Jump to content

Can The Holy Spirt Be Conferred By Laying On Of Hands


Uncle Dale

Recommended Posts

Just a quick take-off from the current thread discussing manifestations of the Spirit

among the LDS, etc.

I do not mean this as an argument for one side or the other, (tho I do not personally believe

such conferring to be automatic, nor limited to the laying on of hands at Confirmation).

I'm just interested in your viewpoints and your experiences.

Uncle Dale

Link to comment

Just a quick take-off from the current thread discussing manifestations of the Spirit

among the LDS, etc.

I do not mean this as an argument for one side or the other, (tho I do not personally believe

such conferring to be automatic, nor limited to the laying on of hands at Confirmation).

I'm just interested in your viewpoints and your experiences.

Uncle Dale

Uncle dale...Its me again! {i seem to be following you all over the boards 2-night?}

I think the bible makes it very clear, {for those whom dont beleive the b.o.m}

that true authority is only given by either the lord himself, or by one whom has been

Dualy appointed by him thru the laying on of hands.

:P

Link to comment

The spirit can, indeed, be felt without the laying on of hands by a priesthood holder,

but otherwise, no. No man taketh this honor unto himself, but he who is called as was Aaron.

And so, if the Spirit of God rested upon me in great power, my father's blessing

to my child would be of no better/greater effect, than if I had no measure of the

Spirit with me, at the time of my giving that blessing? Because I am not LDS -- ???

Just wondering what various people's experiences have been.

UD

.

Link to comment

And so, if the Spirit of God rested upon me in great power, my father's blessing

to my child would be of no better/greater effect, than if I had no measure of the

Spirit with me, at the time of my giving that blessing? Because I am not LDS -- ???

Just wondering what various people's experiences have been.

UD

.

It is many times confused in the church, but in actuality you do not need the priesthood to give a fathers blessing (you dont even need to be a member). The main requirement is being a father. Now having said that if you hold say the Melchizedek Priesthood and you are a father you could in fact give a fathers blessing and also invoke the priesthood you bear. If you are say doing an ordinance like giving a anointing and blessing to the sick then the priesthood needs to be invoked. I have also heard of stories where worthy women whom in desperate situations where no priesthood holder is present they would ask for a blessing through their husband or father etc.

It is my opinion that faith and worthiness is needed in all blessings, prayer is also a very desirable ingredient if time allows and then when you can fasting will add great power to it too.

Link to comment

I always find it hard to understand why so many faiths believe that only those involved in their chosen faith can hold the authority of God's name... giving of blessings, etc. I do understand the concept, although I find it to be foolish, but it does leave a great deal of explaining to be done seeing that many people obtain blessings from God that hold no connection to any set religion.

Link to comment

Uncle Dale,

First, we are confounding two different things....the reception of the HG and the Priesthood.

1) As was mentioned, the question of a Father's Blessing really relies on by what authority you claim to effectuate the blessing. You can bless your son's all you'd like via your own authority. It's not just a moniker to ask for one's fiancee's parent's blessing (that's a lot of possessives). All the same, any such blessing certainly cannot be done with the Priesthood if it is not held.

Also remember that the only thing the Priesthood can do that faith cannot is effectuate ordinances. The Pristhood is aiken to a spiritual crutch, but a woman of great faith can work just as many miracles.

2) Concerning the HG, Hebs 5 doesn't work because Hebrews is speaking of the Priesthood. The Holy Ghost is NOT an authority. Those issues surrounding the day of Pentecost are most interesting. There are at least 2 instances where the influences of the Holy Ghost are evident (interpretion of tongues, and being pricked in their hearts), yet Peter still challenges them to be baptised so that they might receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Considering the outpouring, how can it not be assumed that these new Christians had not received the gift? Simply...because they hadn't received it via the imposition of hands. What further evidences a necessity of authority is the fact that Philip baptised, but waited for the Apostles to arrive to give the gift of the Holy Ghost.

PacMan

Link to comment

proofoflife:

I always find it hard to understand why so many faiths believe that only those involved in their chosen faith can hold the authority of God's name... giving of blessings, etc. I do understand the concept, although I find it to be foolish, but it does leave a great deal of explaining to be done seeing that many people obtain blessings from God that hold no connection to any set religion.

Foolish? If you think you have a biblical notion to support your stance, I'd be most interested in hearing it and continuing the dialog.

