Several months ago, I attended the Sunstone Symposium and, for the first time, met and listened to members of the Community of Christ. It was fascinating!
The Community of Christ:
- Ordains women to the priesthood.
- Accepts gays in full fellowship.
- Does not ask anyone to wear garments; doesn’t have initiatories and endowments at all.
- Does not preach eternal marriage and exaltation, with all of its unanswered questions about the eternal role of women as baby producers.
- Does not issue temple recommends, which means no temple recommend questions.
- Is not sitting on a stock portfolio worth billions.
- Does not preach or expect prophetic infallibility. In fact, the teaching that the Latter Day Saints are a “prophetic people” includes the general church membership in important decisions. Revelation can flow upstream as well as downstream. In 2002, the Community of Christ’s First Presidency established a Theology Formation Team, that includes both men and women, to help advise and offer input on matters of doctrine and theology.
- Allows its prophet to retire rather than die in office.
Many of the issues that the nuanced and disaffected dislike about Brigham’s LDS Church are not present in Joseph Smith III’s LDS Church.
Brief History of the Community of Christ
After Joseph Smith died in 1844, the Church he founded (restored) fractured into several smaller groups. The biggest of these groups, led by Brigham Young, crossed hundreds of miles of prairie and founded Salt Lake City. It’s known today as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Emma Smith, Joseph Smith’s first wife and widow, remained in Nauvoo, Illinois. Her son, Joseph Smith III, was unaffiliated with any of the groups that formed after his father’s death. He was eleven years old when his father died. Joseph Smith III grew up, studied law, married at 24 and eventually fathered 15 children with three different wives whom he married serially, not polygamously.
Many of the Saints that remained in the Midwest broke with Brigham Young’s faction over the issue of polygamy. In the late 1850s, some of those Latter Day Saints approached Joseph Smith III and asked him to lead their church. Smith said he would accept the leadership only if he were inspired by God to do so. In 1860, Smith felt this inspiration and was sustained as President of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. [summary drawn from Wikipedia]
Leadership of the RLDS Church remained in the Smith family for decades, passing to sons or brothers. In 1996, leadership passed to Grant McMurray, a man who was not descended from Joseph Smith. He resigned in 2004 without designating a successor, and called on the members of the church to remember that they are a “prophetic people” and encouraged them to discern together who should next lead the church. Stephen Veazey was ordained and has led the church to expand and diversify. [from https://cofchrist.org/history/]
Latter Day Seekers
Why don’t we (I quit attending Church about five years ago) join the Community of Christ en masse? Many do, and I heard from one or two. One woman I met at the Symposium was born to a Brighamite family, felt strongly that God had called her to hold the priesthood, and found her way to the Community of Christ, where she was ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood.
The Community of Christ is “tiny” compared to the Mormon church; it has 250,000 members worldwide compared to a Mormon church membership of over 15 million. But it has become attractive to disaffected Mormons, particularly in Salt Lake City.
Linkhart, who oversees Community of Christ’s Western USA Mission Field, lives in Colorado but says she spends about 75% of her time in Salt Lake City due to growing interest among “Latter-day seekers”.
“In 2012, our congregation in Salt Lake had dwindled down to about six active people,” she said. “They would meet the first and third Sunday of every month. Now [2015] we have a full slate of classes and worship every Sunday, and our numbers are running between 50 and 100 in attendance at each service.” [source]
That’s not very many. People who leave the Big Church generally don’t go to the Community of Christ, even if they left for issues that aren’t present in the Community of Christ, like equality for women and gays.
Why not?
I hope you’ll answer in the comments, if you’re among those who have quit Church entirely. I can only tell you my story. After I accepted that I wasn’t going to be attending Church anymore, I spent a year going to different Christian churches, looking for something that felt like home. The Methodist Church felt the best (the preacher was a woman and the hymns were in four part harmony) and I attended for two or three months before Covid shut everything down. I haven’t been back and don’t want to go back. I’d rather sleep in and watch Netflix.
At the Symposium, I toyed with the idea of finding a Community of Christ congregation just to see if I liked it. But then … but then the woman I was talking to said something about how she feels so much closer to Christ and she loves the focus on Jesus. And I realized just how far gone I am. I’ve rearranged my thinking to exclude the need for a Savior because believing that I was an enemy to God who needed to change my fundamental nature was very bad for my mental health and happiness. I can’t go back to believing I need a Savior.
My testimony of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a scorched earth affair.
- Have you attended a Community of Christ meeting?
- If you’ve quit attending Church, are you looking for another faith community? Or have you already found one?
- In general, why do you think disaffected Mormons don’t just switch to the Community of Christ?
Wheat & Tares 
I concur with the “scorched earth” experience. My observation is that when disaffected Brighamite Mormons make their final exit from Church activity, whatever the actual reason may be, at that point they are so burned out from (and betrayed by) the high-demand religious experience that it ruins the appeal of any other organized religions too.
Also, it’s possible that the LDS faith deconstruction process burns down many of the foundational but problematic Mormon truth claims (JS first vision, BoM origins, etc.) which the CofC has in common with the larger LDS Church; hence, most post-Mormons are probably not going to be interested in Mormon Lite if they have already arrived at certain disappointing conclusions about the two groups’ shared early origins and history.
Moreover, today in America it is much more socially acceptable to declare one’s self an atheist/agnostic/secular humanist/none that it was a generation ago. This phenomenon is most certainly being aided by the fact that conservative Christianity has been hijacked by political agendas and movements that do not resemble anything Jesus would approve of, but that’s another topic entirely.
I wonder if the CofC has missionary efforts that seek to actively target and poach faithful LDS members, beyond the passive recruitment efforts mentioned in the OP. If so, I would welcome it (even though I have no interest in it myself) and consider it fair game in America’s free religious marketplace.
The eldest of my kids does participate with Community of Christ. Mostly via online services, as there are very few congregations in the UK. They’ve attended in person at the nearest congregation a couple of times a year, and also mission centre conferences.
This year I joined them on an Open House weekend at Dunfield House in the UK. Lovely, lovely friendly people. I attended a couple of services while there. I found them very different to a sacrament meeting. The evening campfire service was really not my thing at all. I’ve never enjoyed action songs. But plenty seemed to enjoy it. The Sunday service was very child oriented, reminiscent of a primary sharing time, but there were a number of children there. I assume the services have an underlying structure, but it was difficult to discern. The services were a lot more participatory for the congregation.
The “collection” was quite jarring in the service. Not quite the same as a talk about paying tithing, being so immediate, but I imagine I would find it equally jarring in other denominations as well. People talk about tithing declaration in terms of an annual shakedown sometimes, but this did feel like one, though I don’t think it was intended that way, and perhaps doesn’t feel like it to those accustomed to it. On the one hand they did say precisely what the money would be paying for, so not nearly so opaque perhaps, but on the other hand our local stake centre has undergone major building work, replacing the roof, and tithes certainly paid for that, without local members having to raise funds specifically for the roof. So…🤷♀️
I think it isn’t necessarily an easy move to make in the UK if you are looking for in person services that aren’t too far away.
As a former TBM who was all in I have an easy answer to your question. I believed 100% of the authority argument. The COJCOLDS maintained the keys of the priesthood and the LDS prophet was the only authorized representative of the Lord to speak on his behalf. That argument was very compelling and made other churches look made up (shout out to Brad Wilcox for his “playing church” comment about all other churches).
