Different Jesus

[ozzy]

There is something that has always bugged me. Often times, there have been individuals who have informed me that I followed a 'different' Christ from the one in the Bible, and from the one they follow. And of course this has been more a reference to mormonism than to me personally.

My purposes here aren't to start an argument or anything, I was just wondering and hoping that someone could explain the thought chain that leads to this conclusion. Is it as simple as the Book of Mormon and other doctrines which vary from the norm, or is there more to it?

Much obliged.

[prisonchaplain]

Ozzy, imho, the gist of such a statement is that the LDS doctrines concerning Jesus, the Trinity, the Plan of Salvation, Premortal Existence, etc. combine to a system of faith that is so different from that of Protestantism or Catholicism that it cannot be considered the same faith, and thus, Jesus cannot be considered the same either.

On one level, this assertion seems absurd. After all, we're all talking about the Jesus of the Bible, who atones for sin, and sits at the right hand of the Father. However, a Jesus who alone stands co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, apart from the angels and us humans, who were created at a particular time, out of nothing, is quite different from one who contended with Lucifer over who's plan would be chosen, and who stands completely separate from the Father, as a separate God who unites with the Father in purpose...well, it's different, is it not?

[mrmarklin]

Ozzy, imho, the gist of such a statement is that the LDS doctrines concerning Jesus, the Trinity, the Plan of Salvation, Premortal Existence, etc. combine to a system of faith that is so different from that of Protestantism or Catholicism that it cannot be considered the same faith, and thus, Jesus cannot be considered the same either.

On one level, this assertion seems absurd. After all, we're all talking about the Jesus of the Bible, who atones for sin, and sits at the right hand of the Father. However, a Jesus who alone stands co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, apart from the angels and us humans, who were created at a particular time, out of nothing, is quite different from one who contended with Lucifer over who's plan would be chosen, and who stands completely separate from the Father, as a separate God who unites with the Father in purpose...well, it's different, is it not?

Well it's different but not different enough to say that Mormons are not Christians. In the strictest sense, Mormons accept Christ as their personal Savior, and understand, along with the rest of mainstream Christianity that the path to salvation is through Jesus Christ.:)

[ozzy]

Ozzy, imho, the gist of such a statement is that the LDS doctrines concerning Jesus, the Trinity, the Plan of Salvation, Premortal Existence, etc. combine to a system of faith that is so different from that of Protestantism or Catholicism that it cannot be considered the same faith, and thus, Jesus cannot be considered the same either.

On one level, this assertion seems absurd. After all, we're all talking about the Jesus of the Bible, who atones for sin, and sits at the right hand of the Father. However, a Jesus who alone stands co-equal and co-eternal with the Father, apart from the angels and us humans, who were created at a particular time, out of nothing, is quite different from one who contended with Lucifer over who's plan would be chosen, and who stands completely separate from the Father, as a separate God who unites with the Father in purpose...well, it's different, is it not?

I suppose that it does make sense that this would be viewed as a significant difference. I guess I always considered the assertion with respect to Christ as he lived, his example and teachings and such and it always confused me.

Thanks pc.

[Prodigal_Son]

...there have been individuals who have informed me that I followed a 'different' Christ from the one in the Bible, and from the one they follow...

Spending my high school years in the Bible Belt, I know where you're coming from. And, from my perspective, when one gets a feel for their concept of the Savior, I tend to completely agree with the premise that we're somewhat apples and oranges on The Messiah. As for whose version is truer to the biblical record, however, can be (and is) debated ad nauseum.

So this begs the question (that we don't need to answer with this thread ): which version of Christ is the right one?

[prisonchaplain]

Well it's different but not different enough to say that Mormons are not Christians. In the strictest sense, Mormons accept Christ as their personal Savior, and understand, along with the rest of mainstream Christianity that the path to salvation is through Jesus Christ.:)

How different is different? Well, your church is more different from mine than, say the Baptists are, but less than the Muslims. So, what did Paul mean when he wrote of "a different Jesus?" Surely, whoever he was referring was teaching about the same Jesus of Nazareth. But, what they were saying was different. Different enough that he called issued warning.

