Matt. 12:38-39

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Didn't know there was a difference other than C of C tended to be less anti-Mormon, what is the difference?

First, I am sorry that you view other Restoration churches based on who is more "anti-Mormon" and less "anti-Mormon". But your persecuted worldview is partially our doing- I apologize. Belive me when I say, we do not just sit around talking about how awful the Mormons are, we are focused on doing the things the LORD has asked of us, and many of us are now recognizing that the walls we have built up between Restoration churches have been a great hindrence to the building of of Zion, the New Jerusalem- and are trying to find areas of cooperation with other Book of Mormon believers.

Very brief recap...

In the mid-80's the former RLDS Church decided to give women the Priesthood. When that happened approx. 1/2 the membership walked out the doors. Many came together and formed "RLDS Restoration Branches" where traditonal RLDS teachings could be taught and practiced.

As the now, Community of Christ, has moved even further in a Liberal theological direction. Those of us in Restoration Branches have maintained traditional RLDS teachings and practices. All 3 books are used on an equal and regular basis.

If there are any specific questions you have, I would be happy to answer them.

[cdowis]

I've been told the BOM isn't inerrant, and it would seem that when Mormon prophets quoted Isaiah they were quoting the text they had on the brass plates, so why shouldn't any human errors contained in that text (and subsequent texts shared by the Jews) be corrected in a God-given, inspired translation of Scripture?

Lehi and his family would have been contemporaries of Jeremiah, wouldn't they?

And the text of Isaiah they brought to the new world on the brass plates would have been one of the texts available in Jeremiah's day, wouldn't it?

The Brass Plates is the record of Joseph. We have the record of Judah and there are differences in the two families of trnsmissions. Also Isaiah was over a school of prophets, and they probably participated in the transmission of his words.

[Stone holm]

Please, I assure you that no affront was intended. My words were purely out of ignorance. So, I did drive over to the one near my house and it is a Community of Christ church now. When I attended there in '74 it was RLDS. So, I would be very interested in anything that you wish to share. I just finished a study on Emma Smith and found her to be a most fascinating woman. I'm not personally threatened by Joseph Smith III refusal to go to SLC. I think that they'd all been through a terribly hard time, and if I had lost 4 babies in my early years, I would not have fared as well as she.

First, I am sorry that you view other Restoration churches based on who is more "anti-Mormon" and less "anti-Mormon". But your persecuted worldview is partially our doing- I apologize. Belive me when I say, we do not just sit around talking about how awful the Mormons are, we are focused on doing the things the LORD has asked of us, and many of us are now recognizing that the walls we have built up between Restoration churches have been a great hindrence to the building of of Zion, the New Jerusalem- and are trying to find areas of cooperation with other Book of Mormon believers.

Very brief recap...

In the mid-80's the former RLDS Church decided to give women the Priesthood. When that happened approx. 1/2 the membership walked out the doors. Many came together and formed "RLDS Restoration Branches" where traditonal RLDS teachings could be taught and practiced.

As the now, Community of Christ, has moved even further in a Liberal theological direction. Those of us in Restoration Branches have maintained traditional RLDS teachings and practices. All 3 books are used on an equal and regular basis.

If there are any specific questions you have, I would be happy to answer them.

I used to live in the very NE corner of Indiana about 5 minutes from the Ohio line, we visited the Kirtland Temple rather frequently and our area was at one time a stronghold of the former RLDS Church although its congregation was dwindling. I was baptised into the LDS Church at the end of my senior year in law school and before my wife and I actually got home, somehow the word had spread and the local RLDS lay minister -- I guess he must have been the equivalent of our Bishops, not sure about that. In any event he came to see my non-member brother to inform him that I had joined the wrong church. In the early years of tours at Kirtland the tours didn't just ignore the LDS Church like we tend to do with the RLDS Church at our sites, but rather the RLDS guides would often take shots at the LDS Church. I remember once the guide informing a group that the three witnesses and Oliver Cowdery got exed while Joseph was off doing something and that they really shouldn't have been that it was just something got up by Brigham Young, etc. They also were frequent pamphleteers of anti-Mormon tracts when special gatherings occurred. I noticed, however, that as the LDS Church began to be more accepted as a mainstream Church that the RLDS seemed to moderate quite a bit, and when they changed to the C of C they seemed to want to buddy up with us talking about the "Restorative Theology" and dropped the attacks. That makes sense if the C of C is moving in a liberal direction. In any event, that is why I made the remark about the one being less anti-Mormon than the other. So the principal difference is that the C of C ordains women? I thought that was because their last Prophet only had daughters or something. What are the other differences?