Once I discovered there was no date attached to the restoration of the M. Priesthood and once I figured out that the story of this restoration via Peter, James, and John was simply a narrative Joseph Smith used to justify and solidify his standing, I no longer believed in the authority argument that had kept me in. But after that realization there was a zero percent chance that I was going to attach myself to another man-made religion (with all due respect to the Community of Christ).
Too tired, and no belief in Joseph Smith’s teachings or any part of his legacy. And the churches are ugly. If I went back it would be to a Lutheran or Episcopalian church where they have beautiful buildings, serious music, and trained ministers.
About 10 years ago now, John Hamer (CoC pastor, and currently a Seventy if I recall) did an extended presentation about the Community of Christ on the Mormon Stories podcast. At the time I’d been questioning my faith for years and had largely made peace with my doubts and continued activity in the church coexisting. But I found the whole presentation mind blowing because it represented a restoration tradition that had already made all the changes I wanted to see in my own church. I remember thinking, if I still believed in the existence of a single True Church, the CoC might be it!
So, why haven’t I jumped the fence? My lack of belief in a single true church or the importance of the LDS church’s authority claims means I could go anywhere, but it also means I can just stay where I am, which is what I have done. The people at the CoC are probably more like me than the members of the ward I attend in many ways, but I actually believe there is value in pushing my self to practice the principles of a Christian life among people I’m more different from, to learn to love all of the people who vote differently than me, for example. I could imagine under different circumstances having made a different choice, for example if one of my kids were gay. There are a lot of people for whom continuing to attend the LDS church is just too uncomfortable, and I respect their choice to stop. For me it’s less of a sacrifice and I believe is good for me. I’m still CoC-curious, and maybe I should attend one day to get to know them better, but I haven’t done it yet.
My wife and I are still every Sunday LDS attenders. We’ve also had serious conversations recently about if that will continue. For me the issue is the “only true and living” aspect of LDS doctrine. We are taught that the keys of salvation reside in the structure of the church and no where else. I grew up with a church that clearly defined its necessity; without LDS priesthood for baptism and temple ordinances there is no way back. But if I no longer believe that, what am I hoping to find in another church to fill that hole?
My wife and I have had this conversation many times. She is more open to looking for other religious groups to provide community and religious content. I’m more content to leave my religious beliefs very personal without need for a church to direct them. As I’ve been backing away from the LDS church and some very specific LDS practices, I’ve been turning to choosing my own ideas and my own motivations, and am not excited to return that moral authority back over to another group of flawed church leaders. So what is a new church going to do for me? What do I want from a new church? Do I just want a church with neighbors and friends and nice people who get together weekly, sing some hymns and preach some doctrine that I feel free to reject when they are clearly wrong? Well, I already have that. It’s the closest church to my house, and I already know the people and the songs. Plus, the inertia of going where you’ve always been going is a real thing.
To put it another way, I am well aware of the things I don’t like about the LDS church. And Janey’s list demonstrates how some of those things are not an issue at the CoC. (The 8 items on her list would apply to plenty of other religions, too.) But the Church of DaveW Doing His Own Thing also allows women into leadership, accepts LGBTQ people, doesn’t have garments or temples, doesn’t have temple recommends, doesn’t teach DaveW’s infallibility, and hopes that DaveW can retire someday, too. Sadly, it also does not have huge stock portfolios. The Bad Things might be enough to make me give up on the LDS church. But not doing the Bad Things isn’t enough to make me go through the effort of attending a new and strange church. It’s got to actually provide Good Things that I don’t find elsewhere. I’m completely aware that maybe I just don’t know what I’m missing because I haven’t given other things a try.
(For the record, the eternal families part of the LDS church is perhaps my favorite part, even if my inclusive version of it might not align with church leaders. I’m holding out hope of getting to know my mother someday.)
For me, if I wanted a church, it wouldn’t be a Joseph Smith related church. I was in primary when I first decided that Joseph Smith was an arrogant jerk. I can’t remember the story, some supposed to be sweet story about Joseph playing with some children, and it triggered a “He’s just like my abusive father,” kind of reaction. My father liked to play with children, because emotionally he was stunted and could only relate in superficial or sexual ways. And there was something in this story that was exactly like my dad, and this was all before the sexual abuse started. Of course my dad got an ego boost out of playing with children because he was bigger and stronger and could “let them win” or beat them soundly at whatever game.
I tried for years to get ver this feeling like Joseph Smith was a narcissistic jerk, like my dad, but the more I learned about both him and my dad, the more similarities I saw. Yeah, sex with his foster daughters (Partridge Sisters and Fanny) yup, just like my dad.
So, I could never worship at a church associated with Joseph Smith.
Problem #2, my husband still attends the LDS church and I would rather not upset him by joining something else, or have us going different directions on Sundays. We are just too close in everything else we do, and I would rather just stay home and take the route that doesn’t shatter his hope that basically I still believe the same as he does. He knows about my issues with the church, so I am not pretending at all, just not rubbing differences in his face for something I don’t care about.
Problem #3, that issue of such a high demand religion leaving me wanting to avoid all organized religion.
Problem #4, I an tired to death of *men* and man made religion telling me what to believe.
Problem #5, I am more Pantheist, pagan, universalist than Christian any more. At least in the way the atonement is normally taught. I don’t need a Savior to “fix”me into something acceptable. My mother would love me just because I am hers, and I have had enough of “fathers” and being judged and found wanting, and being told by men what to do and it benefits them and harms me, to last me a while. I like the idea that Jesus taught us, “in as much as ye have done it unto the least of these…” and that we *all* kind of help each other heal for the bad stuff we go through and help each other learn to be better. To be “at one” with my God, I have to be one with my fellow humans and treat them as Christ taught me. Restorative justice, not punitive justice. So, different than the normal “Jesus Saves,” and more into we have to save ourselves and each other…just as Jesus would do. Plus, rocks and plants and animals have a soul of some kind.
If I find where that gospel is preached, I might join, but maybe not.
I was talking in Sunday School class last Sunday and stirred the pot a bit. I noted that the Jaredites were not related to Abraham, appeared to have no real concept of a hierarchal priesthood, and seemingly possessed no understanding of the atonement as the Brother of Jared was completed stunned that the God he worshipped would eventually have a body. Yet Jehovah appears to him anyway (so by definition he was “redeemed”) and when he gets this information, the Lord has him keep it under wraps. In spite of this situation, the Jaredites had “prophets.” Wow. A religious people who bear few of the markers that we use to determine a people God loves. Yet there they are struggling along in a corner of the Book of Mormon world defying what we think we know. Isn’t that cool?
Then in the D&C 49:8 we learn of “holy men ye know not of.” Who the heck are they? Well, in order to answer that God would have to tell us who they were, which would only allow our xenophobic and ethnocentric tendencies to continue. Throw in the First Presidency’s statement from back in the 1970’s that other persons and peoples received revelation and inspiration and what do we have? A way for faithful LDS folks to believe that there is boatloads of truth and evidence of God’s work and love across the globe and throughout human history. What if that was a way of viewing what ultimately would be the “true and living” church that DaveW was hoping to see? Yeah, I know I am an optimistic Universalist/Unitarian. But I may be seated next to you in your LDS ward.
