Different Jesus


ozzy
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ultimately, when people say LDS worship a different Jesus they don't mean that there was a selection of Jesuses to choose from. They're suggesting that ours is a fictional version that never existed, in the context that PC explained before about the Trinity.

You beat me to it. That's exactly what they mean.....a fictional Jesus representing a false and fraudulent religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must have two left feet, the way you're stepping on all those toes right now. ;)

well lol I guess because I know mine is the right one not overly bothered if someone says to me you worship a different Jesus because it means they are admitting to worshiping something that must be wrong. The Saviour I worship answers my prayers and is there for me, so he is real/

I know its a bit size nine wearing but guess I do not understand why LDS are so bothered about Jesus being a different one, if someone chooses to worship[ someone other than the Saviour I know and Love thats their business, they can be wrong if they like lol

Edited by Elgama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I do not understand why LDS are so bothered about Jesus being a different one...

I, too, am completely secure in my knowledge of The Redeemer. I think, however, that there is a sense of frustration (as alluded to earlier in this thread) that when confronted with such accusations, it's a HUGE barrier to being able to reveal to someone the Truth.

This is a bit of a poor analogy, but I perceive this issue as such: compare a child's crayon drawing of Jesus to The Christus. Many out there have a crayon version of the Saviour. Yes, it's Him. And it represents what they perceive and want to believe.

We Latter-Day Saints, however, have been blessed with the light and knowledge that enables us to recognize The Christus as our Savior. Same being, right? Only with exquisitely more detail, size, depth, solidarity, accuracy...

It would be easy to look at the two side by side and see little comparison. Only with the additional light and knowledge that the Holy Spirit provides (via the Restoration and modern revelation) is one able to comprehend the leap from crayons to sculpture. Blindness, disinterest, and personal comfort, however, serve as frustrating hurdles/barriers for much of the world - to come try greater light and knowledge on for size.

I believe that it's not that we're frustrated that we "don't belong". Rather, that we're pained by how many are out there, lulled into a false sense of security by the philosophies of men-mingled-with-scripture; by the unwillingness of so many to recognize the precious pearl that we possess and hope all will come take part in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Jesus appearing in America does not really get to the difference of understanding about Christ's nature. So for the pastors and priests, no that's not a defining matter. However, for people in general, it could be a cause for misunderstanding. A person already knows that LDS are outside the mainstream Christian world, and then s/he hears you believe Jesus appeared in America. So, they might assume...must be some different Jesus, then.

Jesus in America...that just gets to the whole issue of whether Joseph Smith really had his vision, heard from God...the whole truth of the foundational stories of your faith.

As for what is significantly different--the nature of Jesus, of the Godhead, the nature of humanity (premortal existence), and the Plan of Salvation--it is our differences on these that leads to the accusation "another Jesus."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Millet (BYU), in a talk given at the MTC (broadcast on Youtube) encourages the new missionaries to try to turn their doorstep conversations towards the story of Joseph Smith hearing from God. If He did, then the LDS version is at least mostly right. If not, then the whole foundation falls. The foundational differences touched on in this thread--what might be called the "LDS doctrinal distinctives," would fall quickly if it was certain Joseph Smith did not hear from God. On the other hand, if he did, traditionalists like myself could argue until we're blue in the face, and make no headway.

Either traditional Christianity is the Pharisee/Sadducee of the Bible, or Joseph Smith, and the movement he founded, are the Gnostic/Niccolatians/Judaizers of the Bible. It all hinges on Joseph Smith's stories. And, for LDS, it would take a heap of evidence, or a mighty spiritual experience to overturn the faith that his stories were true and prophetic. For us traditionalists, it would take similar evidences and experience to overturn our faith in 2000 years of church tradition, teaching and experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, too, am completely secure in my knowledge of The Redeemer. I think, however, that there is a sense of frustration (as alluded to earlier in this thread) that when confronted with such accusations, it's a HUGE barrier to being able to reveal to someone the Truth.

.

this is not a go at anyone but guess I never see the need to reveal truth I give information, the Holy Ghost teaches the truth, even a person that see's Christ as different can be receptive to the Holy Ghost when it calls them.

