LDS Denominations

[smaneck]

I thought that was self evident... He rejected the true Church for an apostate one.

Hmmm. You mean the church that recognized his appointment?

 

[A New Dawn]

Only in your wishful thinking.
Brigham Young did not need to sway anybody as he already had all the "keys and authority" to the Church(save the obvious joke here).
In fact, Brigham Young did not really want the leadership and stated that he could care less if the Church choose Sidney and followed him, but that the keys already rested with the 12 and they were the ones who had to relinquish them first.

You have got to be kidding me! Brigham Young had all but had JS kick Sidney Rigdon out of the church, and was hugely upset that Sidney got back in while BY was on a mission. He was preparing himself and the church to have the leadership swung his way. When Sidney was suppose to speak at the conference, BY danced in and interrupted Sidney, implying that he was too old and feeble to hold up his plan till young Joseph was of age. You really do need to get out and read some of the actual historic accounts of what happened back then

 

[A New Dawn]

I thought that was self evident... He rejected the true Church for an apostate one.

LOL. Brigham Young unilaterally excommunicated everyone that had a problem with his taking over the leadership of the church, and then called them "apostate". You still are using that word wrong. Apostate means one who has changed his beliefs. The people who changed their beliefs were the ones who accepted all those rituals and false teachings JS introduced to the church during the Nauvoo period. THEY were the apostate ones. The ones who continued to believe what the church taught at the time the church was organized, they were the ones who remained true. But as I said, that was God's way of "cleansing the church". Get rid of all the heretical non-Biblical stuff by letting them take it west and leave the ones who didn't fall for all that stuff to pick up the pieces.

 

[drstevej]

Dawn knows RLDS

 

[kiwimac]

As do I.

 

[Theway]

You have got to be kidding me! Brigham Young had all but had JS kick Sidney Rigdon out of the church, and was hugely upset that Sidney got back in while BY was on a mission. He was preparing himself and the church to have the leadership swung his way. When Sidney was suppose to speak at the conference, BY danced in and interrupted Sidney, implying that he was too old and feeble to hold up his plan till young Joseph was of age. You really do need to get out and read some of the actual historic accounts of what happened back then

If by "historical accounts" you mean RLDS propaganda... Then I say there is no point in it as it is not even germane to succession in the Church. THE 12 as a quorum held the leadership of the Church, Brigham Young by himself could do nothing.

 

[Theway]

LOL. Brigham Young unilaterally excommunicated everyone that had a problem with his taking over the leadership of the church, and then called them "apostate". You still are using that word wrong. Apostate means one who has changed his beliefs. The people who changed their beliefs were the ones who accepted all those rituals and false teachings JS introduced to the church during the Nauvoo period. THEY were the apostate ones. The ones who continued to believe what the church taught at the time the church was organized, they were the ones who remained true. But as I said, that was God's way of "cleansing the church". Get rid of all the heretical non-Biblical stuff by letting them take it west and leave the ones who didn't fall for all that stuff to pick up the pieces.

"The lady doth protest too much methinks"

For someone who sees both sides as apostate religions your defense of the RLDS puzzles me???
Is it that in your mind it was OK if you were once wrong, just as long as you were not wrong-wrong?
You are so anti-LDS that you have been unable to drop your bias and look at it from a factual or logical viewpoint, even if it means you still believe both to be untrue.

On the one hand you have the LDS which claims that Joseph Smith Jr. received revelation in 1831 relating to succession in the Church, as recorded in D&C 107 on 1835.

Or you have the RLDS who claim hearsay evidence that a blessing to his son about succeeding him happened sometime in 1838 or 1839

Now never mind the fact that a blessing is not the way succession happens in the Church, or the fact that a similar blessing was given to at least 8 others..

Your solution to the fact that the way succession was to happen was already recorded in the Church before there was even an RLDS, is that towards the end, Joseph Smith started making things up.
But as I already pointed out, If Joseph Smith was making up his own ways in 1831 or 1835, then arent you shooting your own argument in the foot, considering the Joseph Smith III blessing came 3-8 years after that?

An unbiased person would not let that double standard go unnoticed.

 

[A New Dawn]

If by "historical accounts" you mean RLDS propaganda... Then I say there is no point in it as it is not even germane to succession in the Church. THE 12 as a quorum held the leadership of the Church, Brigham Young by himself could do nothing.

You are the one pushing LDS propaganda (and modern propaganda, at that.)

As I said, you need to read actual historical accounts of what went on back then.

 

[A New Dawn]

"The lady doth protest too much methinks"

For someone who sees both sides as apostate religions your defense of the RLDS puzzles me???
Is it that in your mind it was OK if you were once wrong, just as long as you were not wrong-wrong?
You are so anti-LDS that you have been unable to drop your bias and look at it from a factual or logical viewpoint, even if it means you still believe both to be untrue.

On the one hand you have the LDS which claims that Joseph Smith Jr. received revelation in 1831 relating to succession in the Church, as recorded in D&C 107 on 1835.

Or you have the RLDS who claim hearsay evidence that a blessing to his son about succeeding him happened sometime in 1838 or 1839

Now never mind the fact that a blessing is not the way succession happens in the Church, or the fact that a similar blessing was given to at least 8 others..