For me, the single biggest reason that I don’t seriously consider switching to other religious groups, like the Community of Christ, or disassociating from organized religion altogether, is my wife. She clearly wants to remain in the Church, and she clearly wouldn’t be happy if I wasn’t with her, so I’m still participating in the Church. I do largely enjoy my local ward, even if I really don’t have any deep friendships there (those pretty much all come from the people at my places of employment over the years). I’m not an atheist, so I just kind of study and worship in my own way, while putting on a fairly orthodox facade at Church, which requires some amount of lying and/or stretching the truth during “worthiness” interviews. I am fortunate that my wife is pretty flexible and tolerant of my lack of orthodoxy (the depth of which she isn’t fully aware of, but she certainly is aware of much of it), so I feel like I pretty much have a free pass with her as long as I don’t completely abandon the Church. In other words, the question of why I don’t switch to the Community of Christ, which certainly sounds like it would align more closely to my beliefs, or any other religion is purely hypothetical. I do think about it hypothetically from time to time, but I just don’t feel like a switch would be such a big improvement over my current situation that it’s worth rocking the boat with my wife over.
I’m also with Janey where I’ve deconstructed Christianity to the point where I don’t find Christ the Savior very plausible any longer. I absolutely love Christ’s teachings as found in the four Gospels, so in that sense, I am a Christian. However, I just don’t find the idea of a half-human, half-deity being subjecting himself to a tortuous death over the course of 24 hours or so as a requirement to overcome the sins of all of humanity to be very plausible. Perhaps the Church shouldn’t have sent me on a mission to a non-Christian nation where I had to try to explain this idea to so many people, and it just didn’t make much sense to them, either (to be clear, I was fully in on this idea at the time–it was only later that the whole thing stopped making sense to me, at which point I reflected back on my struggle to try to help non-Christians understand the need for a Savior to atone for their sins). In any case, my point in bringing this up, is that if I were to hypothetically look to another organized religion, I wouldn’t necessarily restrict myself to Christianity. I would like a religion that reveres (or at least tolerates people who revere) the teachings of Christ, but I don’t think I want sermons constantly reminding me of my need for the Savior’s Atonement when the Atonement just doesn’t make much sense to me. It’s not really clear to me how the Community of Christ deals with “Christ the Savior” versus “Christ the Teacher”, so I’m not really sure how good of a fit CoC would be for me.
Besides the Community of Christ, I’ve also heard that some Mormons who leave end up looking into the Unitarian Universalists. I have a close coworker from the past who is Unitarian, so he’s told me a little bit about his faith. From what I can tell, you can believe pretty much whatever you want as a Unitarian, and they focus on community, so that sounds pretty good. However, I get the sense that they have the opposite problem that Mormons do–instead of learning hard to the right politically like Mormons, Unitarians seem to generally lean very, very hard to the left, and if you’re not really far on the left, you may sometimes feel uncomfortable in a Unitarian congregation. I’m more of a centrist, so I’m not sure I’d be too happy switching from dealing with my ward’s right-wing leanings to dealing with a Unitarian congregation’s left-wing tendencies. It seems like some of the Unitarians my coworker has told me about believe in some pretty crazy stuff, too. I think I’d be happier in a place where people are trying to make the world a better place while not having very many answers regarding the supernatural, but it seems like at least some Unitarians like to share a bunch what seem to me to be crazy beliefs, which are tolerated which is kind of nice for them, but I really don’t want to deal with this, either.
Buddhism is somewhat appealing to me. However, I wouldn’t believe in a lot of the traditional Buddhist dogmas. I think what I like about Buddhism is that worship is mostly an individual affair as well as its emphasis on meditation and self-reflection. Those are things I’ve already adopted into my life without having to take on the burden of Buddhist dogmas that I don’t really believe in.
In reality, though, if it weren’t for my wife’s wishes, and I were completely free to make a choice, I would probably do what so many ex-Mormons seem to do, and mostly disassociate myself from organized religion altogther. I could see myself possibly hanging around my local Mormon congregation enough to be considered active–I’d do this for the community–but I suspect I would eventually just drift away, as the value of the community would probably end up being less than dealing with all the other Mormon stuff. I do believe that there is a purpose to life and that there is life after death, but I’m not convinced that organized religion has much to offer me that I can’t obtain in other ways without all the unnecessary baggage.
I worshipped with my local CoC congregation for several months. I really enjoyed it, but three factors contributed to ending my participation: 1) the congregation meeting was far from my house, as far as my LDS ward. (30-45 min drive one way). I could’ve attended via zoom but I was so tired of remote worship by then I didn’t want to. 2) I have an autistic son who needs a lot of attention, and the rest of my family just didn’t step up to help with him and give me time
to worship. 3) In great part because of 2, I just permanently run low on social energy and I found that I was just too tired to fight through family obstacles to get to church.
I don’t have a bad thing to say about CoC. They are kind, welcoming, humble, and open to new ways of thinking and practicing. If only they were closer.
I’m enjoying reading the comments here. Thank you, Janey, for the post. Please allow me to make a few points:
The Community of Christ is not “Mormon Lite.” Yes, the RLDS Church from the mid-19th through the mid-20th centuries might well be understood as being in competition with the Utah-based LDS church even as it continued to diverge in significant ways. The year 1960 was the pivotal moment when leadership turned attention to worldwide missionary work with Christ as the central focus. That movement accelerated, which was reflected in taking on a new name is 2001. We can thank our historians for bridging the gap and lleading to a time of friendship rather than hostile competition. On a personal note, I cannot remember the last time in my congregation someone brought up Joseph Smuth, the First Vision, priesthood Restoration, or even the Book of Mormon. That’s not to say everybody has “canceled” those things personally, of course, but by and large they’ve been set aside.
There aren’t a lot of CofC congregations, especially in Utah and adjacent areas. Some of that has an historical basis. That region in the 19th and early 20th centuries was not an especially welcoming place for RLDS folk so the few that were there mostly didn’t stick around.
The CofC does have a Seekers Ministry geared primarily for LDS folk. Initially it was thought it might lead to significant membership gains. There have been some, of course, but this ministry has tended to provide a “safe space” for disaffected, disgruntled, and/or just plain weary folks on the margins of LDS life. I guess it just comes down to how you define success.
Finally, although being a smaller denomination, the CofC is a place that wherever you go you’re likely to run into somebody who knows somebody you know. That’s a different reality than in the LDS Church (especially in the Intermountain West) where the church is to a great extent also the culture and society, not to mention interlocking webs of family connections. That’s not a situation in which somebody can exit (escape?) without repercussions.
For those interested in exploring CofC, I recommend the online church provided by the Toronto Centreplace Community of Christ ministry. If nothing else, they have a wonderful “library” of hymns from the CofC hymnal, which you can listen to and in some cases watch accompanying videos.
I have thought I would like to try CofC for all the reasons you listed. However, it is 90 miles away in Albuquerque. Thankyou for the article! Marilee
I attended the CofC congregation in my Midwest city a year ago. They were very friendly and welcoming, with one member trying to get me to accept a large number of history books to take to my LDS chapel. Like Janey said, their emphasis on Christ reminded me that it isn’t just my view of Mormonism that’s changed, but Christianity too. So I’m not sure how comfortable I would be in any traditional Christian church with dogma (which is why I’ve also tried UU and Quaker services). But the bigger issue was demographics. The congregation wasn’t very big, taking up only a small area of the chapel. And they were mostly older than me, with few children the same age as my kids. It would be hard to build the same level of community there that my family already has in our LDS ward.