I personally know the person telling me its a different Jesus, actually knows same one I do, and that we all worship the same God (there is only one, who can bring forth good fruits). I guess I just struggle taking offence from someone that really is just lacking in understanding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

So, how many Trinitarians have you heard state that the modalists, who broke from your church, "worship a different Jesus"? Or that they aren't Christian?

While it may have made headline news for a few years back circa 1914, it doesn't compare to the attacks the LDS receive on it. Had a modalist run for president, do you suppose a traditional Christian pastor would have emailed his millions of radio listeners and stated, "a vote for this modalist is a vote for Satan"? Or that they have training sessions on "cults" and include the modalists among those cults (I haven't heard of any myself)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, how many Trinitarians have you heard state that the modalists, who broke from your church, "worship a different Jesus"? Or that they aren't Christian?

While it may have made headline news for a few years back circa 1914, it doesn't compare to the attacks the LDS receive on it. Had a modalist run for president, do you suppose a traditional Christian pastor would have emailed his millions of radio listeners and stated, "a vote for this modalist is a vote for Satan"? Or that they have training sessions on "cults" and include the modalists among those cults (I haven't heard of any myself)?

You get more opposition, and your opponents are louder. However, you'd be surprised...Oneness Pentecostalism "Jesus Only" modalism is frequent on the "cult" hit lists of the same sites that list your church. The tolerant, inclusive National Council of Churches refuses membership to non-Trinitarians. And, it's my guess that many pastors would quietly discourage people from voting for a "heretic."

Walter Martin had two standards he used for his analyses of non-traditional groups. Salvation by grace alone and the Trinity. I have no desire to debate him or his work, but would simply point out that Modalists would fall on the wrong side of that standard too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC, I do appreciate your input on this and I thank you for your patience as well.

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.

Here's where I think that you're giving the average Church-goer too much credit. Having a good foundation on the Trinity might have been well taught in the past, but generally if I find a church-going Christian (non-LDS) then before any mention is made of my viewpoints of God -- or even before I tell them that I'm LDS -- their descriptions of God really don't jive with the Trinity. They know they believe in God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.

They don't have the "thee persons, one substance" idea firmly planted in their heads, in my experience.

Just to test my idea, I just barely asked my coworker to describe God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost for me. He's Lutheran, and his response was, "Supposedly, they're thee beings but all the same person, which I never really understood. I just don't get how that works. I really don't see the point of it." He did think that my explanation of "just three people united in purpose" (aka the Godhead) fits just fine with what he believes. So in his case, it's not so much a "sacred ground" matter as much as "[the Trinity] confuses me and I don't like to think about it." And to be honest, that's exactly what I run into the VAST majority of the time. Most people don't actually disagree with the Godhead when I explain it to them. But all too often, they'll have the mantra "Mormons aren't Christian, Mormons believe in a different Jesus." absolutely down-pat.

I've never actually started out a conversation telling people that they're wrong about God. I try to find out what they do believe about God. It's a rarity to find a devout believer in the Trinity doctrine. If this is so fundamental, then perhaps your fellow ministers need to give it more focus.

It is only the very rare devout Trinitarian that finds my beliefs about God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost to be the least bit offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC, Thanks on the info on the modalist Pentecostals. While I agree these are differences, I've yet to see anyone show me in the Bible where it states a belief in the Trinity is absolutely necessary for salvation.

Again, the Bible requires 1. faith in a resurrected Christ, 2. repentance, 3. obedience as an outward expression of inner faith.

The only specific statement on God's form is in John's epistles, where he states that those who do not believe that Christ actually came in the flesh and actually resurrected is anti-Christ. John wrote this against the heretical Gnostics, who believed that Jesus and Christ were two separate beings. Christ descended into Jesus at his baptism (Today, thou are my chosen Son). He was a dual being until on the cross when Christ left, leaving Jesus to suffer alone (My God, why hast thou forsaken me). Jesus resurrected as his reward for being Christ's surrogate, but Christ never resurrected.

This is what John wrote against. I do not think anyone believing in modalism or Godhead would disagree with these three points. And they are the only ones required in the Bible for salvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to say this. I really do... but in a way it's understandable when people say that.

