Diana Leafe Christian, author of Finding Community and Creating a Life Together, explains in this video the 7 things that successful intentional communities do. Only 10% of intentional communities survive. It takes skills and know-how… Zion was not built in a day.
Over the last couple of weeks, I have been ‘investigating’the Community of Christthrough reading their official website and engaging with a few of their other community blogs. I am struck by their candor, their genuine desire to becoming a peace church and by the peaceful vision and rhetoric of their church leadership. The Community of Christ, formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS), is the second largest church in the Latter Day Saint movement with 250’000 members worldwide gathered in community in 50 different countries. It traces its history back to the first vision received by Joseph Smith Jr. in the sacred grove and is therefore firmly grounded in the idea of being part of the literal Restoration of Christ’s ancient church in the latter days.
After the ‘scattering’ of the Saints that followed the assassination of the Prophet Joseph and of his brother Hyrum Smith at Carthage Jail in Illinois in 1844, a small group of Saints stayed behind and did not take part in the exodus led by Brigham Young to the Salt Lake Valley. They rejected polygamy, which was also discontinued by the LDS church in 1890, and did not see what LDS today refer to as sacred temple ceremonies as part of their own sacraments. On the other hand, important historic church sites like the Kirtland Temple and the Temple site in Independence, Missouri, remained in the custody of the RLDS church and are today used as educational and spiritual centers to the Church.
Emma Smith, the widow of the prophet Joseph, literally became the mother of the early RLDS movement by preparing her son, Joseph Smith III, to becoming the movement’s new prophet-president at his coming of age in 1860. His ordination as the new prophet was to coincide with the ‘reorganization’ of the church. In 2010, the Community of Christ will celebrate the 150th anniversary of that crucial 1860 conference in which Joseph Smith III accepted his prophetic calling. Rather than seeing the building of Zion as a short-term enterprise, the son of Joseph Smith Jr. sensed that the building of the Kingdom of God would be a difficult and long-term activity.
His son, Fredrick Madison Smith, served as prophet-president of the church from 1916-1946, and like few others he was a strong advocate of the social expression of the gospel, because the concept of Zion in his mind was a way to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to life in both the Church and the world. A succession of brothers in the Smith family succeeded Fredrick as visionary leaders of the movement throughout the 20th century, until 1978 (also an important date for the LDS church) when Wallace B. Smith, the great-grandson of the prophet Joseph Smith Jr., became head of the movement. Wallace B. Smithbecame the last direct descendant of Joseph Smith Jr. to preside over the RLDS movement, but through his unique ministry women were ordained to the priesthood and a temple was erected on the Temple site in Independence, Missouri, dedicated to the pursuit of peace and justice.
In 1997, W. Grant McMurray, Wallace B. Smith’s successor, called the church to a new vision: to articulate a clear and compelling Christ-centered theology of peace and justice grounded in the scriptures, faith and tradition of the Restoration movement. In 2000, the RLDS church changed its name to “the Community of Christ” to better reflect the church’s theology and mission: “to proclaim Jesus Christ and promote communities of Joy, Hope, Love and Peace”. This encapsulated two central tenents of the Church: (1) the centrality of Christ, and (2) the emphasis of building model communities, based on the movement’s long-standing tradition of seeking to establish Zion.
I like this second idea of creating model communities or signal communities, as the Community of Christ also calls them. I advocated a similar idea in the 9th and 10thnonviolent articles of faith. I am intrigued by how this is conceived by the Community of Christ and in what ways they carry out this vision.
Stephen M. Veazey was ordained at the 2005 World Conference as president-prophet of the Community of Christ, and in hisfirst sermoncalled the Church “to share the peace of Jesus Christ”:
The cause of Zion is the pursuit of conditions and relationships that bring this foretaste of God’s ultimate will for creation increasingly into all aspects of life: families, congregations, neighborhoods, nations, and the world. It is grounded in the scriptural concept of shalom, or God’s peace, for all of creation. The scriptures proclaim that the ultimate will of God for creation is wholeness, balance, and peace. God’s shalom integrates a whole range of concepts that point the way to the ultimate redemption of creation, including reconciliation, justice, well-being, stewardship, generosity, righteousness, the worth of all people, and true community. This is the peaceable kingdom of God!