[MormonMason]

Perhaps neither of the versions you refer to have any validity. I've never understood Joseph's need for clarification of these verses. They seem to stand well enough of their own accord in the original canon.

Not so much clarification of the meaning but rather restoration (or insertion of text lost and missing from the original compilations in the first place) of historical events leading up to the teaching, in this case. The Bible as we have it has no real context for the teaching. The statement is just there. Joseph Smith restored the reason for the teaching. A similar thing is done in Luke 16. The JST version of the narrative flows more smoothly instead of having it look like a collection of mere disjointed statements. Edited May 1, 2013 by MormonMason

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I used to live in the very NE corner of Indiana about 5 minutes from the Ohio line, we visited the Kirtland Temple rather frequently and our area was at one time a stronghold of the former RLDS Church although its congregation was dwindling. I was baptised into the LDS Church at the end of my senior year in law school and before my wife and I actually got home, somehow the word had spread and the local RLDS lay minister -- I guess he must have been the equivalent of our Bishops, not sure about that. In any event he came to see my non-member brother to inform him that I had joined the wrong church. In the early years of tours at Kirtland the tours didn't just ignore the LDS Church like we tend to do with the RLDS Church at our sites, but rather the RLDS guides would often take shots at the LDS Church. I remember once the guide informing a group that the three witnesses and Oliver Cowdery got exed while Joseph was off doing something and that they really shouldn't have been that it was just something got up by Brigham Young, etc. They also were frequent pamphleteers of anti-Mormon tracts when special gatherings occurred. I noticed, however, that as the LDS Church began to be more accepted as a mainstream Church that the RLDS seemed to moderate quite a bit, and when they changed to the C of C they seemed to want to buddy up with us talking about the "Restorative Theology" and dropped the attacks. That makes sense if the C of C is moving in a liberal direction. In any event, that is why I made the remark about the one being less anti-Mormon than the other. So the principal difference is that the C of C ordains women? I thought that was because their last Prophet only had daughters or something. What are the other differences?

- They ordain women

- They now accept baptisms from any Christian church, including infant baptism.

- They serve open sacrament

- The US Conference just approved homosexual marriage/committment ceremonies for the US

- They downplay the Book of Mormon, and rarely use it.

etc...

[Stone holm]

- They ordain women

- They now accept baptisms from any Christian church, including infant baptism.

- They serve open sacrament

- The US Conference just approved homosexual marriage/committment ceremonies for the US

- They downplay the Book of Mormon, and rarely use it.

etc...

What is meant by "open sacrament"? And you say there is a group which has broken away from the C of C? Was there a struggle for control of any of the former RLDS sites?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

What is meant by "open sacrament"? And you say there is a group which has broken away from the C of C? Was there a struggle for control of any of the former RLDS sites?

Meaning, they serve Sacrament to those who have not been baptized by proper authority. As oppossed to "Close Sacrament" where only baptized members of the church are serve, which is according to scripture.

Like I said, about 1/2 the church left in the mid-80's and started "RLDS Restoration Branches" were the original doctrines and practices of the church are preserved.

There were court cases mainly concerning meetinghouses, with the institutional church prevailing.

[Stone holm]

Meaning, they serve Sacrament to those who have not been baptized by proper authority. As oppossed to "Close Sacrament" where only baptized members of the church are serve, which is according to scripture.

Like I said, about 1/2 the church left in the mid-80's and started "RLDS Restoration Branches" were the original doctrines and practices of the church are preserved.