Moreover, there's only 2 (major Christian) religions that claim exclusive authority: Cathlics and Mormons. Also, realize that we hold that there are many real and devout Christians in the world whom are able to exercise real faith.

PacMan

Link to comment

Moreover, there's only 2 (major Christian) religions that claim exclusive authority:

Cathlics and Mormons. ...

A few things wrong with this statement:

1. Catholicism and Mormonism are not "religions," but are each manifestations of the Christian religion.

2. Greek Orthodox claim an exclusive authority, but recognize it exists on a more widespread level

than do the RCC -- which is perhaps why the Orthodox do not have a pope.

3. Claiming something does not make it so.

I have heard LDS deductions, that my Reorganized LDS baptism is not recognized by Heavenly Father,

because the "line of authority" of those who baptized and confirmed me was "broken" when early

members did not obey Brigham Young's command that all the Saints move to Utah Territory and be

rebaptized there themselves. In such deductions of doctrine, my accusers claimed no witness of the

Spirit for their harsh words of deduction, (and absolutely no inclination to listen to my own testimony).

Actually, this is one of the questions I wished to ask Spencer W. Kimball -- who invited me to his office

in SLC in 1978 and when he then called me "Brother Dale." However, before I could fully articulate my

question, his secretary, Elder Arthur Haycock, made it known that he (Haycock) would not stand for

any "apostate cross-examination" of the Church President.

To this day, I believe I was one sentence away from hearing a Mormon acknowledge that my baptism

was a true one and that an RLDS (just like an LDS) may "have His Spirit to be with him."

Or, maybe not -- we shall see, beyond the veil.

Uncle Dale

.

Link to comment

Uncle Dale,

A few things wrong with this statement:

Let's look a bit closer...

1. Catholicism and Mormonism are not "religions," but are each manifestations of the Christian religion.

Thank you for defining my religion for me. I daresay that many RCCers and Protestants would take great objection with you considering LDS part of the "Christian religion."

2. Greek Orthodox claim an exclusive authority, but recognize it exists on a more widespread level than do the RCC -- which is perhaps why the Orthodox do not have a pope.

As one with apostolic lineage (whatever that means), they are the same Christian church as the RCC, although in schism. The are identified in the broader, Catholic. Whether they exclusively regard their authority, I don't knowâ?¦but doubt it. If you have a citation, I'd appreciate it.

3. Claiming something does not make it so.

You're inventing an argument, for I never indicated anything to the contrary.

I have heard LDS deductions, that my Reorganized LDS baptism is not recognized by Heavenly Father, because the "line of authority" of those who baptized and confirmed me was "broken" when early members did not obey Brigham Young's command that all the Saints move to Utah Territory and be rebaptized there themselves. In such deductions of doctrine, my accusers claimed no witness of the Spirit for their harsh words of deduction, (and absolutely no inclination to listen to my own testimony).

Claimed witness of the Spirit? I don't know that I understand that...yours, or theirs? The fact is, either the RLDS have got it right, or the LDS do.

7 And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

8 Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.

9 Will I accept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name?

10 Or will I receive at your hands that which I have not appointed?

The fact is that those that "left" the church for good or for bad, may have certainly had the priesthood. Considering, however, that they were literally NOT of the same church, to what church were the baptizing these into? It's very similar to Aaron and the golden calf. Simply because Aaron may have had priesthood authority does not mean that he could do what he willed. His priesthood had to act within the bounds that the Lord set. The fact has very little to do with what Brigham Young did or did not say. The crux of the issue is, if Brigham Young truly held these keys, then the RLDS does not. If that is the case, any such baptisms are invalid because they welcome people into a non-existent, counterfeit church of Christ.

To this day, I believe I was one sentence away from hearing a Mormon acknowledge that my baptism was a true one and that an RLDS (just like an LDS) may "have His Spirit to be with him."

To be honest, I'm envious of your opportunity. Let us be sure, however, that there's no way that the baptism suffices. Mine can't (or rather shouldn't) suffice in the RLDS church or any other. Paul speaks of one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. The priesthood authorities that were perpetuated by the RLDS were done outside the church and it's authorized leadership, and so they were not efficacious. To deny that possibility is to prove the RCC claim that clearly, the authority was perpetuated from times of old. Clement, I believe, was a good man but desperate to avoid the apostasy. His letter to the Corinthians told them to accept those "good men" whom were appointed by those, appointed by the Apostles. The problem is, they didn't have authority to perpetuate their office. If your baptism were acceptable to the LDS (assuming it to be the true church) then the whole movement of the restoration is FALSE, simply because that gives credence that a fragmented group can unitarily perpetuate priesthood which is exactly what the early Christians tried to do.

