Can someone explain the differences between LDS and RLDS?

[Moksha]

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

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

[Palerider]

Originally Posted by 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

Regular and Unleaded.....

[Maureen]

Originally Posted by Palerider

Regular and Unleaded.....

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

M.

[Palerider]

Originally Posted by Maureen

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

Originally Posted by Misshalfway

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]

Originally Posted by Dale

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