The above image is the official seal of the Community of Christ. The seal emphasizes the child who leads the efforts to create a peaceable kingdom. What I like is (1) the central message of peace of the Community of Christ that the seal represents, (2) the Church’s focus to establish Zion communities across the world, and (3) that a child will lead the way to the peaceable kingdom as prophesied by the prophet Isaiah of the Old Testament: “and a little child shall lead them, and they shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters covers the sea”. It is important to see the present call to members of the Community of Christ to becoming peacemakers in a historical context. Stephen Veasey did so most elegantly in his 2005 sermon:
If there is one consistent theme at the heart of our journey as a people of faith, it is the cause of Zion. This phrase captures the sense of divine call to enflesh the gospel in community living, through which the physical and spiritual needs of people are to be met, and through which harmony, security, and peace can be realized.
Initially, though, we must confess that our limited understanding and zealous attempts to bring the dream to reality fell short and generated reactions that resulted in serious tensions and even violence—the very antithesis of the vision of God’s kingdom on earth. Isn’t it ironic that it was a self-defense military company, called Zion’s Camp, to whom the revelation now recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 102 was first addressed? They were headed for Jackson County, Missouri, from Kirtland, Ohio, prepared for armed conflict if necessary, when they were told to pursue a different approach:
And again, I say unto you, Sue for peace, not only the people that have smitten you, but also to all people; and lift up an ensign of peace, and make a proclamation for peace unto the ends of the earth.
I highly recommend you to read his entire conference address, as it presents in my opinion perhaps the most realistic and down-to-earth analyses of what Zion ought to be for those who are “anxiously engaged in a good cause” and that are followers of Jesus Christ in the Restoration movement. But likeother young adults in the Community of Christ, I seriously think that ‘a commitment to non-violence and non-participation in the military’ is key for the Community of Christ and other LDS members that are so inclined to embarking on a more authentic journey towards becoming a peace church, partly for the simple reason that adherence to nonviolence is a basic characteristic of peace churches as they are now traditionally understood.
The longer I dwell on these issues, the clearer it becomes to me that the need to understand, teach and practice nonviolence within the Restoration movement is the first step towards becoming a prophetic people seeking peace and justice in the world. Hopefully, the ideas of a latter day satyagraha presented on this site will capture the imagination of those that are truly seeking to establish Zion in the latter days.
Hi Sir,
Please take note of this important message. We all know that God is our creator who is deserving of glory & praise. (Revelation. 4:11). Hence we should accept his teachings found in the scriptures. Let’s take the matter of wars. Should Christians join the army to fight wars? Isaiah 2:2-4 shows it is wrong to do so. It tells us that in the last days, God’s true worshippers will be established & they will learn war NO more. Thus, God’s people will certainly not join the army as clearly shown in the scriptures. Moreover, Matthew 5:44 says that we should love our enemies. Does fighting wars indicate love for one’s enemies? Do we show love by killing our enemies? Jesus’ true followers are identified primarily by love. (John 13:35) Therefore, how could one join the army to fight a war against another country, killing his own spiritual brother who fights on the opposing side? Serious thoughts to think about. So we ask: Can a religion that allows its members to join the army be considered true religion? The conclusion is: The TRUE religion that exists today does NOT take part in wars. It’s each person’s responsibility to find the true religion that God uses today to carry out His will. (Matthew 7:21) Of course, members of the true religion are not perfect. (James 3:2) But they sincerely, as a group, strive to live up as closely as possible to Christ’s example.
Work done by Christ’s true followers today: Preach the good news of the KINGDOM & make disciples = Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:19, 20
Commands obeyed by Christ’s true followers = Acts 15:28, 29. They abstain from idolatry, blood & fornication.
