Can someone explain the differences between LDS and RLDS?

[scripturesearcher]

Can someone help me to understand the differences between LDS and RLDS?

I am not a member of either church at the moment, but would like to be able to compare the two before I consider joining either one.

Thanks,

ScriptureSearcher

[HiJolly]

Can someone help me to understand the differences between LDS and RLDS?

I am not a member of either church at the moment, but would like to be able to compare the two before I consider joining either one.

Thanks,

ScriptureSearcher

The original Church was formed in 1830 by Joseph Smith, Jr. He established it and rec'd many revelations for its organization and doctrines.

From the beginning, there were people who, individually or in groups, became disaffected and left. Some of these united to form Churches.

In 1844, Joseph was martyred and shortly thereafter a major rift occurred, as Brigham Young became the new leader for most of the Saints, but other groups split off, following people such as James Strang, Sidney Rigdon, Charles Thompson and Jason Briggs.

After the Church (led by Brigham and the other apostles) left Nauvoo many members who did not go with them simply were leaderless. After Joseph Smith III got a bit older, he felt inspired to start the Reorganized Church, mostly due to the efforts of Briggs and Gurley and some of their associates. Emma (Joseph Smith Jr.'s widow) didn't mind, as long as there was no talk of polygamy, which was probably a key factor in why she and several others did not follow Brigham Young and the rest of the Church to Utah.

The Reorganized Church had some shared beliefs with the LDS (Book of Mormon, JSJr. as a prophet, revelation and continuing prophets) and then some unique beliefs apart from the LDS -- no killing except in direct defense of family (ie, conscientious objectors), and leadership by descent. This last has caused great trouble in the last 50 years, as no more male descendants have been available to take the leadership of the RLDS church.

The RLDS has re-defined Joseph Smith Jr. as not-quite-a-prophet (imo), has redefined the Book of Mormon as an expression of Joseph's belief (instead of an actual ancient scripture), has changed their name to the Community of Christ, has begun to ordain women to the priesthood, and many other things. With each move, more offshoots have formed in protest. This has also happened with the LDS Church, mainly with those that did not agree with the discontinuing of polygamy in 1890. (the FLDS, and Church of the Firstborn, for examples).

Hope that helps.

HiJolly

[Misshalfway]

The relationship of the LDS and RLDS church is much like that of Isaac and Ishmael. There was a division over birthright.

[bytor2112]

Can someone help me to understand the differences between LDS and RLDS?

I am not a member of either church at the moment, but would like to be able to compare the two before I consider joining either one.

Thanks,

ScriptureSearcher

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the LDS church. The RLDS church is now the Community of Christ. After Joseph Smith was martyred their was some confusion regarding Prophetic succession. Some contended that Joseph's son, who was still a boy should be the next President of the Church, and left the church to form the RLDS. The mantle ultimately fell on Brigham Young and he led the Saints to the Rocky Mountains and that is where the headquarters of the church is established in Salt Lake City, Utah. The RLDS or Community of Christ still exists but are few in number and are not affiliated with the LDS church.

[Maureen]

After Joseph Smith III got a bit older, he felt inspired to start the Reorganized Church, mostly due to the efforts of Briggs and Gurley and some of their associates.

Not quite inspired to start. Here's a more precise explanation:

…As the years passed, many of those who had left Nauvoo with various groups began to gather together. They had tried to find leaders who followed the original doctrines but concluded that none existed. So they banded together in a loose affiliation they called the New Organization.

Jason Briggs and Zenos Gurley were two of the leaders in this organization. Briggs had been involved in other splinter groups but found disappointment in each. In 1851, he had a spiritual experience on his farmland prairie that gave him new hope for recovering the spirit, beliefs, purpose, and structure of the original church. He wrote his experience and began to share it with friends. Although some had some questions about his authority to receive a revelation for the entire group, they prayed and received testimony of its truthfulness.

Zenos Gurley had a similar experience. In 1851, he had a visionary experience in which he was told that God would raise up a prophet. Eventually he received a copy of Briggs’ revelation, and the two groups joined together in 1852 to wait for a descendant of Joseph Smith to become their prophet.

Joseph Smith III was only eleven years old when his father was murdered. After that experience, he had nothing to do with any of the splinter groups that left Nauvoo, nor did he have any interest initially in joining with the New Organization. When Briggs and Samuel Gurley came to visit him in 1856 to invite him to become church president, he was not flattered. His initial reaction was to reject their invitation strongly. After further reflection, he told them that before he could accept their invitation, he would have to have a testimony of his own.