Your solution to the fact that the way succession was to happen was already recorded in the Church before there was even an RLDS, is that towards the end, Joseph Smith started making things up.
But as I already pointed out, If Joseph Smith was making up his own ways in 1831 or 1835, then arent you shooting your own argument in the foot, considering the Joseph Smith III blessing came 3-8 years after that?

An unbiased person would not let that double standard go unnoticed.

I still don't have the foggiest idea of what you mean by "If Joseph Smith was making up his own ways in 1831 or 1835". What are you talking about? Making up his own ways for what? You are the one who considers the sections in the D&C to be scripture, yet when one uses your own scripture to demonstrate what the section, itself, discusses, all of the sudden Joseph Smith is "making it up"?

 

[fatboys]

I still don't have the foggiest idea of what you mean by "If Joseph Smith was making up his own ways in 1831 or 1835". What are you talking about? Making up his own ways for what? You are the one who considers the sections in the D&C to be scripture, yet when one uses your own scripture to demonstrate what the section, itself, discusses, all of the sudden Joseph Smith is "making it up"?

If he made both up what does it matter to you

 

[seekingsolace]

If he made both up what does it matter to you

Did he?

 

[Theway]

I still don't have the foggiest idea of what you mean by "If Joseph Smith was making up his own ways in 1831 or 1835". What are you talking about? Making up his own ways for what? You are the one who considers the sections in the D&C to be scripture, yet when one uses your own scripture to demonstrate what the section, itself, discusses, all of the sudden Joseph Smith is "making it up"?

It's not that complicated to understand. If you say that starting around 1831-1835 the order of succession as recorded in the D&C did not count because Joseph Smith was making up his own doctrine by that time.... Then what hope does your argument that the Joseph Smith III blessing was a legitimate way to succession in 1838 or 1839 have?

 

[A New Dawn]

It's not that complicated to understand. If you say that starting around 1831-1835 the order of succession as recorded in the D&C did not count because Joseph Smith was making up his own doctrine by that time.... Then what hope does your argument that the Joseph Smith III blessing was a legitimate way to succession in 1838 or 1839 have?

Nauvoo started in 1839. Not sure where you are getting the 1831 date.

 

[Theway]

Nauvoo started in 1839. Not sure where you are getting the 1831 date.

I don't recall saying anything about Nauvoo???
But I find it funny that after all my comments this is all you walk away with.

The 1831 date was the date that the order of succession, authority, and the passing of the keys of leadership in the Mormon Church were revealed. Which puts you, and those who believe that Joseph Smith III had a right to take over the Mormon Church in a paradox.... You can not come up with a good reason for denouncing the way it was done, without distroying your own argument for Joseph Smith III at the same time.

 

[RDKatz]

Interesting Wiki entry about all the LDS Denominations, both defunct and active:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement

I didn't realize there are so many, albeit many are pretty small compared to the Salt Lake LDS denomination. Of course, this is a Wiki entry so it probably just scratches the surface.

I have only met people from the main Salt Lake City branch of Mormonism but also a couple from the "Community of Christ" which is the "RLDS" or "Reorganized LDS" church - it is the one carried on by Joseph Smith's son. The Brigham Young followers did not want to honor Joseph Smith's passing of the role of prophet to Joseph Smith's son and voted in Brigham Young into the main denomimation. The big split between the two was over polygamy - Joseph Smith's son (son of his wife Emma) was vehemently against polygamy while Brigham Young, of course, was one of the most polygamous Mormons ever.

Interesting that many of the denominations still practice polygamy - we all know this from some mainstream representations of them through the media news and TV shows, fictional but based on reality as well as reality/documentary shows.

If anyone has more knowledge or experience with any of these, please share.

I think a bit of History might help here.

With the Martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph Smith and his Brother, the question arose as to who would lead them. There were those who claimed leadership. Joseph Smith III was not among them. He was not vehemently against polygamy. He was much to young to be vehemently against anything. Sidney Rigdon was one who claimed leadership as he was a counselor of the Prophet. Brigham Young and other Apostles were in Great Britain on a mission. They rushed back to Nauvoo.
There was a day appointed when those who claimed leadership were to talk. Yet Brigham was not there. Sidney had his talk as did others. Brigham showed up just in time to talk. As the story goes, as he talked the people saw the image of the Prophet Joseph Smith take the place of Brigham. This was a sign that Brigham as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve was to lead.
The vote was taken and Brigham was to lead. He led the majority across the plains to what is now Utah. The rest splintered into many groups. Thus the LDS did not split off from the RLDS nor did the RLDS split off from the LDS.

When Joseph Smith III grew and was old enough, many of these splintered groups joined under his leadership and formed the RLDS Church.

Hope this helps

 

[ArmenianJohn]

The vote was taken and Brigham was to lead. He led the majority across the plains to what is now Utah. The rest splintered into many groups. Thus the LDS did not split off from the RLDS nor did the RLDS split off from the LDS.

When Joseph Smith III grew and was old enough, many of these splintered groups joined under his leadership and formed the RLDS Church.