There were court cases mainly concerning meetinghouses, with the institutional church prevailing.

I guess then that we in the LDS Church serve open Sacrament since we are specifically commanded not to interfere with someone unworthily taking the Sacrament. Interesting comments, I did not realize that there had been a schism in the RLDS Church when it changed to C of C. I always thought it odd that the local RLDS women's organization out in Indiana would sometimes publish notices that they were having "Coffees" at their meeting house. Does the RLDS Restoration Branches consider the Word of Wisdom obligatory? Do they have the 132nd Section in the Doctrine and Covenants? When the C of C changed their policies did they add revelations to their D & C?

[Palerider]

Not so much clarification of the meaning but rather restoration (or insertion of text lost and missing from the original compilations in the first place) of historical events leading up to the teaching, in this case. The Bible as we have it has no real context for the teaching. The statement is just there. Joseph Smith restored the reason for the teaching. A similar thing is done in Luke 16. The JST version of the narrative flows more smoothly instead of having it look like a collection of mere disjointed statements.

I believe the Mormons are at odds with each other regarding "translation" or "clarification". Please see comment #6 by Canard 78 and then when you guys have sorted it out, get back to me........

[MormonMason]

I believe the Mormons are at odds with each other regarding "translation" or "clarification". Please see comment #6 by Canard 78 and then when you guys have sorted it out, get back to me........

In some places the JST is commentary rather than restoration. Fact is, the JST is many things in many places. He does not adopt the same approach in all places to all texts. Read it very carefully and you might someday see that. Because of the nature of the work it of necessity will result in differences of opinion, depending upon which tack one takes in reading. However, some places in the text are by direct revelation, such as passages of what LDS refer to as the Book of Moses. Some of these are restorations and others are revelations of things that probably never were in the originals but which took place to result in the phraseology therein. As I said, the entire text has to be read very carefully.

So far as the word "translation" goes, however, you need to consult both the 1806 and 1828 Webster's Dictionaries. The word had a wider range of meanings in Joseph Smith's day than it now does. That needs to be taken into consideration whenever discussing something such as this. Please keep that in mind in future.

[canard78]

In some places the JST is commentary rather than restoration. Fact is, the JST is many things in many places. He does not adopt the same approach in all places to all texts. Read it very carefully and you might someday see that. Because of the nature of the work it of necessity will result in differences of opinion, depending upon which tack one takes in reading. However, some places in the text are by direct revelation, such as passages of what LDS refer to as the Book of Moses. Some of these are restorations and others are revelations of things that probably never were in the originals but which took place to result in the phraseology therein. As I said, the entire text has to be read very carefully.

So far as the word "translation" goes, however, you need to consult both the 1806 and 1828 Webster's Dictionaries. The word had a wider range of meanings in Joseph Smith's day than it now does. That needs to be taken into consideration whenever discussing something such as this. Please keep that in mind in future.

Any clues on how to tell the difference between correcting translation vs commentary?

Can you give us some examples?

I found the Wikipedia article insightful:

The Translation was intended to restore what Smith described as “many important points touching the salvation of men, [that] had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.”[4] But the work was not a literal translation from ancient documents, as the term translation is commonly used today. Neither was it an automatic and infallible process where "correct" words and phrases simply were revealed to Smith in final form. As with Joseph Smith's other translations, he reported that he was forced to "study it out in [his] mind"[5] as part of the revelatory process.[6] Sometimes Smith might revisit a given passage of scripture at a later time to give it a "plainer translation,"[7] because of additional knowledge or revelation about a subject.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I guess then that we in the LDS Church serve open Sacrament since we are specifically commanded not to interfere with someone unworthily taking the Sacrament. Interesting comments, I did not realize that there had been a schism in the RLDS Church when it changed to C of C. I always thought it odd that the local RLDS women's organization out in Indiana would sometimes publish notices that they were having "Coffees" at their meeting house. Does the RLDS Restoration Branches consider the Word of Wisdom obligatory? Do they have the 132nd Section in the Doctrine and Covenants? When the C of C changed their policies did they add revelations to their D & C?