During the next four years, he struggled with this decision, finally receiving his testimony of the rightness of the call in the fall of 1859. He and his mother attended the 1860 conference in Amboy, Illinois, where he shared a statement about his struggle. Then he was presented to the people and unanimously accepted as their prophet, seer, and revelator.

Our History - Years of Confusion and Disorganization

M.

Edited August 16, 2008 by Maureen
messy

[Maureen]

Sorry for my messy post, but my computer at work is very uncooperative. I will edit when I get home, so it's easier to read.

M. :)

Edited August 16, 2008 by Maureen
to say that post# 5 is fixed

[HiJolly]

Not quite inspired to start. Here's a more precise explanation:**************************************************************************************…As the years passed, many of those who had left Nauvoo with various groups began to gather together. They had tried to find leaders who followed the original doctrines but concluded that none existed. So they banded together in a loose affiliation they called the New Organization. Jason Briggs and Zenos Gurley were two of the leaders in this organization. Briggs had been involved in other splinter groups but found disappointment in each. In 1851, he had a spiritual experience on his farmland prairie that gave him new hope for recovering the spirit, beliefs, purpose, and structure of the original church. He wrote his experience and began to share it with friends. Although some had some questions about his authority to receive a revelation for the entire group, they prayed and received testimony of its truthfulness. Zenos Gurley had a similar experience. In 1851, he had a visionary experience in which he was told that God would raise up a prophet. Eventually he received a copy of Briggs’ revelation, and the two groups joined together in 1852 to wait for a descendant of Joseph Smith to become their prophet. Joseph Smith III was only eleven years old when his father was murdered. After that experience, he had nothing to do with any of the splinter groups that left Nauvoo, nor did he have any interest initially in joining with the New Organization. When Briggs and Samuel Gurley came to visit him in 1856 to invite him to become church president, he was not flattered. His initial reaction was to reject their invitation strongly. After further reflection, he told them that before he could accept their invitation, he would have to have a testimony of his own. "During the next four years, he struggled with this decision, finally receiving his testimony of the rightness of the call in the fall of 1859. He and his mother attended the 1860 conference in Amboy, Illinois, where he shared a statement about his struggle. Then he was presented to the people and unanimously accepted as their "prophet, seer, and revelator."**********************************************************************Our History - Years of Confusion and Disorganization

You're right - the others had established the Church and Joseph later joined them as the prophet. He clearly states, though, that he felt inspired to do so.

HiJolly

[scripturesearcher]

The Reorganized Church had some shared beliefs with the LDS (Book of Mormon, JSJr. as a prophet, revelation and continuing prophets)...

If both LDS and RLDS believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith Jr as a prophet, then which one is the one true restored church?

Additionally, how can one go about finding an unbiased answer to this question?

I assume that an LDS person is going to say that LDS is true and an RLDS person is going to say that RLDS is true.

Are they both true?

Can they both be true?

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

ScriptureSearcher

[Vort]

If both LDS and RLDS believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith Jr as a prophet, then which one is the one true restored church?

Additionally, how can one go about finding an unbiased answer to this question?

Ask of God in faith, believing that he will tell you.

Are they both true?

Can they both be true?

No. Their belief systems are mutually exclusive. Either or neither might be true, but not both.

[HiJolly]

If both LDS and RLDS believe in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith Jr as a prophet, then which one is the one true restored church?

100 years ago, this was a pretty tough question.

Additionally, how can one go about finding an unbiased answer to this question?

You read information from all sources, rejecting the author's opinions and conclusions, and draw your own conclusion. If you do so prayerfully, my guess is that before too long you'll have your answer.

I assume that an LDS person is going to say that LDS is true and an RLDS person is going to say that RLDS is true.

Yeah. I'm biased, so my answer would be, if you read the RLDS history for the past 30 years, it's a no-brainer. That alone would do it.

Are they both true?

Can they both be true?

No, I don't think they can both be true.

HiJolly

[Moksha]

Regular LDS: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Community of Christ (former RLDS): Community of Christ Official Homepage

[Palerider]

Can someone help me to understand the differences between LDS and RLDS?

I am not a member of either church at the moment, but would like to be able to compare the two before I consider joining either one.

Thanks,

ScriptureSearcher

Regular and Unleaded.....:)

[Maureen]

Regular and Unleaded.....:)

What about Regular and Premium? Then you just have to figure out which is which.

M.