Moreover, aren't you disassociated with the RLDS anyway? Why do you care what the LDS position of RLDS baptisms are if you yourself don't respect your own baptism?

PacMan

Link to comment

Moreover, aren't you disassociated with the RLDS anyway?

No -- only with Communuty of Christ, an evolution out of the orginal Church, and an innovation

that thousands of RLDS other than myself have left in recent years.

Do a Google search on "restoration branches."

Why do you care what the LDS position of RLDS baptisms are if you yourself don't respect

your own baptism?

PacMan

Not a good question -- rephrase it and I'll try answer.

UD

Link to comment

Just a quick take-off from the current thread discussing manifestations of the Spirit

among the LDS, etc.

I do not mean this as an argument for one side or the other, (tho I do not personally believe

such conferring to be automatic, nor limited to the laying on of hands at Confirmation).

I'm just interested in your viewpoints and your experiences.

Uncle Dale

I believe the only person(s) who can confer the Holy Ghost upon someone is God or those who have the authority of God to confer the Holy Ghost upon someone.

... and the Holy Ghost can go anywhere God will let him go. :P

Link to comment

The answer is simple....

According to Christ himself in Mark/Luke 9, even those not with the Church and having His Authority are still his children, for they know and believe in the Lord, and can still perform miracles in His Name.

Authority is for the Work of God, Faith, belief, and the Spirit is for the Work of man.

Link to comment

Just a quick take-off from the current thread discussing manifestations of the Spirit

among the LDS, etc.

I do not mean this as an argument for one side or the other, (tho I do not personally believe

such conferring to be automatic, nor limited to the laying on of hands at Confirmation).

I'm just interested in your viewpoints and your experiences.

Uncle Dale

To be exact only the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" can be conferred by the laying on of hands by those who hold the Melchezedek Priesthood.
(D&C 20:41) And to confirm those who are baptized into the church, by the laying on of hands for the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, according to the scriptures;"
This is an ordinance just as much as baptism, without it a person cannot enjoy the gift of the Holy Ghost as a constant companion. Also it is not automatic even if a person is confirmed by the proper priesthood authority, in the confirmation it states: "receive the Holy Ghost." This indicates that we do not receive it just because the ordinance is done. If a person does not seek for the companionship of the Holy Ghost by obeying the baptismal covenant then the gift will not be given. The Holy Ghost can testify to anyone reguardless of membership of the truth. For example when a Missionary teaches an investigator the Gospel, the Holy Ghost bears witness of those teachings. If the investigator ignores the witness or rejects it the Holy Ghost will leave them. If the message is accepted then the Holy Ghost will continue to guide them until they are baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. At that time the person has a right to the companionship of the Holy Ghost as long as they live worthy of it. That is why renewal of the baptismal covenant by partaking of the sacrament is so critical. As we excerise faith is Christ, repent of our sins and partake of the sacrament we are promised that "His Spirit will always be with" us.
Link to comment

The answer is simple....

According to Christ himself in Mark/Luke 9, even those not with the Church and having His Authority are still his children, for they know and believe in the Lord, and can still perform miracles in His Name.

Authority is for the Work of God, Faith, belief, and the Spirit is for the Work of man.

An interesting way of viewing things, friend.

Looked at from this particular perpesctive, the Spirit of God may indeed have been made

manifest at my baptism, and in the renewal of my baptism covenant in a non-Mormon sacrament

service. This much at least, would accord with my experience (and that of many thousands of

other Reorganized LDS, Temple Lot Church members, etc.).

Such a viewpoint also appears to recognize that there would be great value in the Spirit of God

being present when I (or any other non-Mormon) gave a blessing. Whether of not some measure

of the Spirit was "conferred" (or in Reorganite language, "bestowed"), would be God's work, and

not a function of my (or any other's) latter day "authority."

Again, this fits in rather well with my own experience -- and it also may fit in with the old practice

of the Reorganization (as well as the Church of Christ Temple Lot) in recognizing the Mormon

baptisms (and even the ordinations) of converts out of the LDS ranks.