Best regards,
Blazer
Your belief that there is no connection between the means and the end is a great mistake. Through that mistake even men who have been considered religious have committed grievous crimes. Your reasoning is the same as saying that we can get a rose through planting a noxious weed. If I want to cross the ocean, I can do so only by means of a vessel; if I were to use a cart for that purpose, both the cart and I would soon find the bottom. ‘As is the God, so is the faithful follower’ is a maxim worth considering. Its meaning has been distorted and men have gone astray.
M. K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, Chap. XVI, 51-52
Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do.
Jesus to the Nephites (3 Nephi 27:21)
The means may be likened to a seed, and the end to a tree; and there is just the same inviolable connection between the means and the end as there is between the seed and the tree. I am not likely to obtain the result flowing from the worship of God by laying myself prostrate before Satan. If, therefore, anyone were to say: ‘I want to worship God; it does not matter that I do so by means of Satan’, it would be set down as ignorant folly. We reap exactly as we sow.
M. K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj, Chap. XVI, 51-52
“And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself.”
Let me remind us all Peace is Mutual. even to have peace with ourselves we must have peace with God.
On the other side of things I must ask you about your thoughts on War?
If War is Always Wrong, then how would you deal with Tyranny and Genocide?
Is there ever a righteous time to War?
Well, we have not dealt with Burma (Tyranny), and we did not lift a finger in Rwanda (Genocide). We haven’t done anything in Chechnya, and Darfur is still ongoing. So to answer your question: war is always wrong and to this day we have done very little with regards to tyranny and genocide.
On the other hand, ‘we’ – although I demonstrated against – did take the fight to Iraq and to Afghanistan, but it would be too easy to say that these were liberation wars. They were respectively wars of retribution and of preemptive strike – neither were wars of liberation, meaning that I have yet to see a righteous war out there.
War is always wrong. There are other means by which we may know peace and achieve freedom: these must be in accordance with the end that we try to achieve. “Behold, doth he cry unto any, saying: Depart from me? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; but he saith: Come unto me all ye ends of the earth, buy milk and honey, without money and without price”.
And why give up one’s free agency by entering the army for example? ‘Because one has to? Because it is the right thing to do?’ – was Jesus a soldier? Did he achieve freedom through war? Why do mormons try to be perfect on all facets of life, but when it comes to violence and doing the work of the devil, we say ‘there is no harm in this’ (2 Nephi 28:8)
First if it is your stance that All war is to be avoided, and that you can expect peace with all beings even the tyrants that would wipe you off of “their” earth, then you can expect a short life and a long line of meaningless death. But I guess that is the end result of peace after all… In Death we may find the peace we seek in the struggle of life.
Was Jesus a soldier, Yes he was. In the war against injustice and evil, wrong doing and mistreatment of people, he was a soldier of God his Father in a war against the political and social powers that had morphed into tyrannies of their own. The cast system is nothing more that a child of those illegitimate Political/religious leaders doing more harm to their peoples than serving them.
Life itself is a war, a struggle against the monotony of numbing mantra of peace peace peace, unto death.
Let’s look at it in simpler context, is it always wrong to kill. It is breaking a commandment, but is there a time that no action is worse than a killing action?
It is all about one’s personal values. Me as an example: I would not blink at the duty assigned me to protect my family, even if it meant taking a life… even if it meant sin upon myself, and me personally taking the punishment due to breaking that commandment, for I would be remiss in my duty to protect my wife and child. What is yet better is that I would rather put myself in harm’s way for their protection, I would rather be the one shot at and bombed and my soul torn apart by the evils that pervade this world, if for nothing more than their safety. It is nothing more than what we ask of our soldiers, that they lay down their life for us, that they protect us.
Stay not in your illusions, the six aircraft attempted to be hijacked (four successfully) on 11, September 2001 AD. was a plan hatched and prepared in the country of Iraq and the agents whom devised these devious plans hide in the afore mentioned countries. The ruling peoples, at the time, of these governments and the hate mongering zealots want no peace with us while we still have our freedom to practice our religion or freedom from the instituted practice of their religious opinions, unless we (any opposition to the plan of satin to remove our choices) are killed off to the last generation, every mother, father, child and baby… Dead or under their fanatical religious rule, with no choice.