[Palerider]

What about Regular and Premium? Then you just have to figure out which is which.

M.

how true.....

[abqfriend]

Where did the FLDS come from--did they split off of one of the two groups mentioned?-if so why?

Are there any other splits/parts of the church other than the RLDS and FLDS?

-Carol

The relationship of the LDS and RLDS church is much like that of Isaac and Ishmael. There was a division over birthright.

[BenRaines]

abqfriend, there are many splinter groups from the LDS church. RLDS or today known as Community of Christ Church was split off over those who felt that Joseph Smith's son should be the next prophet upon his death. There are others who split off due to offenses taken. There are those who didn't want to go west with Brigham Young and his group.

Ben Raines

[Dale]

I am Community of Christ/RLDS myself. We tend to differ with LDS on quite a number of topics. And both churches have written literature trying to rebut the other church. Joseph F. Smith and our one-time Apostle Russel F. Ralston rebutted each other on issues like Baptism for the Dead and Succession in The Presidency. I was LDS until i got baptized Community of Christ in 2005. The LDS took my name off the rolls via my request.

Our two denominations still have much in common. We also have significant differences. We teach the Trinity, but not being a creedal church have had Anti-Trinitarianism over the years. I do not like my beliefs in anything mandated. I have doubts about the Trinity idea, but i think our official teaching of it is good for my church.

We tend to be influenced by liberal scholarship far more than LDS. We affirm the book as scripture. I myself take the view the Book of Mormon is historical. But some in my church do not see it possible based on modern scholarship that the books historical. Though FAIR and FARMS has demonstrated belief in a historical Book of Mormon is alive and well for good reason. But in my church if you accept a non-historical view of the book you can say what you think in our church magazine the Herald.

The problem with a totally non-historical view is Joseph Smith lied. To me its impossible to defend Joseph Smiths integrity as a person if he made up Book of Mormon names. Unlike some i could not see the book inspired by God under such a scenario. Nor could i see Joseph Smith as an still inspired prophet. But even though that approach to the book has won over some in my religion i doubt they can defend the weaknesses in the approach. Though my members and leaders who hold to the view are trying to affirm the book as scripture as best they can.

I am studying Book of Mormon criticisms this year. The first time i ran into the non-historical view was reading New Approaches To the Book of Mormon. Anthony Hutchinson i felt made a horrible case against LDS pro-historicity scholarship. I saw a number of flaws in his logic. So i saw the historical approach to the book better. Although like LDS scholar Blake Ostler i see 19th century prophetic expansion and commentary in the book. BlakeOstler.com has an apologetics section with materials explaining and defending his view on the book.

Being more tolerant of liberalism than LDS we have members and leaders who take liberal views on homo-sexuality. We have conferences where issues are hammered out. LDS conferences are speaking events, and priesthood who disagree with policy have no democratic way to effect change. Writing letters is one way an LDS member in good standing can effect change. But it takes years longer to effect change like the LDS policy on the ordination of blacks for example.

LDS rarely if ever add revelations to the D.&C. We canonized section 163 in 2007. My leather Doctrine and Covenats has the new secion in it. (Herald House) LDS do have a small number of un-canonized revelations. I can't recall the content, but i recall an very old LDS Relief Society manual with about three in it. And some LDS have published some in books though i can't recall the title.

[Moksha]

The problem with a totally non-historical view is Joseph Smith lied. To me its impossible to defend Joseph Smiths integrity as a person if he made up Book of Mormon names.

Whether history or allegory, there are truths to be gleaned through faith affirming literature. The Book of Mormon is after all, another testament to Christ, and thus when viewed even as Sacred Allegory there are symbolic truths awaiting to be discovered.

[Dale]

To me the book would be a mythical testament to another Jesus.(2 Cor. 11:4) Joseph Smith would simply be a false prophet who lied in claiming the real Jesus spoke through him. To me the sacred allegory idea puts a positive spin on what would be a book inspired not by God, but by man, and maybe Satan. If i did not have MS i would if i accepted that idea be in SLC and Independence passing out tracts to my unsaved persons who still thought Joseph Smiths teachings worth upholding.

To me continuing to say the book is inspired by God would be empty propeganda. I just would not feel good about the book as scripture. I would think it just another spurious book that claimed to be like the Bible.