At least this viewpoint opens up an opportunity for dialogue, without any pre-judgements that I am

rejected of God, or am deluded, or am a liar, in so far as my testimony of a witness of God's Spirit.

I feel better already --

Uncle Dale

Link to comment

proofoflife:

Foolish? If you think you have a biblical notion to support your stance, I'd be most interested in hearing it and continuing the dialog.

Moreover, there's only 2 (major Christian) religions that claim exclusive authority: Cathlics and Mormons. Also, realize that we hold that there are many real and devout Christians in the world whom are able to exercise real faith.

PacMan

Pac,

You are incorrect, there are more then two Religions that claim exclusive authority and many that will boldly state exclusive authority to even Salvation.

Unless one can hold account to Gods exact actions, it is foolish to state that there is only one chosen faith that God will bless with his authority esp in regards to that authority being the sole mortal provider of blessings, healings, etc. If we were to argue this, the LDS has very little proof that they would be the chosen Religion to hold such authority in the first place. It is grey at best and allows questions to linger.

The answer is simple....

According to Christ himself in Mark/Luke 9, even those not with the Church and having His Authority are still his children, for they know and believe in the Lord, and can still perform miracles in His Name.

Authority is for the Work of God, Faith, belief, and the Spirit is for the Work of man.

Interesting slant Obiwan. Simple yet correct.

Link to comment

Pac,

there are more then two Religions that claim exclusive authority...

Once again, I quibble over the use of "religions" where "denominations" is clearly the

correct word. And, though my good buddy wants to make Greek Orthodox into Roman

Catholics, we can also add:

Coptic Church

Syrian Church

Nestorian Church

Ethopian Church, etc.

Then again, he did say "major" -- and I guess that means at least 13,000,000 members.

At any rate, Bro. Obiwan has made me feel like a true Latter Day Saint again, and not

just a deluded member of a wicked apostate splinter group.

UD

Link to comment

Just a quick take-off from the current thread discussing manifestations of the Spirit

among the LDS, etc.

I do not mean this as an argument for one side or the other, (tho I do not personally believe

such conferring to be automatic, nor limited to the laying on of hands at Confirmation).

I'm just interested in your viewpoints and your experiences.

Uncle Dale

Acts 2:38. It says the Holy Spirit is imparted by God because it is His promise to those who obey the gospel.

LDS have no corner on the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel is the power of God unto salvation.

Link to comment

Uncâ?? Dale,

So I assume that â??RLDSâ? is representative of a movement, with the Community of Christ being the major faction? Soâ?¦what faction do you participate in?

And I didnâ??t mean to be disrespectful of you not respecting your own baptism. I really thought youâ??re disassociation with the CoC was inclusive of their ordinances as well. What is your hold on those ordinances, such as your baptism?

Do you understand, however, how the LDS cannot recognize any other baptisms? If we do, we juxtapose the RCC and Orthodox claims of authorityâ?¦that being that authority can be indiscriminately continued without oversight. In other words, thereâ??d be no way the apostasy ever happened.

Ciao,

PacMan

P.S.

Looked at from this particular perpesctive, the Spirit of God may indeed have been made manifest at my baptism, and in the renewal of my baptism covenant in a non-Mormon sacramentâ?¦

service.

Manifestations are much different than holding the actual gift of the HG. See the day of Pentecost.

Whether of not some measure of the Spirit was "conferred" (or in Reorganite language, "bestowed"), would be God's work, and not a function of my (or any other's) latter day "authority."

The HG will respond to truth, which is not exclusive to the LDS. I believe that if you pray about 1+1=2, you may very well get an answer.

Again, this fits in rather well with my own experience -- and it also may fit in with the old practice of the Reorganization (as well as the Church of Christ Temple Lot) in recognizing the Mormon baptisms (and even the ordinations) of converts out of the LDS ranks.

Then there is no such thing as the apostasy, and the restoration could never exist.

At least this viewpoint opens up an opportunity for dialogue, without any pre-judgements that I am rejected of God, or am deluded, or am a liar, in so far as my testimony of a witness of God's Spirit.

I wouldnâ??t doubt it for a minute.

PacMan

Link to comment

Proofoflife:

You are incorrect, there are more then two Religions that claim exclusive authority and many that will boldly state exclusive authority to even Salvation.

The only thing incorrect here is your understanding of what I said. Strawman.