I’m a PIMO member who has been in the slow-motion process of leaving for over a decade now. The journey out is so arduous that the idea of seeking out some other church, least of all some other church with Joseph Smith stank all over it, is the least enticing idea in the entire world.
I was excommunicated from the LDS church and in the last year and a half have found a spiritual home in the Community of Christ. It’s very meaningful to me to see women blessing and passing the sacrament – using the familiar sacrament prayer. In Sacramento we have a gay co-pastor and members who are trans. The congregation has a table at Pride. While Jesus is important to me, it’s in a mystical/allegorical and social justice sense and that view is shared by many others. I don’t believe my mistakes incur a debt to God that needs to be paid by Jesus and neither do most of the people I’ve talked to there. While some members of our congregation have a more traditional view of Jesus, we all seem to get along. Central to CoC culture are potlucks and big family camps called “reunions.” This is a small but long established church and people have known each other’s families going back generations – but they have brought me into the fold and made me feel like I grew up there. All without setting any expectation on my personal beliefs. A person’s spiritual beliefs are about the least important thing about them when it comes to forming a supportive community. Finding CoC been a truly wonderful experience for me. I recommend reading the last few, most recent sections of their Doctrine and Covenants to see how different it is.
Thank you for this post, Janey! I attended a Sunday service in Utah, maybe North Ogden, back when it was still officially the RLDS, or it may have been soon after the name switch to CofC. It was a simple service, small but lively bunch. At the time, the hymns were all sung acapella. After the service I had cordial chats with several folks. They made sure I knew about church-owned campgrounds and summer reunions.
During the Covid pandemic lockdown, I began attending a weekly Zoom fellowship, which proved to be a blessing and the start of true friendships. I remain connected digitally, especially through Toronto Centre Place’s Beyond the Walls. I echo Rich’s recommendation to look into that congregation. I also echo Rich’s statement of CofC no longer being Mormon Lite. I’d put it on a spectrum of Christian expression about halfway between progressive United Methodist and Unitarian Universalist.
In LDS circles, we often speak of priesthood lottery. In CofC, there is a local congregation lottery. There’s the lottery of if you even have a local congregation nearby. Assuming you do, there’s also the lottery of what that congregation will be like. Some congregations are more conservative/old school, others more progressive and inclusive. You can attend any given online Beyond the Walls service on YouTube, without knowing the background, and you might miss any connection to Mormonism at all.
I came very close to joining about 2 years ago, but have since backed away after the one-two punch: Like many, I was rubbed the wrong way by the lack of transparency during President Veazey’s health crisis. Then they sold the Kirtland Temple and Nauvoo properties. I had made donations directly to their history organization to help preserve those properties. I loved their fair-minded way of presenting the Kirtland Temple to the public. Still feel some lingering anger about how that all played out. Still I say, play the lottery. Try an online or in-person CofC meeting. Emma’s church, for all its shortcomings, has shown itself to be braver and more prophetic in recent decades. I’m glad I know them
PIMO: I have usually thought of CoC as Emma’s church, and the LDS church as Joseph’s. However, if you really do want a congregation and you really don’t want to ever hear about the BOM or D&C or “prophets, et al” again, I suggest checking out your local Episcopalian congregation. Another option if you like that, but want it to be more casual would be Disciples of Christ. Someone else also mentioned the UU (Universal Unitarian) which might also be a fit. My best friend’s mom was ex-Mormon, and they ended up attending UU instead.
re Hawkgrrrl’s comment: The UU congregations seem to be non-judgmental and warmly caring. The sermons – as far as I have been able to observe – have never mentioned ‘Covenant Path’ and have never posited that ‘Obedience is the First Law of Heaven’. However, every sermon that I have heard has been full of love and respect for one another, especially ‘the least of those’ among us. A person could do worse than consort with such groups of worthy humans.
I was RLDS from 1966 to 1999. The CofC is not a “breakaway” group. In fact, it should no longer be considered part of the mormon narrative. Every distinctive concept of latter-day-saints has been eliminated from the official church position, and any attempts to revive them is frowned upon.
All these comments have been fascinating and I’ve enjoyed reading them. Thanks for contributing your thoughts, everyone. I especially appreciate those who have attended the CofC giving their perspectives. If I do want a church community at some point, the CofC will be my first stop. but for now, I’m content.
I got interested in Mormonism through John Hamer’s Centre Place videos. (May his hair grow ever longer!) They’re very good, historically speaking. I am broadly sympathetic to CofC liberalism as it has evolved, at least within its elite class (recognizing that rank-and-file members vary–the group near me may be more conservative). Very few religious presenters (in sermons or whatever) seem in touch with skeptical scholarship into Jesus Studies, for example (that’s just not the game they’re playing), but Hamer totally is. Yes, the BoM is dodgy (the CofC message seems to be), but so is most of the Bible.
That said, I’m immune to the appeal of the whole churchy thing. I’ve seen Hamer do it on YouTube, he dresses up in little robes and does some ritual in front of a table. Why should I want this, let alone every week (and paying for it)? I guess it’s like when Communism fell in East Germany, and some families missed the old rituals. To me, choirs and organ music come off this way, as much as some people swear that it is foundational to civilization. The CofC can get a little ridiculous, what with their electing “prophet-presidents” (but they don’t even believe in the regular prophets!) and voting on how to change their D&C. I like to joke about them voting in a new Jesus.
I got offended by Hamer, though, when he posted a weepy video about their loss of that church. I mean, half of East Africa gets by on one meal a day now, and he’s weeping over some barn?! Yes, I know it feels like the sack of Jerusalem to him. I guess some cultural divides can never be bridged, at least not without a lot more motivation than the CofC arouses. My two cents.
My journey has been similarly more of a scorched earth transition. My wife and I discussed potentially attending some other church early on but I just couldn’t give anyone authority over me again in that way. The Bible clearly became as false as the BOM to me and in many ways its messages are just as damning as the worst LDS practices. I will not have anyone tell me they know the mind and will of God and certainly not by using such a flawed book as the Bible. I’m sure the CoC is made up of good, well intentioned people but I can’t go back to believing fanciful stories imagined by people who died centuries ago. I understand why people love the idea of Jesus and a lot of comfort can be found there in building community and promoting love for one another. It’s just so much more meaningful to me when those ideals are practiced because we’re human rather than Christian. I think if there was any church I might attend it would probably be the church of Satan where god worship is understood to be nothing more than a form of unification. At least that’s how I understand it.
Former LDS. While my in-laws are members of Community of Christ, and my marriage ceremony was performed by an Elder in the Community of Christ church, and I have been to a Sunday service in their very conservative, surprisingly “old school” branch, I will nevertheless be getting baptized into an RLDS branch (not Community of Christ) in January 2025.
I see the LDS church as Brigham’s church, the RLDS church (Independent Restoration Branches today) as Joseph and Emma’s church, and Community of Christ as Wallace B. Smith’s church. (The CoC likes to claim Emma, but I think she’d see their church as astray, no offense.)