So, if the OP is referring to people who are flat-out saying, "Mormons aren't Christians," then they have a difficult case to make. If they are saying, "The way you describe Jesus is way-different from what I've learned in my church--and that makes me uncomfortable,"--that might not feel pleasant, but it's not so unfair is it? If I went to an LDS ward as a guest, and during testimony time spoke up and said, "Greetings. I testify that the Holy Trinity, as explained in the Nicene Creed is true, and only Jesus is co-eternal with the Father. We were all made from nothing at the creation of the world. I testify that this is true, in the name of Jesus Christ, amen." Can you imagine the stunned silence? What I had just stated, would it not be considered alien...a different Jesus?

[Elgama]

Whilst obviously its the same Jesus - I don't agree that our Christ is not in the Bible, I do agree our Christ is different from mainstream Christianity, however by definition of being a Latter Day Saint I believe mainstream Christianity' view of Christ is someplace between incorrect and incomplete based on their limited knowledge.

[prisonchaplain]

Elgama...so you, like most Jesus-followers, would say, "Okay...you're kinda right. It's different. And my view is correct." Yes? :-)

[Elgama]

Elgama...so you, like most Jesus-followers, would say, "Okay...you're kinda right. It's different. And my view is correct." Yes? :-)

of course lol whats the point in following a path you believe to be incorrect or wrong:) Our view of the Atonement starting with creation (well in our case before lol) is radically different to mainstream Christianity, yes we have the same Jesus and yes ours is the Christ in the Bible but its not the same as mainstream Christianity

[Dr T]

I got chastised by a mod about a week ago for responding to an OP that asked about an LDS person going to a Christian church by saying, "God to the Christian church...blah blah blah" for saying there was a difference. I responded to that person and did not hear anything else from them and this thread goes right along with that topic.

[Elgama]

well looks like I may be getting into trouble with ya Dr T - I don't agree its a different God because there is only one God however I would feel the same talking to a Hindu as to a Christian, I don't believe the chracters are different but the way we view them is and if you are a Christian that allows no room for differening views, being a Latter Day Saint allows us to look at the same thing differently`

[pam]

I got chastised by a mod about a week ago for responding to an OP that asked about an LDS person going to a Christian church by saying, "God to the Christian church...blah blah blah" for saying there was a difference. I responded to that person and did not hear anything else from them and this thread goes right along with that topic.

No that's not the reason. You said and I quote:

I didn't read all the posts but I'd just say, "Stop going to the LDS church and become a Christian and go to the new church.

You basically are saying that members of the LDS are not Christians by that comment.

[Dr T]

Pammy, what you just posted was out of context. Please post the whole thing so everybody knows what I said. The OP was about how to start going to a Christian church (that persons words) if you are an LDS member. Other posts went into "taking her name off the lists, etc." My response was that there really is no need for all that really because God knows what's in the heart and that's what's really important nothing else. Then I got a "warning" of not posting things suggesting that LDS are not Christians. My point was the OP's post made the distinction and I just responded to how it was set up. I think I should be taken off the "warning" list for that post (if there is one)

[Faded]

"Mormons believe in a different Jesus."

This assertion has always struck me as extremely deceptive statement. The typical Protestant or Catholic congregation member frankly doesn't really understand the Trinity. Many could care less about what most non-Christians would consider minor differences of interpretation. And the average Christian isn't likely to grasp why their leaders are so concerned. But they trust their leaders and take them at their word.

