding Heritage?

"It seems, however, intent on discarding its heritage in favor of a liberal, pluralistic theology, adopted in recent decades.[6]"

I am at a loss to see where the referenced article by Richard Howard supports the ideas presented here. This is clearly interpretation, rather than referencing. Having read several of Richard Howard's articles and books, and having met him, I can say confidently that he would not support the ideas presented in the passage quoted above. Richard Howard was Community of Christ official historian for many years, and therefore charged with the task of upholding the importance of the movement's heritage.

Could you please explain to me where is says in Howard's article that the Community of Christ is, or seems to be "intent on discarding its heritage in favour of a liberal, pluralistic theology"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricktopher (talk • contribs) 15:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I sat in the Howard's dining room in Independence eating dinner in 1983 when he discussed how history was colored by the perceptions of the writers - their bias, their agenda, their faith - and that this was an affliction he hurled at RLDS historians and writers from the late nineteenth century. Richard was groundbreaking in his challenges against the status quo, from the First Vision account to polygamy. Perhaps you're right that the reference has been interpreted by the editor and it can be rephrased, but I think there is merit in stating that the last 30 years have brought forth changes that put the emphasis less on what had been considered historical truths in restoration, authority, etc. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There is merit in such a statement. However, I believe that the way it is stated on the article at present does not represent a neutral point of view. The Community of Christ has undoubtedly shifted focus away from perspectives it held previously, but to say or even imply it is "intent on discarding its heritage" is inaccurate.

Perhaps a more neutral re-phrasing of this could be also shifted away from the introduction, and into the section on Community of Christ history. This could be in place of the sentence, "Within the past several decades, the church has undergone radical changes, discarding many of its distinctive doctrines." Just as the sentence in the introduction, this sentence also is not representing a neutral point of view, nor is it providing an entirely accurate depiction of the changes that have occurred. These changes seem to represent a changing understanding of its traditional doctrines, rather than a discarding of doctrines. My suggestion would be something along the following lines: "Since the 1960's the church’s proselytizing with other world cultures in countries outside North America forced a re-assessment and gradual evolution of denominational practices and beliefs." This is for the most part identical to a sentence in the article History of the Community of Christ, which I believe is also probably the best location for any more detailed treatment of these issues. --Ricktopher (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ricktopher - I think you can start a decent, NPOV way of stating that the denomination hasn't tried to chuck every aspect of the original Restoration stuff, but on the other hand has obviously evolved considerably since W. Wallace Smith. One certain issue was the start of the leadership connection to St. Paul's School of Theology and the influence they stated it had on their world view, religious-wise. Give it a whirl and I'll chime in with comments or edits... Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"worth of all persons"

What constitutes personhood according to Community of Christ? Does it include the unborn? What about people in a coma? Has there ever been any official statement on that?