If I am not mistaken I believe you stated you were a Bishop in some other thread. With this in mind you should be well aware that LDS authorities regularly "interfere" with unowrthy persons taking the Sacrament through probabtion and disfellowshipping. Also, the scriptures clearly state that only those who have been baptized should partake.

The Word of Wisdom is emphasized and expected to be observed, especially in regards to tobacco, alcohol, and drugs.

We do not have LDS D&C 132 in our D&C, as we do not believe it is genuine revelation or that Joseph received it.

The CofC has added several sections to their D&C throughout the years. The one I use only goes through Section 144 and Israel A. Smith- it also retains the Lectures on Faith as it did for many years.

[Stone holm]

If I am not mistaken I believe you stated you were a Bishop in some other thread. With this in mind you should be well aware that LDS authorities regularly "interfere" with unowrthy persons taking the Sacrament through probabtion and disfellowshipping. Also, the scriptures clearly state that only those who have been baptized should partake.

The Word of Wisdom is emphasized and expected to be observed, especially in regards to tobacco, alcohol, and drugs.

We do not have LDS D&C 132 in our D&C, as we do not believe it is genuine revelation or that Joseph received it.

The CofC has added several sections to their D&C throughout the years. The one I use only goes through Section 144 and Israel A. Smith- it also retains the Lectures on Faith as it did for many years.

Well yes and no. A disciplined person depending on the action taken will be admonished that they are forbidden to take the Sacrament and a nonmember should not take the Sacrament, but in neither case is the Bishop or anyone else to try and physically prevent them from doing so.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Well yes and no. A disciplined person depending on the action taken will be admonished that they are forbidden to take the Sacrament and a nonmember should not take the Sacrament, but in neither case is the Bishop or anyone else to try and physically prevent them from doing so.

Your answer creates a whole other set of issues that I would prefer not to get into. But you have my answer on some of the differences between CofC and traditional RLDS believers, this being one of them.

[canard78]

We do not have LDS D&C 132 in our D&C, as we do not believe it is genuine revelation or that Joseph received it.

At the risk of a thread derail (if it is even on track any more), what's the evidence for 132 not being from Joseph?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

At the risk of a thread derail (if it is even on track any more), what's the evidence for 132 not being from Joseph?

I made a committment about a year ago to not discuss plural marriage with LDS folks anymore. It creates contention, the same arguments are rehashed over and over, and no one changes their mind in the slightest on either side.

[Stone holm]

I made a committment about a year ago to not discuss plural marriage with LDS folks anymore. It creates contention, the same arguments are rehashed over and over, and no one changes their mind in the slightest on either side.

I can respect that. I have always been curious as to what the special significance of the Kirtland Temple as a Temple is to the RLDS. In part it clearly looks the same as the infrequently used Solemn Assembly Halls in the larger Temples. Does it have any other special signficance or perhaps better stated special use?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I can respect that. I have always been curious as to what the special significance of the Kirtland Temple as a Temple is to the RLDS. In part it clearly looks the same as the infrequently used Solemn Assembly Halls in the larger Temples. Does it have any other special signficance or perhaps better stated special use?

I can only tell you what I personally believe. I believe the Kirtland Temple and New Jerusalem Temple will be used as the principle gathering point for the School of the Prophets and that an "Endowement" Ritual will be had- one patterned after the washing & annointings had at Kirtland (which I believe were correct)- washing with water and with scented alcohol (don't recall of the top of my head what was used) and then an inspired blessing pronounced on the head of the individual.

[Stone holm]

I can only tell you what I personally believe. I believe the Kirtland Temple and New Jerusalem Temple will be used as the principle gathering point for the School of the Prophets and that an "Endowement" Ritual will be had- one patterned after the washing & annointings had at Kirtland (which I believe were correct)- washing with water and with scented alcohol (don't recall of the top of my head what was used) and then an inspired blessing pronounced on the head of the individual.

And so to accomplish those goals will access to the Temple be restricted, or will it continue to be open to the public. Where would the washing and annointings take place? What is your understanding of the "School of the Prophets"?