Unless one can hold account to Gods exact actions, it is foolish to state that there is only one chosen faith that God will bless with his authority esp in regards to that authority being the sole mortal provider of blessings, healings, etc.

“hold account to Gods excat actions?” What does that mean? That makes no sense. Moreover, you’re completely inconsistent with the scriptures. Juxtapose the Levitical Priesthood then get back to me. Moreover, I never said that authority was the “sole mortal provider of blessings, healings, etc.” On the contrary, faith moves mountains. Without faith, Priesthood is nothing.

If we were to argue this, the LDS has very little proof that they would be the chosen Religion to hold such authority in the first place. It is grey at best and allows questions to linger.

I’d be very willing to, because the scriptures are clear that the early Christians had the Priesthood. IF you want a go at it, I’d happily entertain the dialogue.

Neighbor:

And unless you repent, come unto Him and receive the “one baptism” that Paul speaks of, you will be unable to fulfill your obligation of obedience to receive the gift of the HG which is separate and different from any of its manifestations (see the day of Pentecost).

PacMan

Link to comment

Unc’ Dale,

So I assume that “RLDS” is representative of a movement, with the Community of Christ being the major faction? So…what faction do you participate in?

Do you mean who I pay tithing to, or where I attend Sunday meetings?

The last "restoration branch" services I attended, was with the "Remnant Church of Jesus Christ

of Latter Day Saints" headed by Frederick Niels Larsen, President & Prophet:

www.theremnantchurch.com/FirstPresidency/FNLarsen.htm

The last tithing I paid was to the South Crysler Restoration Branch. 16101 E Salisbury Rd.,

Independence, MO 64050 Phone (816) 254-8699 -- Though, since I am not attending that

branch, they may not have record of the transaction.

Living in Hilo, Hawaii, my only option would be at attend the Hilo branch of CoC -- which I have

already left (but where they say I am welcome to come back without re-baptism, anytime).

Since I do not choose to do that, my next option would be to attend a "house-church" in Honolulu,

at $300 round-trip airfare each Sunday.

Given a little time, I think all of the CoC branches in Hawaii will leave CoC. When that day comes,

I'll simply go back to attending the Hilo congregation and will pay up all my back-tithing there.

And I didn’t mean to be disrespectful of you not respecting your own baptism. I really thought

you’re disassociation with the CoC was inclusive of their ordinances as well. What is your hold

on those ordinances, such as your baptism?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I think all Restoration branch RLDS will agree that the

current leaders are apostate and that they (CoC leaders) do not hold any sort of monoply on

performing ordinances among the Reorganized LDS.

Do you understand, however, how the LDS cannot recognize any other baptisms?

That would have been my question to President Kimball -- had his private secretary not gotten

a sudden look of horror upon his face, and within five minutes had me rudely shoved out of the

door of that old grey building at Temple Square. President Kimball had personally invited me to

come all the way from Rock Springs, Wyoming, because he had recently met with some of my

distant relatives in Independence, had prayed with them, etc. His words and treatment of me

seemed to suggest that he accepted me as a fellow Latter Day Saint. However, as I said, my

question regarding baptism could not be responded to, under the circumstances of that day.

If we do, we juxtapose the RCC and Orthodox claims of authority…that being that authority

can be indiscriminately continued without oversight. In other words, there’d be no way the

apostasy ever happened.

Ciao,

PacMan

Yes, I understand -- so, let's leave my situation to one side and go back, instead, to those early Saints who

refused to obey the 1st Presidency in Utah, when ordered to gather to "The Valley" in the early 1850s.

The refusers included Mother Lucy Smith, her daughters Sophronia, Catherine and Lucy Smith,

the Murdock girl (I always forget her name) and JS's kids, Lucy's daughters' husbands and families,

William Smith (Lucy's son), Emma Smith (Lucy daughter-in-law) etc.

I suppose that modern Mormons do not question the baptisms and confirmations of those early

Saints, as well as their other relatives and neighbors in Nauvoo and thereabouts.

When was the Holy Ghost betstowed upon them; and when was it taken away (if ever)?

Uncle Dale

.

Link to comment

Uncâ?? Dale,

I apparently do not understand the RLDS movement as well as I thought. Is it basically a non-denominational movement?

Also of interest, do they all believe that the LDS have the Priesthoodâ?¦but simply that the other RLDS do as well?

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I think all Restoration branch RLDS will agree that the current leaders are apostate and that they (CoC leaders) do not hold any sort of monoply on performing ordinances among the Reorganized LDS.