Hope this helps

I find the bolded part above to be confusing - if "the majority" was separated from "the rest" then "the majority" and "the rest" did split from each other. So how can the claim that "the LDS did not split off from the RLDS nor did the RLDS split off from the LDS" be true? They did split from each other, at some point.

I'm curious also as to why the split is something that many mormons want to portray as not having happened???

 

[Theway]

I think a bit of History might help here.

With the Martyrdom of the Prophet Joseph Smith and his Brother, the question arose as to who would lead them. There were those who claimed leadership. Joseph Smith III was not among them. He was not vehemently against polygamy. He was much to young to be vehemently against anything. Sidney Rigdon was one who claimed leadership as he was a counselor of the Prophet. Brigham Young and other Apostles were in Great Britain on a mission. They rushed back to Nauvoo.
There was a day appointed when those who claimed leadership were to talk. Yet Brigham was not there. Sidney had his talk as did others. Brigham showed up just in time to talk. As the story goes, as he talked the people saw the image of the Prophet Joseph Smith take the place of Brigham. This was a sign that Brigham as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve was to lead.
The vote was taken and Brigham was to lead. He led the majority across the plains to what is now Utah. The rest splintered into many groups. Thus the LDS did not split off from the RLDS nor did the RLDS split off from the LDS.

When Joseph Smith III grew and was old enough, many of these splintered groups joined under his leadership and formed the RLDS Church.

Hope this helps

A few small additions....
First, when Brigham Young spoke he simply reminded those there that the keys to the leadership in the church already existed with the 12. Brigham by himself could do nothing so they had to wait IIRC three years before the rest of the Quorum could get together and appoint a new President of Church.
Second, when the President/Prophet is dead or removed, the Presidency is disolved, and the Counselors no longer have any authority.... So Sidney's claim was only wishful thinking anyway.
Third, you say the "vote was taken" as though it was a majority takes all vote. It was a confirmation vote, which merely affirms that you are willing to follow the Prophet in authority, it was not a vote to decide who will be the next President.

 

[RDKatz]

I find the bolded part above to be confusing - if "the majority" was separated from "the rest" then "the majority" and "the rest" did split from each other. So how can the claim that "the LDS did not split off from the RLDS nor did the RLDS split off from the LDS" be true? They did split from each other, at some point.

I'm curious also as to why the split is something that many mormons want to portray as not having happened???

Did the RCC split from the Orthodox or did the Orthodox split from the RCC? I think the answer is neither. There was one group and then something happened and there were two.

The same thing happened with the Church. There was one group and then Joseph was martyred. Out of one group came many. If you ask a LDS, s/he will insist that the RLDS split from the LDS and vice versa.

I think a better view of split is what happened with the RCC. There was the RCC and then Martin Luther did his thing. Suddenly, the Protestants split from the RCC and then split among themselves forming many Protestant denominations.

Now there were (are?) many that have split from the LDS. The FLDS comes to mind here.

 

[RDKatz]

A few small additions....
First, when Brigham Young spoke he simply reminded those there that the keys to the leadership in the church already existed with the 12. Brigham by himself could do nothing so they had to wait IIRC three years before the rest of the Quorum could get together and appoint a new President of Church.
Second, when the President/Prophet is dead or removed, the Presidency is disolved, and the Counselors no longer have any authority.... So Sidney's claim was only wishful thinking anyway.
Third, you say the "vote was taken" as though it was a majority takes all vote. It was a confirmation vote, which merely affirms that you are willing to follow the Prophet in authority, it was not a vote to decide who will be the next President.

I don't disagree with anything you say.

 

[Theway]

Did the RCC split from the Orthodox or did the Orthodox split from the RCC? I think the answer is neither. There was one group and then something happened and there were two.

The same thing happened with the Church. There was one group and then Joseph was martyred. Out of one group came many. If you ask a LDS, s/he will insist that the RLDS split from the LDS and vice versa.

I think a better view of split is what happened with the RCC. There was the RCC and then Martin Luther did his thing. Suddenly, the Protestants split from the RCC and then split among themselves forming many Protestant denominations.

Now there were (are?) many that have split from the LDS. The FLDS comes to mind here.

The problem is not in calling it a split, the problem comes when trying to determine which is the true church, and which is the apostate spin-off.
The RCC and the LDS both claim unbroken authority and its keys. Which means that even if all doctrine was exactly the same, unless you were called of God and ordained and set apart by someone else in authority, then you have apostized from the true church.
In the case of Protestants they solved this by saying everyone has authority unto themselves.... which waters down authority to the point of making it meaningless.
The RLDS on the other hand claimed that Joseph Smith gave authority to his young son in a rumored father's blessing. However that still leaves a gap in authority for them from the time of Joseph Smith jr. death until Joseph Smith III finally relented and took over the RLDS. The other problem they have is that no where does it say that what they claim happened is the way authority is passed on to another. this creates an untenable position for them, as they can not claim to follow the doctrine as revealed to Joseph Smith jr. While at the same time they discard doctrine about authority and succession in order the make Joseph Smith III the leader of the Church.
In fact the their very name "Reorganised Latter Day Saints" admits to their paradox.