While I have tuned into several CoC services and presentations by Jon Hamer (great guy!), I do not personally sympathize with the socially liberal protestant theology which is ubiquitous in Community of Christ. I am of the opinion that the Community of Christ “dropped the chili” (to make an allusion to Kevin from The Office) by distancing themselves from the Book of Mormon and greater mission of Joseph Smith to bring again Zion. I see the loose collective of Restoration Branches (conservative RLDS branches, currently without a prophet, who repudiate what they see as apostasy among the Community of Christ) as the ones carrying the torch of the Restoration today.
Yes.
No.
Why would I want to go to a church that has stopped believing in everything it believed in, so that it could become a watery liberal protestant social justice organization? I could skip all that and just vote for democrats, and have the rest of my time free.
Lies preached worldwide across all pulpits throughout history. Religion Hoax known as Xtianity
Paul has nothing to do with the Midrash commentary to the Aggada of the Talmud. In Romans 6:14, he declares, “Sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.” In Galatians 3:25, Paul states, “Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” The Av tuma avoda zara of Paul perverts faith as understood from the Torah as – the pursuit of judicial justice – to the belief in JeZeus as the son of God. Paul likewise perverts the opening story of the g’lut of Adam from the Garden of Eden to the guilt trip of “Original Sin” and that belief in JeZeus as God saves Man from ‘Original Sin’! This theology justifies JeZeus as the messiah of all ManKind!
This theological thesis of “Original Sin” supplanted, it introduced substitution Xtian theology, the Torah theme of g’lut. Simply essential for Jews to understand that the writings of Paul historically preceded the writings of the so-called “eye witness” gospels! The Order of the Goyim new testament subverts this historical fact by placing the 4 Books of the Gospels BEFORE the letters of Paul!!! Never let a story suffer from want of facts defines the new testament “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” forgery.Jezeus, a fictional “Harry Potter” imaginary man.
Greek and Roman mythology spins around myths; like Hercules, born to the mortal woman Alcmene and the king of gods himself, Zeus. This myth compares the virgin birth of JeZeus. It seems that Zeus has an affinity for married women. He fathered children from Alcmene and Mary the mother of JeZeus. According to the Gospel of Luke, the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and announced that she would bear a son, even though she was a virgin. Mary responded with “Let it be done to me according to your word.” And thus, the divine conception occurred.
The Torah’s definition of adultery as a capital offense reflects the gravity of the act within the context of ancient Israelite society. In the Torah, adultery, treated as a Death Penalty Capital Crime heard before either a Small or Great Sanhedrin. The crime of adultery, only a Capital Crime within the borders of Judea. The custom of קידושין established by the Talmud, a young woman gets engaged a year prior to her standing under the Huppa. This year of preparation permitted her to organize her affairs and change of social status.
Under Torah common law, a woman engaged to a man, has the din of a married woman. Hence Mary’s “virgin birth” an act of adultery.
Outside the oath sworn brit lands, only Torts 3-Man beit dins exist. These torts courts have a mandate to judge on damages cases, not Capital Crimes cases. Paul left Judea and traveled to Damascus. Hence a Torts court ruled Paul guilty of the Capital Crime of avoda zarah?! Utterly absurd. Yet the new testament slander of Torah common law failed to address this judicial disgrace. Furthermore the stoning of Paul follows Roman customs not Torah common law!
It’s considered a violation of the marital oath brit expressed through the mitzva of קידושין, by which a Man acquires Title to the future born O’lam HaBah- nefesh soul of his wife – meaning the children born from this union. Adultery violates and profanes this Torah קידושין oath, sworn before a minyan of 10 men and two witnesses!
“You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). This commandment stands upon the (בנין אב) Common law precedent: the oath brit sworn between the pieces where childless Avram cut an oath brit to the effect that his chosen Cohen future born seed would inherit the oath sworn lands eternally, and establish the Cohen nation.
The substitute theology of ”virgin birth” supplants and negates the קידושין/brit cut between the pieces basis of the chosen Cohen people – Avram childless at the time of this oath brit alliance. The Gospel story of JeZeus, its theology of messiah fails to learn the Torah basis of the mitzva of Moshiach; specifically, Moshe anointing the House of Aaron as Moshiach! Never has any church authority addressed this fundamental precedent, upon which stands the Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach. Korbanot dedications all require anointing/Moshiach with oil, just as did Moshe anoint the House of Aaron with oil! Hence the prophet Shemuel anointed first Shaul of Binyamin and later David of Yechuda as Moshiach!
The mitzva of Moshiach dedicates through oil anointment the pursuit to rule the land as King by means of judicial common law justice.
The concept of Jesus’ death as a form of atonement for the sins of humanity is presented as a substitutionary atonement, a radical departure from the Torah’s emphasis on individual t’shuva, the restoration of justice through observance of mitzvot. The mesechta of Avoda Zara teaches that Goyim rejected the oath-brit faith in the generations prior to Noach! The virgin birth fiction story creates a problematic theological structure, especially considering its implications on the tohor requirements of marital oaths and the sanctity of the kiddushin; did Mary conceive without first going to the mikveh? The alien Gospel counterfeit dresses its false messiah wolf in the clothing of Jewish sheep!
The idea of a miraculous conception negates the human, earthy nature of relationships. The קידושין oath brit alliance, fundamentally requires שם ומלכות oath blessing. The fulfilment faith, i.e. justice, rests on judicial restitution of damages—specifically in this case, kiddushin as a vital part of the establishment of a Jewish Cohen-nation family.
The new testament narrative divorces itself from the actual Torah-based understanding of the messiah.The concept of the messiah as an anointed leader with a particular legal and sacrificial function to restore judicial courtroom justice, starkly contrasts with the Gospel depiction of the Sanhedrin courts as debased and utterly corrupt, condemning JeZeus to die a Roman torture Cross! Death through torture, fundamentally negates Torah judicial justice. Fundamentally different, this perverse substitute theology, which depicts messiah JeZues as the savior of all humanity, based upon the Apostle Paul’s ‘original sin’ narishkeit.
The Pauline propaganda, which predates all the gospel ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ narratives likewise substitutes Greek and Roman statute law which organizes Legislative rulings into defined and specific categories of law, much like as do ice-trays which separates distinct ice-cubes one from another. The ‘original sin’, to Messiah – JeZeus – logical deduction, defines the intent of the writings of the Apostle Paul. This assimilated Aristotelian deductive logic supplants the kabbalah taught by rabbi Akiva, whose פרדס four part logic defines how the Oral Torah interprets the intent of the Written Torah common judicial law; stands in stark difference to the 3 part Aristotle syllogism.
Common law does not compare to Roman statute law. Paul’s “you’re not under the law” propaganda fails to make this fundamental מאי נפקא מינא distinction. Indeed, the Torah does not teach that the law constitutes as a curse or something to be avoided; rather, Torah common law – viewed as a path to life and holiness (Deut. 30:15-20). The oath-brit faith fundamentally requires that brit man takes responsibility for his actions. Hence the two crowns of the Torah: blessing & curse. The Pauline rejection of Torah common law, in light of his Agent Provocateur apostolic mission to the Gentiles, becomes problematic when seen in light of the centrality of the law in Jewish identity and communal life. The Maccabees likewise promoted an Agent Provocateur propaganda against the Syrian Greeks.