So rather than going into a lengthy explanation, the priest or pastor simply tells them, "Mormons believe in a different Jesus," and leave it to their listeners to draw their own conclusions. This has its intended effect: Automatic disbelief of anything those "Mormons" have to say no matter what. Many of them will have concluded that Mormons actually believe in somebody other than Jesus of Nazareth or some nonsense like that. Virtually all of them cannot tell you why they think we worship a different Jesus. Even if their pastor actually did explain it to them, it'll be a discourse about the Trinity and they'll tune it out once they get totally lost and confused.

Long and short of it: Most of the Christians who make this assertion can't answer the question, "Why do you think that?" They don't know. Their pastor is doing their thinking for them on this matter.

[rameumptom]

It is all based upon non-Biblical creeds. The Bible does not establish requirements for salvation beyond: 1. Faith in Christ, 2. Repentance, 3. Obedience as an outward expression of one's faith.

Any requirements beyond this is not found in the Bible. Requirements such as having to believe in the Trinity, believe in pre-destination, etc., are all extra-biblical beliefs, usually based upon a creed or writing of early Church Fathers (re: not the apostles and prophets).

[rameumptom]

BTW, I have to agree with Faded. Most pew-sitting Christians do not really understand the Trinity. Most envision Christ as having a physical, resurrected body. Most describe the Trinity in terms of modalism, which is also a heresy for Trinitarians.

For the Christian churches that do accept modalism, they also believe in a "different Jesus" than the Trinitarians. However, you don't see huge attacks on them as one does on Mormons.

While the descriptions and some ideas behind each Jesus may be different, is it really a different Jesus? When a Catholic prays to God, do we believe it is a different God than the one the Protestants pray to? Or is he just worshiped differently? I think there is more import in viewing it that way. There is more that we agree upon than disagree upon. Yet we seem to always be looking for the division. In Ephesians 4:11-14, Paul seems to look forward to the day when we "all come to the unity of the faith." That isn't going to happen as long as we focus more on the differences than on the similarities.

I applaud the efforts of the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox for trying to find commonality to forge alliances. Schisms over definitions that are not clearly espoused in the Bible really is sad. It means we all spend inordinate amounts of energy and effort to one-up each other, instead of seeking the common goal of lifting all people.

So, my Jesus still has a physical body, and yours is a Spirit. So what? We agree on the truly important things: faith, hope, charity, repentance, doing good works.

[prisonchaplain]

"Mormons believe in a different Jesus."

This assertion has always struck me as extremely deceptive statement. The typical Protestant or Catholic congregation member frankly doesn't really understand the Trinity. Many could care less about what most non-Christians would consider minor differences of interpretation. And the average Christian isn't likely to grasp why their leaders are so concerned. But they trust their leaders and take them at their word.

I would gently suggest you change the word "deceptive" to "confusing." You are both right and wrong. It is true that most church members would quickly become confused by some of the language of the Nicene Creed, and the finer nuances. However, members of churches (note that many church attenders are not members, and may not be well versed at all in doctrine) do understand that Trinity means one God in three persons. They know there is only one God, and that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are that one God.

And, however slight or nuanced LDS members may think the difference is, the idea that Father and Son have separate bodies and are completely separate from the Holy Spirit as well--there's no oneness of God that we can see in that. It's "different."

So rather than going into a lengthy explanation, the priest or pastor simply tells them, "Mormons believe in a different Jesus," and leave it to their listeners to draw their own conclusions. This has its intended effect: Automatic disbelief of anything those "Mormons" have to say no matter what.

If I may exaggerate to make a point...I promise you that we priests and ministers do not sit in smoke-filled back rooms plotting how to diminish the reputation of LDS amongst our members.

Many of them will have concluded that Mormons actually believe in somebody other than Jesus of Nazareth or some nonsense like that.

Maybe someone who's extremely uncurious who might have heard about a Jesus who visited North America, and drew his/her own conclusions.

Virtually all of them cannot tell you why they think we worship a different Jesus. Even if their pastor actually did explain it to them, it'll be a discourse about the Trinity and they'll tune it out once they get totally lost and confused.

