On Fri, 20 Sep 2002 00:23:39 -0400 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> Blaine wrote:
> > I don't know of any doctrinal differences among
> > believers in the BoM. How do you explain that?
>
> Glenn wrote:
> > DAVIDM, do you have any information on whether or
> > not there are different doctrines between the Mormon
> > divisions.
>
> Of course there are doctrinal differences. These last posts by
> Blaine
> reveal the fraudulent character that is the fruit of Joseph Smith's
> doctrine. First Blaine says Glenn is going to the place where Dives
> went,
> then he makes out like Glenn is a good man welcomed into heaven.
**Blainer) As DavidH tried to explain, I was joshing Glenn when I told
him he was going to that "place." Glenn and I had discussed this
earlier, and since there was a fundamental difference in our beliefs as
to what constituted Hell, I had used the parable of Lazarus and Dives as
proof that there were no literal flames in hell, just internal flames. I
was basically just trying to needle him into further discussion of this
topic, since we did not in my estimation follow the discussion to any
conclusions or agreement. But when he pressed me for the truth of what
Mormons really bvelieve, I told him the truth as far as I could in a few
short paragraphs. Of course, there is still more I could help him
understand.
> Now he
> contends that there are no doctrinal differences among Mormons and
> wants to
> know how to explain that. Well, the truth is, Blaine is spreading
> more
> falsehood with these statements. There are huge doctrinal
> differences among
> believers in the Book of Mormon.
>
> Those who follow the leadership of the descendants of Joseph Smith,
> now
> called the Community of Christ, formerly called the Reorganized
> Church of
> Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, have doctrines which differ in
> many ways
> from the LDS branch of Mormonism. For example, they differ in the
> doctrine
> of the Godhead, in that they believe in the Trinity but the LDS does
> not.
Blainer) The CoC may have adopted the Trinity doctrine in recent times
to conform to the pressures of the Coalition of Christian Churches they
are trying to kiss up to, but at the time they broke away from the the
mainstream church, their doctrines on the godhead were not different.
Besides, I see little real difference between the doctrine of the Trinity
and the LDS doctrine of three separate members of the Godhead. Maybe I
do not fully understand the doctrine of the Trinity, but it seems to me
it is about the same--the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as one God (head).
> They do not believe in the polygamy of the past as practiced by
> Brigham
> Young and other LDS leaders,
The CoC (AKA RLDS) rejected polygamy because of Emma Smith and her
obsession with placing her son at the head of the church. She was an
egotisitcal rebel who would not accept leadership from anyone except her
own offspring. This had nothing to do with the BoM and its doctrines.
We need to keep in view the issue here, which is whether or not the BoM
caused the break. It did not in this case.
nor do they believe in celestial
> marriage.
Blainer) The doctrine of celestial marriage is not even mentioned in the
BoM. Again, the question is, did the BoM and its plainness cause the
break? It did not. Celestial marriage came about as a new doctrine
reserved for this last dispensation of the gospel, and was revealed to JS
shortly before he was martyred.
> They do not believe in baptism for the dead.
Blainer) Again, baptism for the dead is not mentioned in the BoM. It
came about as a doctrine following the appearance of Elijah the prophet
in the Kirtland, Ohio temple, on Sunday, April 3, 1830, one week
following the dedication of that temple. According to the Jewish
calendar, the date was Sunday, 16 Nisan, or the same date as the Savior's
resurrection. The account of this visitation is in the RLDS (CoC) D&C as
well as that of the LDS D&C. This is a doctrinal difference, but not one
having anything to do with the clarity of the BoM, which was my
assertion.
> have
> their own Twelve apostles and Presidency which differs from the LDS.
> In
> other words, they do not recognize the ecclesiastical government and
> authority of the LDS organization. They have their own priesthood,
> based on
> similar teachings from the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, but
> separate
> from the LDS priesthood.
Blainer) This actually confirms that the BoM doctrine of a quorum of
twelve to lead the church is clear and understandable. Both churches
recognized the doctrine.
They also ordain women whereas the LDS
> organization does not.
Blainer) The ordination of women to the priesthood is a recent
development in the CoC, which has more to do with running out of
direct-line male descendants of Joseph Smith, than anything. At the time
of the break, a male-only priesthood was definitely the mode.
Although they believe in the Book of Mormon,
> they
> have some disagreement about the canon of Scripture, eliminating
> some of the
> supposed later revelations of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.
Blainer) The CofC is trying at this time to distance itself from the
mainstream LDS church. It seems in the process of rejecting the entire
BoM as well as Joseph Smith as a prophet. It is apparently trying to
please the Coalition of Christian Churches, with which it has recently
become financially and organizationally affiliated. It changed its name
from the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to the
Community of Christ for the same reason. There are rumors that it is
considering selling the Kirtland temple, again for the purpose of
achieving distance from the main church or anything Mormon, which is
apparently what the Coalition of CC is demanding in return for financial
assistance. As a consequence, there are reports of some older members
defecting to the mainstream LDS church.
>
> Another Mormon who use to be on this list, Paul, admitted that there
> were
> hundreds of Mormon sects, but most of them were very small and
> insignificant. When one examines the various divsions within
> Mormonism, it
> is much worse than anything seen in Protestantism.
Blainer) I disagree with "Paul." I am sure I could never identify even
a fraction of that.
This by no means
> justifies the carnal divisions in Protestantism. Both Mormonism and
> Protestantism stand condemned before God for these kinds of
> divisions.
As I have said before, from a historical perspective, Mormonism is
simply
> another
> branch of Protestant Christianity, a branch which many Protestants
> and
> Mormons mutually do not want to recognize because of the huge
> philosophical
> differences between these two groups.
Blainer) Probably true, at least for those who made breaks for personal
reasons of self-aggrandizement. Jesus lost one sheep from his fold of
twelve--Judas Iscariot. Yet Jesus was not to be condemned for this. As
long as people have their free moral agency, they may decide to rebel
against the truth for a variety of reasons. Mormons and Protestants are
in somewhat the same boat as far as this is concerned, but I believe the
clarity of the BoM has been a great comfort to many who are seeking the
truth. For these people, the Bible has served to raise questions which
only the BoM has answers for.
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller.
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you
> may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)
> http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you
> have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you
ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who
wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be
subscribed.