Church theology: belief in JeZeus saves from Sin, negates the Yom Kippur t’shuva, which learns from the precedent of a father or husband who annuls the vows made by their daughter or wife. T’shuva not represented by repentance, nor even remotely similar. The eternal memory which the mitzva of Yom Kippur, revelation of the Oral Torah/פרדס recalls remembers the T’shuva by HaShem to keep His sworn Torah oaths with Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov, that their chosen seed would live as the Cohen nation to all eternity. On Yom Kippur HaShem annulled the vow to make from the seed of Moshe – the chosen Cohen people.
The new testament substitute theology radically distorts this oath brit alliance which defines Torah faith – judicial pursuit of justice among our People. Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. Jezeus did not know how to observe the mitzva of shabbat which fundamentally requires making הבדלה, which separates, distinguishes, and defines the subtle distinction between מלאכה כנגד עבודה.
Another “apartheid” distinction, faith as fundamental to the pursuit of righteous judicial justice, and not some belief in any Creed theological God, determined Centuries after the original facts. Some scholars argue that the Gospel narratives: written Centuries later!
Monotheism, for example, violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Moshe travelled to Egypt where HaShem judged the Gods of Egypt. Islam’s strict monotheism: This Harry Potter belief in Allah Voldemort – as absurd as JeZeus the son of God. If Zeus fathered JeZeus, then he’s not the son of David. This fundamental contradiction no church authority ever questioned. The Pauline influence – an important primary source.
The notion of Paul as a spy sent to infiltrate a heretical false messiah movement and travel to Rome to challenge the JeZeus messiah son of God against the Caesar son of God mythology, compares to how Yechuda Maccabee promoted and stoked the flames of Civil War in Greek Syria. Paul’s letters, likely written in the 50s and 60s CE, while the Gospels were written much later. This timeline suggests that Paul’s letters clearly had a Primary Source formative influence on the development of later Christian theology, especially in relation to the concept of salvation by faith, the defining feature of Christian thought.
The introduction of Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle’s logic, into Christian theology seen as an attempt to systematize and universalize faith in a way that departs from the Jewish understanding of judicial common law. Paul’s reliance on Roman legal categories seen as an attempt to make Christian theology more palatable to the Greco-Roman world, but at the cost of distorting the more fluid, relational nature of Jewish פרדס legal thought.
If only Israel accepts the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, then clearly Goyim ipso facto worship other Gods. Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. HaShem asked Cain concerning Hevel, his brother. Cain refused to take responsibility for his actions. The Torah curse of g’lut imposed upon Cain. The Cain vs Hevel dispute serves as a precedent for rabbi Yechuda’s interpretation of בכל לבבך\כם. Within the bnai brit Cohen hearts breaths two opposing tohor/tumah spirits.
The metaphor of the struggling children within the womb of Rivka, likewise teaches this משל\נמשל mussar. Tohor spirits and tumah spirits come from within the heart. These spirits do not compare to the breath which we breathe from our lungs. Tefillah a matter of the heart where bnai brit Cohonim discern between tohor & tuma spirits, from breath breathed from the lungs as the definition of k’vanna.
When the disciples of JeZeus asked for him to teach them how to pray, he taught this tuma perversion: “Our Father who lives in Heaven etc”. Tefillah requires k’vanna from within the heart not belief that some father God lives in the heavens; this avoda zarah profanes the oath Avram swore to HaShem at the brit cut between the pieces; if Avram’s future born Cohen seed lives for all eternity, then the chosen Cohen People shall know this through the Spirit of the Name living within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of the chosen Cohen Peoples’ hearts.
JeZeus did not know this Torah oath sworn by Avram any more than Muhammad understood that the Torah defines “prophet” as a person who commands mussar! Paul’s revisionist history definitely reinterprets Torah for his Goyim audiences. His theology clearly views ‘the law’ as a means to an end—pointing toward faith in Christ, as the later Nicene Creed monotheistic 3-part Godhead mystery later more fully developed.
Paul clearly views ‘the law’ as an untenable faith which Goyim could achieve salvation from Sin. His “Old Testament” theology introduces the idea that the Torah instead serves as a “tutor” which leads to Christ (Galatians 3:24).Paul’s understanding of sin and atonement clearly influenced by assimilationist Hellenistic thought. Particularly ideas about sacrifice and redemption that commonly prevailed in the Roman world. This Greek influence leads to a distortion of the Torah’s chosen Cohen people and the responsibility (blessing or curse – the latter the basis of g’lut) justice system. Doing mitzvot לשמה limited only within the borders of the Cohen oath sworn lands.
Paul’s prioritization of salvation as the matter of faith, an absolute belief in Christ as God, rather than adherence to the mitzvot and the communal life – a gulf that no bridge can cross. No technology exists which permits Humanity to build a bridge across either the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans. How much more so the vast expanse which separates Torah common law from new testament Greek mythology and Roman statute law.
Paul’s letters, clearly written in a Hellenistic context, where Greek philosophy played a major role in shaping intellectual discourse. The introduction of Greek philosophical concepts like substitutionary atonement and the role of Greek logic philosophies, in structuring theology, attempts to universalize the message of JeZeus for a broader, Goyim audience.
This introduces tension between Jewish legal thought vs. church Greek based theology which has produced the fruits of violent Goyim antisemitism through the Ages. When the Torah refers to the humility of Moshe, the Talmud understands humility as a reference to Moshe’s strict honestly, especially when confronted by embarrassment and disgrace. Such “fear of heaven” never developed by any Xtian faith of avoda zarah.
Moshe’s humility exemplifies honesty and integrity, while his “fear of heaven” Good Name reputation remains a cornerstone of Jewish thought. The Torah interprets avoda zara as 1) assimilation to Goyim cultures and customs and 2) intermarriage. Mary’s virgin birth story of fiction, exemplifies both sets of avoda zara.
The broader Jewish critique of Xtian theology, particularly as it diverges from the Torah’s legal and communal framework. Revolve around the Pauline rejection of Torah common law; the introduction of Greek philosophical ideas which clearly Xtian theology, like agape as the definition of love! The nature of sin and salvation, coupled with the portrayal of JeZeus as both historical, divine and human.
T’NaCH prophets command mussar, they do not teach physical history. Xtianity requires a historical physical man-god. It ignores the Torah rebuke: “God not a Man”. These theological innovations\distortions of the original Jewish understanding of justice, atonement, and the mitzva of Moshiach, as applicable to all Jews in every generation, rooted in a commitment to Torah mitzvot observance which rejects the Wilderness generation, as closer to the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, than the current living generations today.
Paul’s teachings, fundamentally anti-Torah, especially in his declarations like “you are not under the law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14) and “we are no longer under the supervision of the law” (Galatians 3:25). These statements, from a Jewish perspective, reflect a radical departure from the Torah’s vision of justice, righteousness, and individual responsibility as defined by the commandments (mitzvot).
Torah common law spins around the central axis of judicial Sanhedrin Justice – judicially imposed fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B.