There may be a grain of truth in this for some, but me thinks there is also a huge chunk of cynicism. Again, how hard is it to see LDS images of the Godhead, with Father and Son appearing in separate bodies, with the Holy Spirit (perhaps pictured as a dove?), and not see that as different from the one God in three persons, with the Son submitted to the condecension of becoming God-in-the-flesh? We can debate which view is accurate, more scriptural, more logical, etc. But it surely is different--or there would be no debate.

Long and short of it: Most of the Christians who make this assertion can't answer the question, "Why do you think that?" They don't know. Their pastor is doing their thinking for them on this matter.

IMHO this is a very negative twist on the reality that we do have leaders set aside and trained to devote their lives to the study of Scripture. It's no more mindless of our members than when non-LDS ask questions and get answers from church manuals, or lds.org, etc. For final answers, do we not all refer to our best, most-thought out presentations of truth?

[prisonchaplain]

For the Christian churches that do accept modalism, they also believe in a "different Jesus" than the Trinitarians. However, you don't see huge attacks on them as one does on Mormons.

I would not expect you to know the history of this issue anymore than I know the ins and outs of the fractures between your church and the RLDS, etc. But, yes, this was a huge heartbreak, in my church especially. Within 3 years of our forming in 1914 "The New Issue" arose--modalism. The split mean we lost one-fourth of our people and a third of our ministers. It was this very issue that led to the formation of our own Statement of Fundamental Truths.

BTW, even the relatively liberal National Council of Churches will not allow modalists membership, due to their rejection of the Trinity.

[Faded]

PC I get what you are saying of course. This is from personal experience. Many non-LDS Christians out there seem to have heard, "Mormons aren't Christians" and "Mormons worship a different Jesus" so frequently that it removes their own ability to be objective about it. But in every case, when encountering a person with those notions in their heads, they really and truly can't answer "Why do you think that? Where did you get that idea?" The only answer they seem to have is that their pastor told them so.

Do I think pastors intentionally poison the minds of their followers to all LDS teachings? I think some actually do, but they do so with a sense of protecting their flock from perceived wolves -- the Mormons.

Those pastors who go into a thorough explanation of why it's "a different Jesus" in their opinion need to realize something. Their congregations aren't getting it.

It seems very telling that I so frequently encounter Christians who know more about why my religion is wrong than they know about their own religion. It could come down to laziness on the part of that church-goer, paired with the natural morbid interest in sensationalism.

I really can't say what all ministers out there do or do not teach on the matter. But what I see is the end-product. Masses of people who seem to know, "Mormons aren't Christians" and "Mormons worship a different Jesus" by heart, without a clue why that is so. So whether its intentional or not, these people's objectivity has been tainted, and they are simply going to reject the Restored Gospel without understanding why they are rejecting it.

If I seem cynical on the matter is because of my experience. So many discussions on religion end before they begin, and so our point of view just gets rejected out of hand. I don't think it's right, that's all. People ought to each have a chance to come to their own conclusions without pre-existing bias one way or the other.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Faded

[Misshalfway]

All these labels we throw at each other ...... you know, it sure gets in the way.

[nbblood]

I have been told on this very site, that I believe in a different Christ than another person.....that is also LDS.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and admit that I absolutely do NOT know everything about Jesus Christ. I don't know exactly what he would do in every single imaginable situation. I do have an idea of what I think he "might" do. I do strive to be like him, or at least what I believe is like him.

However, there was only ONE Jesus Christ, just as there is only one God. To me, saying that I believe in a "different" Christ is simply a way of saying, "my interpretation of Christ is different than yours."

Please, somebody, anybody, tell me who on earth knows everything there is to know about Christ. I'm guessing that even the GAs would readily admit there is much to learn about Christ by EVERYONE.

So, I don't tend to fret too much when somebody tells me that. I just chalk it up to difference of interpretation. We're talking about the same son of God.