I saw Anothony Hutchinson in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon as not discrediting Book of Mormon scholarship. One of the scholars he went after Blake Ostler presented sound textual evidences for Book of Mormon antiquity. His type ignore such evidence, so they have nothing to add to the conversation. Yet Anthony said Ostlers only proof for Book of Mormon antiquity came from the book itself. Reading his Dialogue paper presenting his idea the book contains 19th century expansion i noticed his misrepresentation. Such evidence gives me hope the book is a real history of some ancient Americans inspite of problem areas like archeology.

My experience reading Signature Books material on the Book of Mormon has taught be not to trust them. Thomas Murphy's DNA fiaso to me should be embarrassing to him. Yet so many people bought into his research thinking he had disproven the Book of Mormon.

The big problem with the sacred allegory idea is it makes one vulnerable to witnessing sessions. About two days ago i was out studying some of my Anti-Mormon books. I use my LDS scripture set as your Topical Guide outdoes are. and i use my RLDS set to. And this guy tried to witness to me for maybe 30-40 minutes. Because i know their trivia i answered all his questions. He thought me decieved, but i know he would have thought me twice decieved if i had told him the book was just sacred allegory.

The view is ok, but the case for it is horrible. I see it an officially tolerated view in my church. That is ok with me as i am not as militant as i sound. But i just like Blake Ostlers view better. He has a website. In his apologetics section at BlakeOstler.com that has articles on his position. Exploring the 19th century option when you think you have no other option is ok. if it keeps you a Book of Mormon believer then great. But i see many more Ex-Book of Mormon believers created by it than saved as believers.

FAIR is working on a new DVD responding to Living Hope Ministries Bible vs. the Book of Mormon. It i am guessing may be out for sale later this year. Video clips from it can be watched online at FAIR Wiki. In the Table of contents under i think FAIR Projects at the top it has a link to its You Tube Channel. Book of Mormon Anachronisms section has brief clips from it covering the topics in the articles.

[Brenton]

To me, RLDS sounds like a Church affected by the wants and desires of humankind.

If you want to discern, in a very short period of time, between some of the differences in the church, then take the neutral way (Good ol' Wiki):

History of the Community of Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Community of Christ - Major Beliefs

-----

History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basic Beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Edited August 18, 2008 by Brenton
word change

[bytor2112]

The problem with a totally non-historical view is Joseph Smith lied. To me its impossible to defend Joseph Smiths integrity as a person if he made up Book of Mormon names. Unlike some i could not see the book inspired by God under such a scenario. Nor could i see Joseph Smith as an still inspired prophet. But even though that approach to the book has won over some in my religion i doubt they can defend the weaknesses in the approach. Though my members and leaders who hold to the view are trying to affirm the book as scripture as best they can.

So, which names did Joseph make up and please site your sources of evidence.

[bytor2112]

To me the book would be a mythical testament to another Jesus.(2 Cor. 11:4) Joseph Smith would simply be a false prophet who lied in claiming the real Jesus spoke through him. To me the sacred allegory idea puts a positive spin on what would be a book inspired not by God, but by man, and maybe Satan. If i did not have MS i would if i accepted that idea be in SLC and Independence passing out tracts to my unsaved persons who still thought Joseph Smiths teachings worth upholding.

Joseph didn't claim that Jesus spoke through him....... it is interesting to me that if you think the BOM was a hoax and Joseph was a huxter, then why would you join a splinter group and not opt for orthodox christianity- so-called?

[Maureen]

bytor2112:

...it is interesting to me that if you think the BOM was a hoax and Joseph was a huxter, then why would you join a splinter group and not opt for orthodox christianity- so-called?

Dale:

I myself take the view the Book of Mormon is historical. But some in my church do not see it possible based on modern scholarship that the books historical.

bytor, I think you mis-understand what Dale is trying to say. Please re-read Post #17.

[bytor2112]

bytor2112: Dale:bytor, I think you mis-understand what Dale is trying to say. Please re-read Post #17.

I see....so he is presenting scenarios of what others think...not his personal views. Thanks for pointing that out....

[Moksha]

He thought me deceived, but i know he would have thought me twice deceived if i had told him the book was just sacred allegory.

Doesn't matter what some naysayer thinks of your faith, so why should you care if he believes you are doubly rather than singularly deceived? Sacred Allegory is by my definition, literature that contains symbolic truth. This truth by its very nature is worthwhile. No need to be ashamed of it. Besides by its same nature, it is proof against prevailing evidence that its origins are not historical. It keeps its believers from needing to forever come to its defense from attacks as to its origin.

To me continuing to say the book is inspired by God would be empty propaganda.

Who says that such allegory cannot have had some divine inspiration or is in itself not pleasing to God?