Paul’s doctrine of a “substitutionary atonement” through the death of JeZeus on a Rome torture cross utterly perverts the four types of death penalties for Capital Crimes offences. The portrayal of this torture Cross sacrifice as the permanent atonement for sinful humanity — ignores the simple fact that Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and the Oral Torah at Horev – 40 days following the sin of the Golden Calf. The translation of the Divine Presence Spirit Name revealed at Sinai in the first commandment to the word אלהים translation or any other word translation attempts to conceptualize G-d.
This Pauline concept, particularly linked with “faith in a Divine JeZeus”, as the sole path to salvation, represents a theological break from the Torah’s emphasis on justice, responsibility, and communal law.
The kabbalah of Paul’s letters, written decades, perhaps Centuries before the Gospels, placed the Pauline teachings at the forefront of early Christian thought. The theological ideas introduced by Paul, such as the Greek faith in “Christ” as the only way to salvation and the rejection of Torah observance, clearly shaped the later Xtian doctrine of the “Messiah” and atonement. His perversion of korbanot as a oath sworn dedication of defined Oral Torah tohor middot, with the intent to modify how a Man socially interacts with others among our people in the future. To something utterly profane as akin to making a Barbeque to Heaven, an utter abomination of Torah common law.
Paul’s theological framework, including the concepts of atonement and salvation through faith, reflects an attempt to reconcile Jewish ideas with Greek philosophical categories of thought. This synthesis, however, negates the dedication of the lights of Hanukkah which sanctifies interpreting the k’vanna of the Written Torah, restricted to rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system which absolutely rejects Aristotles three-part syllogism of logic as a valid tool to interpret the Torah.
The precedent by which the Oral Torah rejects the Pauline Greek assimilation, the Torah commandment not to build an altar with iron. Exodus 20:22 and Deuteronomy 27:5-6, reads: “And if you will make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stone (even gazit); for if you lift up your tool upon it, you will have profaned it.” The Mekhilta (an early halachic Midrash) clarifies this prohibition, it specifically applies to hewn stones—those that were cut with an iron tool. Stones shaped by iron, simply tuma for use in the altar construction.
The Mishna of Middot (a tractate of the Talmud) extends the prohibition beyond hewn stones. It disqualifies any stone that comes into contact with an iron implement—even if it’s just a scratch.
The Mishna explains: “Since iron was created to shorten man’s days and the altar was created to prolong man’s days, it is not right therefore that that which shortens [life] should be lifted against that which prolongs [life].” In other words, iron, often associated with weapons and tools of destruction, symbolizes mortality and violence. The altar, on the other hand, represents connection to the divine and the continuity of life.
Hence the Torah absolutely rejects use of Greek logic as a tool by which the chosen Cohen nation can interpret the k’vanna of the Written Torah commandments.
What a strange place to post your long treatise. No wonder it put an end to further discussion on
In the Shadow of the Lie, In the Light of the Brit … Blood and Brit: A Judgment Against Revision and Hypocrisy.
In the shadow of the past, they twist and turn,
Revisionist tongues, where the embers burn.
Genocide,” they cry—a hollow refrain,
While Tora! Tora! fades in disdain.(1).
Infamy cloaked in a selective veil,
As kingdoms of Judea fade, their stories pale.
Three crowns of defiance, in history’s grip,
While the Arab presence slips, a phantom’s trip.
Jordan’s grasp on Samaria, a name to erase,
“West Bank” they call it, a political face.
No state for the people, no dreams to ignite,
Just shadows of rulers who vanished from sight.
Egypt held Gaza, a fleeting charade,
Yet Nasser’s ambitions left nothing but shade.
Arafat’s embrace of a name, ’64 newly found,
In the wake of recapture, the truth’s tightly bound.
Revisionist whispers, like ghosts in the night,
Denying the horrors, distorting the light.
To compare Gaza as Holocaust, a vile, bitter jest,
In the theater of history, they fail the true test.
So let them rewrite, let them spin their tale,
But the weight of the truth will forever prevail.
For history’s not written by lies that deceive,
Though buried in Arab sands of deception & fraud,
Israel arises in Zion, on its own ancient National feet.
WordPress participants, if you slap the term “genocide” onto Israel’s response to the Oct 7th Abomination War, then intellectual honesty demands you paste the same label on the Dec 7th, 1941 assault—the “day of infamy”—which launched America into World War II. Accusing Israel of genocide while excusing the Allies’ firebombing of Tokyo and atomic obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki reveals either flagrant hypocrisy or ideological dishonesty.
Revisionist hacks whitewash the role Arab states played between 1948 and 1967, fabricating a myth in which a sovereign Palestine once flourished—until Israel supposedly destroyed it.
In truth, Jews rooted themselves in the land through three distinct political eras:
The united Twelve-Tribe Kingdom,
The Judean Republic under Persian suzerainty, and
The Hasmonean Dynasty, which threw off Greek-Syrian domination through armed revolt.
No Arab or Muslim polity ever ruled a sovereign state in the land now called Israel. Between 1948 and 1967, Jordan occupied Samaria—renaming it the “West Bank” in a rhetorical land grab—but never lifted a finger to forge a Palestinian state. The British Mandate for Palestine dissolved in 1948; no successor Arab government attempted to revive it. Arab states rejected UN 181, Britain’s feeble divide and conquer UN 242. Post the Nakba defeat and Israeli Independence, the UN has no authority to impose 194 – “right of return” upon the Jewish state. Despite the Goebbels repeated mantra refrain: Zionist entity Crusader State.
Egypt, likewise, seized control of Gaza. Despite the 1950 UN condemnation (endorsed by every member state except England and Pakistan), Egypt’s monarch made no moves toward Palestinian statehood. Nasser later toppled that king, but Arafat didn’t even adopt the term “Palestine” until 1964—just three years before Israel’s recapture of both Gaza and Samaria. The PLO’s founding charter, penned under Arab occupation, refused to claim either territory; instead, it called for Israel’s destruction. Their silence about Gaza and the West Bank in 1964 screams louder than any later propaganda.
Revisionist history mimics Holocaust denial by distorting the record, concealing cause and context, and blaming the victim for surviving.
When Ben-Gurion and the Zionist leadership named the new state “Israel,” they didn’t merely select a name—they resurrected an identity. “Israel” evoked ancient sovereignty, tethered modern Jewish nationalism to ancestral roots, and announced a reborn nation. This name galvanized a people and reshaped geopolitics.
Had the Jews named the state “Palestine,” the identity landscape might have fractured. For centuries, “Palestine” referred to geography—not Arab nationality. During the British Mandate, the term “Palestinian” often denoted Jews, not Arabs. Arabs roundly rejected both the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the 1922 League of Nations Mandate, which carved out a Jewish National Home. That rejection didn’t spring from a desire for Palestinian independence—it flowed from opposition to Jewish statehood.
The Jerusalem Post bore the title Palestine Post during the Mandate, further underlining the term’s original association with Jews. The Zionist movement, founded on Herzl’s vision, drew legitimacy from the Balfour Declaration. Every Arab war against Israel traces back to Arab rejection of Jewish self-determination.
Foreign propaganda outfits often deploy the word “created” to smear Israel as artificial or illegitimate. But in 1947, two-thirds of the UN voted in favor of Jewish self-determination in the Middle East. Following Israel’s Declaration of Independence, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union immediately recognized the Jewish state. Yet Arab states categorically rejected the British-sponsored UN Resolution 181 and waged war to erase Israel from the map.