Now to your question: “why give up one’s free agency, by entering the army for example?” You are wrong if you think entering the military is giving up one’s agency. Does one take an oath upon entering the military? Yes, and in the U.S. it is to protect the constitution of the United States, which is our modern day Title of Liberty. In essence the oath is to protect the agency of all peoples. It is the highest law in the military, if one is given an order that breaks it, That order is an unlawful order and should not be obeyed. There in we can see how agency not only exists in the military, but rules it.
Peace between us, and sleep well as others choose to keep watch at the walls of your freedom.
The anti-nephi-lehies had a short life, but their death was not meaningless. We do not have to die however to find the peace we seek – the promise of peace in this life is real. OK, so Jesus was a spiritual ‘soldier’. But I am not in favor of using the war analogy to the fight against evil. Violence is evil, conflict is not – and in that case, our conflict with and ensuing fight against violence – be it structural, cultural or physical – should be primordial. Being against violence does not mean that one is against action. I believe in nonviolent direct action and being pushed to my extremities as you describe above would probably choose to do the same as you, but ‘without recourse to violence, if possible’. I hear you say ‘with recourse to violence, if necessary’. We are pulled in two directions in this life, yes. The question is which is the direction we would like to choose: violence or nonviolence.
Fanatical religious rule? Did you read your last post? Sounds pretty extreme to me. I disagree with the constitution of the United States being a modern day title of liberty. Inspired, perhaps. Scripture, I doubt it. The dangers of patriotism rooted in religious discourse cannot be overstated. I have myself been in the army and know that the deconstruction process of the individual in order to attain unquestioning obedience result in the giving up of one’s moral agency, one’s free will. Today I would rather be in jail, as christians of old, and suffer the consequences of not going ‘the extra mile’ to obey the laws of the land, having now made – as others have done before – a covenant of nonviolence.
I have done my fair share of watching over the walls of freedom and have seen slaves on both sides of the wall. What to do?
Which Army were you in and was it by your own choice that you entered this Army?
Please, understand I am in no way making a joke of poking fun here, as It is very posible that you may have been conscripted into this Army and also possible that the Army in question was of a different Country/soverenty.
If it was by your own choice to join where has your agency been violated?
I was drafted into the Norwegian Air Force, but I am not sure whether it is relevant or not which country it was – as Norway is considered, I suppose, to be part of the ‘Free World’. My only possibility to avoid the military would have been in my case to be a conscientious objector. The LDS church had taught me not to, so I went. In fact, I never even thought of conscientious objection as an option at the time – although it clearly is. And then starts the dehumanization process – I myself worked as a base camp officer for more than a year, so I know. The aim is still unquestioning obedience to orders – for what other reason would one kill? That’s the point with most militaries. What about Abu Ghraib? check out http://www.lucifereffect.com/ for ‘How good people turn evil’.
Well, here in the US all branches of our Millitary use the same oath and every sodier must take it, that oath holds the sodier to protect our constitution which is a title of liberty. Also contious objection is a valid choice and thus would keep agancy in tact.
As for your question: “unquestioning obedience to orders – for what other reason would one kill?” Lets see… Defence of ones Liberty, Life, Family, and in some cases Land. If you are LDS it is easy to see this displayed in the Book of Mormon, if you are non-LDS Christian then the bible would suggest that we would kill if God sends us into a land for the purpose of clearing it for our people (Jewish settlement of Canaan).
Dealing with religion… If your Hindu Death and war are the ends not the means of life, it is the goal of life.
But back to the topic at hand: There are many reasons we may choose to kill, or the considered righteous or semi-righteous situations, one may find they are willing in the defense of another. that is the reason for a millitary force… Though it has been used as the aggressor by some rulers it should not be used that way.
Peace seems simple and logical. If we all would just have peace with eachother it would work. Peace is mutual in the respect that it cannot be one sided, so we must mutually have peace. Peace seems simple and logical, until greed and pride get involved. The initial aggressors in our society are ruted in these evils. As Peace is mutual you cannot have peace with someone who ultimately does not wish to have peace with you. This is how a millitary show of force has insured peace in the past, when one group wants to harm another the opposing force steps in and gives the aggressor insentive to stay their hand, and commit to peace (albeit temporary). Once that force is removed the original aggresor (if not removed) will toss their power about and attempt to cause harm again.