So where the heck is the truth? How can you still hold out for your faith if all the current leaders are apostate?

I suppose that modern Mormons do not question the baptisms and confirmations of those early Saints, as well as thier other relatives and neighbors in Nauvoo and thereabouts.

When was the Holy Ghost betstowed upon them; and when was it taken away (if ever)?

Why would they be questioned? Recallâ?¦even when people â??go apostate,â? they donâ??t receive their baptism again when coming back into the church (unless theyâ??ve been excommunicated). Even then, they receive a reinstitution (I canâ??t remember the word) of blessings. Those early/modern Mormons received their ordinance prior to Joseph, and if they didnâ??tâ?¦then they havenâ??t the ordinance. Iâ??d think thatâ??s the case with the Murdock girl who (as I recall) was pretty young when Joseph died.

Moreover, whether or not they lost the HG is something that is of no concern to anyone except themselves. I wouldnâ??t in a moment judge Mother Smith or Emma too harshly. They were women that gave it their all, underwent amazing amounts of pressure and difficulty, and I certainly believe the Lord will cut them some slack in the end considering what they went through.

Again, the issue of proper priesthood use is when it was exercised in regulation with the church. If not, then it is not of the church for which baptism is a door of entrance, and worth nothing. Thatâ??s why we simply canâ??t accept other baptismâ?¦weâ??re not the same church.

Why donâ??t you join the LDS? It seems like the fundamental beliefs are all thereâ?¦right? Whatâ??s the big deal in getting dunked again? I already told you that you can where your Hawaiian shirts!

PacMan

Link to comment

Unc’ Dale,

I apparently do not understand the RLDS movement as well as I thought. Is it basically a non-denominational movement?

Gee, I hope not! --- rather, it is "congregational" on its church government -- except for the

"Remnant Church" I mentioned earlier, headed by a descendant of David Hyrum Smith. They

are trying to gather in all the hundreds of break-away, independent branches, but I doubt that

process will go anywhere before their prophet demonstrates a remarkable manifestation of

the Spirit. Their propesying that CoC President Grant McMurray would transgress and fall from

power has gained a little interest, but I think that a much stronger and more specific predictive

prophecy would gain them even more interest. But, as a CoC friend of mine once said:

"Even the Devil can tell the future -- that is not the spirit of prophecy."

Also of interest, do they all believe that the LDS have the Priesthood…but simply that the

other RLDS do as well?

I kind of doubt it -- though I've heard that some Restoration branchers recognize the ordinances

of the Temple Lot Church ---- the last time that was done, back in the 1920s, it was part of a rather

blatant attempt to get the original Temple lot, dedicated by JS, into RLDS ownership -- so I doubt

cooperation between the Restoration branchers and Church of Christ Temple Lot runs very deep.

So where the heck is the truth? How can you still hold out for your faith if all the current leaders

are apostate?

That's what Ervil LeBarron used to say to the Mormons -- and he converted quite a few of them

to his fundamentalist group. The Short Cr. folks (Fundamentalist Church of LDS) are not actively

missionizing among the Mormons these days -- but that's their argument as well.

All I can say, is that you would have to spend some time associating with Reorganized Saints in

order to comprehend their way of seeing things -- it is something different than the Mormon way.

I wouldn’t in a moment judge Mother Smith or Emma too harshly. ...

I might, though --- and that tends to get me in trouble with my Reorganized brethren.

Why don’t you join the LDS? It seems like the fundamental beliefs are all there…right? What’s

the big deal in getting dunked again? I already told you that you can where your Hawaiian shirts!

PacMan

Would I then have to shut down my Solomon Spalding web-site?

UD

.

Link to comment

Unc,

All I can say, is that you would have to spend some time associating with Reorganized Saints in

order to comprehend their way of seeing things -- it is something different than the Mormon way.

I'd say so. It seems like a very different paradigm that I have a hard time capturing, even trivially.

Would I then have to shut down my Solomon Spalding web-site?

No. In fact, I use your website to plagarize, er...borrow material all the time.

But I am curious...despite the heavy tone you hold against certain fragments church (the greater Mormon movement) history, it seems you still hold onto your affiliation to the Reorganized movement without complete disaffection. I don't understand it at all... If the BoM really came from Spaulding, then what's that make JS? And if that, why hold onto anything mormoney?

PacMan

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...