[unixknight]

In my experience it's a way of getting around admitting that Mormons can be saved by the Evangelical definition.

Here's what I mean:

Evangelical (Protestant) Christianity holds that in order to be saved one need only accept Jesus Christ as their savior. There's some debate as to whether Baptism is required but overall it's generally thought to be a good idea but not an absolute must.

The problem is that, whatever doctrinal differences exist, Mormons do this as part of becoming LDS. That means by the simplest definition, Mormons are just as saved as any Protestant.

This sticks in the craw of a lot of people. The doctrinal differences between LDS and Protestant Christianity range form very small to HUGE. It's hard for people to see followers of a denomination so very different from their own and accept that it's equally valid.

So the only way to allow for Mormons to indeed accept Jesus Christ and yet not be saved by the Protestant definition is to construct a paradigm wherin our Jesus is a different Jesus.

Problem solved.

[prisonchaplain]

PC I get what you are saying of course. This is from personal experience. Many non-LDS Christians out there seem to have heard, "Mormons aren't Christians" and "Mormons worship a different Jesus" so frequently that it removes their own ability to be objective about it. But in every case, when encountering a person with those notions in their heads, they really and truly can't answer "Why do you think that? Where did you get that idea?" The only answer they seem to have is that their pastor told them so.

I believe you. However, it's not because they don't think, or do not have a rudimentary understanding. Rather, it's because they don't know how to explain the Trinity to a skeptic. And, they are not well versed in the LDS Godhead. AND people do not like to discuss religion when there is signficant disagreement. It makes folk nervous--often driving people to resort to "My pastor told me so," just to end the uncomfortable conversation. Finally, I will admit that in the last 20 years or so, there has been a reduced emphasis on doctrinal education, in favor of "spiritual therapy" and practical application of scripture (What the Bible has to say about your finances, etc). So, there probably are a significant # of church folk who cannot explain the Trinity they believe in.

Do I think pastors intentionally poison the minds of their followers to all LDS teachings? I think some actually do, but they do so with a sense of protecting their flock from perceived wolves -- the Mormons.

Those pastors who go into a thorough explanation of why it's "a different Jesus" in their opinion need to realize something. Their congregations aren't getting it.

Detailed instuction on the Trinity, or even on the errors of unorthodox theologies, takes up such a minute portion of a typical church's typical curriculum. In my own church, I learned it as part of our Foundations of Faith class, in 7th grade. Other than that, there are occasional references to the Trinity we believe in. But, yes, we do tend to take it for granted.

If I seem cynical on the matter is because of my experience. So many discussions on religion end before they begin, and so our point of view just gets rejected out of hand. I don't think it's right, that's all. People ought to each have a chance to come to their own conclusions without pre-existing bias one way or the other.

For most Christians, the Trinity is an assumption. When you approach them and say it isn't so, they respond like you just said the earth was flat--because to us, it's so foundational and basic. So, you tread on sacred ground with these discussions.

To draw an analogy, recall the first time you went overseas, and someone told you that America has done tremendous evil throughout its history to the world. You've grown up learning of the American heroes, of democracy, of our great inventions, etc. Such a blunt and accusatory statement is initially shocking. Over time you learn that many people feel like that. Some, without thought, and others with some sound reasoning. You further learn when to engage in the conversation, and when to smile and let the comment go.

[prisonchaplain]

All these labels we throw at each other ...... you know, it sure gets in the way.

Sometimes you gotta duck, and sometimes you just have to go around it.

[ozzy]

Wow. I didn't realize I would spark such a discussable subject. Awesome.

Anyway, hey PC. You mentioned in post 17 that there is a possibility that people hear about our belief that Christ came to America. Out of curiosity, and for clarification, is that an issue for non-LDS? I mean, is the conclusion they draw that we believe that there was no Christ in Jerusalem and/or that we believe the 2 events to involve separate individuals?

Thanks everyone for your awesomeness.