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.
|