I am LDS (latter day satyagrahi – not Latter-day Saint), and I am therefore aware of what the Book of Mormon and the Bible teach. I do not believe however that what is recorded in those books, that what happened in the past, makes it necessarily right in the present (on the contrary!). Jesus taught in the sermon on the mount and to the nephites about nonviolence, and did away with or fulfilled the old law ‘an eye for an eye’. This is what this site is about: the teachings of Jesus, also from the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, as Leo Tolstoy, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King might have taught them. I doubt that their interpretation of the teachings of Christ are less valid than those of leaders in the LDS movement today, or even of those taught by prophets of old. Many LDS want to emulate Jesus in their lives, but yet on the issue of violence few mormons are committed to nonviolence. I find that disturbing, perhaps even alarming.
Now the point for me is not really to be in an argument with you on whether or not military is a good thing or not. I think it is not – because it teaches war, and not peace. D&C teaches: “proclaim peace and renounce war” and that’s what the site is trying to expand on. Violence is never justified, if one is committed to nonviolence. If you feel your free agency and the agency of others is not violated by the military or by what the military does, I suppose that is your pejorative. But as for me and my house, …
I do not wish to stir up contention but wanted to offer a different point of view.
I have been in the mind set before that War is Bad and Peace is Good… Well, I can still agree with that philosophy…
War may be bad, Violence may be bad, but without it you will never know the Peace you seek. Things really are as Lehi said, you cannot have the good if you do not accept the bad.
I will honor your admirable attempt to bring about more peace in this tromultous time, I just want to arm you with the understanding that the Millitary is not the evil, nor is the actions a sodier takes if within the bounds of their duty. It may be unwise to let a few political leaders hold soo much power over a military, but that is how these systems are set up. Laso Know that life is a strugle, and the ultimate peace we all seek comes only after Death or the second comming of Christ, and even then there may be more death and troubling times.
God bless you in your endevors to bring this world into more peace,
-Ditchu
I return your greetings of peace and thank you for your conciliatory words. I was however ‘pushed’ to write a new article today where I had to look at your statement that Jesus is a soldier. See below.
May we experience peace and justice before we die! To work with it or against it, that is the question?
affirmation
combatants for peace
mormon worker
Blazer Hartman 00:37 on September 10, 2009 Permalink |
Hi Sir,
Please take note of this important message. We all know that God is our creator who is deserving of glory & praise. (Revelation. 4:11). Hence we should accept his teachings found in the scriptures. Let’s take the matter of wars. Should Christians join the army to fight wars? Isaiah 2:2-4 shows it is wrong to do so. It tells us that in the last days, God’s true worshippers will be established & they will learn war NO more. Thus, God’s people will certainly not join the army as clearly shown in the scriptures. Moreover, Matthew 5:44 says that we should love our enemies. Does fighting wars indicate love for one’s enemies? Do we show love by killing our enemies? Jesus’ true followers are identified primarily by love. (John 13:35) Therefore, how could one join the army to fight a war against another country, killing his own spiritual brother who fights on the opposing side? Serious thoughts to think about. So we ask: Can a religion that allows its members to join the army be considered true religion? The conclusion is: The TRUE religion that exists today does NOT take part in wars. It’s each person’s responsibility to find the true religion that God uses today to carry out His will. (Matthew 7:21) Of course, members of the true religion are not perfect. (James 3:2) But they sincerely, as a group, strive to live up as closely as possible to Christ’s example.
Work done by Christ’s true followers today: Preach the good news of the KINGDOM & make disciples = Matthew 24:14; Matthew 28:19, 20
Commands obeyed by Christ’s true followers = Acts 15:28, 29. They abstain from idolatry, blood & fornication.
Best regards,
Blazer
Kestejoo 16:02 on November 8, 2009 Permalink |
Great post! superb blog
Matthew Joseph Shock 18:59 on May 31, 2010 Permalink |
Wonderful – your words resonate with me and all who believe in Christ.