The emergence of a “Palestinian Arab” national identity didn’t arise in a cultural vacuum—it developed as a reaction to Zionism and the Jewish victory in the War of Independence. Jewish sovereignty forced clarity onto a region long trapped in imperial ambiguity.
We didn’t steal a land. We reclaimed a homeland—and we won our war of national survival. Arab propaganda still clings to the word “created” because it cannot stomach the truth: Israel wasn’t manufactured by foreigners. Jews rebuilt it. Fought for it. Bled for it. Secured it.
The Palestinian national identity emerged in opposition to Zionism, not as a longstanding expression of sovereignty. Historical facts—like the Jewish political presence across millennia, the origins of the term “Palestinian,” and the legitimacy of Israel’s statehood—have been distorted by propaganda.
“There are those who parade mitzvos in public and butcher the brit in private.” Yet even as we confront the lies of nations, we must confront the lies we whisper to ourselves—in the shadows of our courts and the corners of our sanctuaries.
They sculpt their piety for the crowd. They cloak themselves in tallit and tefillin while gutting mishpat behind locked doors. Their lips chant hallel; their hands extort, manipulate, betray. They don Torah like theater, not oath. They fear scandal, not sin. Exposure, not exile. They crave applause, not HaShem’s judgment. They hijack yirat shamayim and weaponize it for social control.
“And there are those who break Torah laws in Zion, but build it in secret.”
They offend the eye. They scandalize the synagogue. They clash with halakhic decorum. But when no one watches, they feed the widow, guard the convert, return the lost. They wrestle with the brit in the dead of night. No banners. No blessings. Just emunah forged in sweat and silence. They cut paths through darkness while the righteous sleep.
“I prefer the latter.”
The Kotzker doesn’t flinch. He scorches the hypocrite. He crowns the broken. He hunts the soul that bleeds for justice while the choir sings. Better the one who stumbles in daylight but plants mishpat in the shadows than the one who dazzles the crowd while hollowing out Sinai with assimilated Greek logic and statute halachic codes. Better the sinner who limps toward HaShem than the Cohen who flees like naked Adam who clothes himself in gold and titles.
A Mashal: The Two Sons of the King: Yitzak & Yishmael
To what may this be compared? To a King who had two sons.
One son dressed each morning in royal garments. He walked the palace courts with a Koran under his arm and Molotov cocktail burning in the wind while publicly fasting on Ramadan to show honor to the homeless poor. When courtiers passed, he bowed low and recited Surahs & Ayahs in full voice. He offered tithes from the royal table and dipped his bread with flourish. But in the cellar—where no servant dared tread—his corrupted scales weighted profits from theft, scrolls smeared with lies, two separate accounting books. His voice rang holy; but his hands shed the innocent blood of corruption.
The other son wore torn g’lut clothes and wandered the outer gates. He walked upon dusty roads while his lofty brother goose stepped upon paved sidewalks. He spoke roughly, fought openly, and refused to step into any court which switched the syllogism for פרדס(2). When he prayed tefillah within his heart, the k’vanna did not address any God in the Heavens, but rather he stood before the Torah ark and remembered the oaths sworn by the Avot. The ministers mocked him; the elders wrote him off. But by night he visited the sick. He buried the forgotten. He returned coins dropped by the blind. His door on Shabbat remained open to orphans and strangers. He studied Torah alone, by candle, and wept when he did not understand its common law פרדס inductive logic. No trumpet announced his deeds. No ledger recorded them but the King’s.
When the Day of Reckoning came, both sons were summoned. The first stood proud, wrapped in Alba, Stole, Chasuble, Cincture, Pectoral Cross, and Liturgical Colors. The second stood silent, eyes lowered, hands crusted and scarred. And the King said:
“Better the son who stumbles in the street but guards My brit in secret, than the one who honors Me with his lips but who Koran never once mentions the brit in print. (3) For I do not seek actors in My court, but servants who carry justice in the marrow of their bones.”
Thus taught the Kotzker Rebbe: “Give me no angel wrapped in costume. Give me the soul that limps, bleeds, hides—but clings to HaShem with both fists.”
Chagigah 5b:
The baal teshuvah does not merely regret; he wrestles, burns, and rebuilds. He rips out the rotted beams of his past and drives Torah into new ground. No pedigree props him up. No ancestral merit shields him. He grafts emunah into the flesh of his heart and buries it deep within the souls of his children—where no eye sees, where only HaShem weighs the kiddushin mitzva of ‘fruitful and multiply’. He constructs his legal identity from the rubble of assimilation and statute laws. He births halakhic common law identity out of intermarriage chaos—not through inheritance, but through fire. Through sweat. Through judgment. Through t’shuvah.
The righteous man who never falls may stand, but the baal teshuvah ascends. Not like a Cohen on temple steps—but like a soldier dragging himself up Sinai, gashed, ragged, but clutching the sworn oath brit in stained bloodied hands. The baal teshuvah climbs from the pit of assimilation and intermarriage ruin to build something stronger than innocence—he builds justice from ash.
This Kotzker line doesn’t whisper piety. It shouts Torah common law. It carves a verdict: authenticity belongs to the one who fights for the brit in secret. The Rebbe doesn’t moralize—he judges. He cuts down the pius religious Jew who bases statute law Judaism code upon Greek foreign logic.
۞ Haqq al-Kadhib: The Truth of the Lie ۞
In the cadence of ancient reproach
Have they not claimed what they did not build?
Have they not wept over stones they did not lay?
Have they not called themselves what they were not named?
Lo! The land spoke before their tongue.
The hills bore witness before their fathers’ dust.
Zion remembered her children—
But they remembered not her name.
They cry “return”—but whence did they come?
From Kheibar? From Damascus? From the sands of Najd?
Not from Yehudah, not from Shomron.
Their fathers did not plant olives in Ephraim.
Their mothers did not sing by the waters of Zion.
Woe to the people who inherit envy.
Woe to the nation born of grievance.
They forged a people from negation.
They raised a flag over a wound.
And say: “Nakba! Nakba!”
But who cast the first spear?
Who heard the call of Mufti and Pharaoh?
Who marched seven nations against one boy, wrapped in prophecy?
And they were broken like clay jars on the threshing floor.
And lo—they claim Jerusalem!
Did their prophets anoint it?
Did their songs rise from her gates?
No—
The Temple did not weep for them.
The Cohonim did not speak their tongue.
Say to them:
You are Ishmael, son of the field—
And we are Israel, bound to the altar.
We remember the fire.
You remember the sand.
So perish the lie that cloaks itself in keffiyeh.
Perish the myth born in Cairo’s tongue.
The land knows her children.
The stones cry out against their claim.
And history is not mocked.
________________________________________________
(1) “Tora” references the Japanese military code for “lightning attack” (totsugeki raigeki), famously transmitted during the Pearl Harbor assault on December 7, 1941. The line critiques modern willful ignorance or contempt toward historical warnings or aggression.
(2) “פרדס” (Pardes) – A one-line footnote or aside explaining the four levels of Torah exegesis (Peshat, Remez, Derash, Sod) might enhance the meaning of rejecting syllogism for covenantal reasoning.
(3) The koran affirms earlier prophets but omits the concept of the brit as a legal-political alliance cut with Israel. The first word of the Torah בראשית contains ברית אש.