There's a lot of different religions out there, and for each religion there's a lot of denominations. People like to feel like their denomination is the "right" one. We can surely understand that, since the idea that there's only one completely right approach to the Gospel is fundamental to LDS theology.

So when people choose a denomination they need to feel like they chose right. We're all the same in this regard. We want to feel like we're doing it right because it's a sort of security blanket. It's denominational-ism, but a step further. Most Protestant denominations are perfectly happy acknowledging that other Protestant denominations are just fine, and will get you there. Mormonism is a bit different though because it makes a lot of claims that are radically different. In many ways, LDS and Protestantism can't both be right in a strict doctrinal sense.

That being the case, even though the criteria for being saved is very simple in Protestant doctrine, it's hard to accept that someone else whose theology is so different from yours as to be blasphemous, is still just as saved as you are. How do you reconcile that? Because if Mormons and Protestants are equally saved simply for believing in and accepting Jesus Christ, then doctrine doesn't matter at all anymore.

Most Protestants probably agree that many of the finer details aren't such a big deal, but LDS differences are sometimes huge. If they're just as saved then...

And that is anathema to denominational-ism.

And let's be honest. We as LDS believe in things like priesthood authority and temple ordinances. What if we were to learn that, say, any Catholic would reach the Celestial Glory just like us, but without having to bother with the Temple or the priesthood? Would we accept that so lightly? I think not. We may not criticize them for it but we'd certainly circle the wagons, wouldn't we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC, Thanks on the info on the modalist Pentecostals. While I agree these are differences, I've yet to see anyone show me in the Bible where it states a belief in the Trinity is absolutely necessary for salvation.

IMHO, it would be tough to "prove" that. On the other hand, if I said that there were actually three gods, and that Father is the biggest one, Jesus is medium, and the Holy Spirit is the small god. So, when I pray, I ask from the big god--the Father. Sometimes though, I just want to be understood, so I go to Jesus, the medium-sized brother god. And, once in awhile, I just need a little spiritual jump-start, so I go to the little god, the Holy Spirit.

Could I believe like that and call myself a born again "saved" Chrstian? I'd make a lousy Mormon, too. And yet, if that person were an 8-year old child, or an adult who was mentally challenged...God likely would indeed reward such a faith.

So, do you have to believe the Trinity to be saved? Perhaps not. However, the Trinity is true, it is biblical, and it is certainly historic teaching. So, the further one gets from that doctrine the more tenuous it gets. Where's the breaking point? At what point do we say, "That's not even the authentic Jesus?" Since there may be no definitive line, what we all do is urge people towards the best understanding we can muster.

Again, the Bible requires 1. faith in a resurrected Christ, 2. repentance, 3. obedience as an outward expression of inner faith.

So, would you argue that the "liberal Christian" who believes the Bible is mostly allegory, and does not really believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead, is not a Christian, and one who believes in "another Jesus?"

The only specific statement on God's form is in John's epistles, where he states that those who do not believe that Christ actually came in the flesh and actually resurrected is anti-Christ. John wrote this against the heretical Gnostics, who believed that Jesus and Christ were two separate beings. Christ descended into Jesus at his baptism (Today, thou are my chosen Son). He was a dual being until on the cross when Christ left, leaving Jesus to suffer alone (My God, why hast thou forsaken me). Jesus resurrected as his reward for being Christ's surrogate, but Christ never resurrected.

This is what John wrote against. I do not think anyone believing in modalism or Godhead would disagree with these three points. And they are the only ones required in the Bible for salvation.

Thank you for this example. At least we can say there is a line. What can reasonably be said in these discussion is:

Trinitarian: History and teaching are on our side. The Trinity has withstood centuries of criticism, and remains the authorative doctrine on the nature of God. Depart from it at spiritual peril.

LDS: Joseph Smith, like Jesus, came as revelation from God, to restore lost truths, and spiritual authority. He corrects some wrong directions in doctrine that have prevailed, just as Jesus did. Ignore God's prophet at spiritual peril.

Sound fair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus appearing in America does not really get to the difference of understanding about Christ's nature. So for the pastors and priests, no that's not a defining matter. However, for people in general, it could be a cause for misunderstanding. A person already knows that LDS are outside the mainstream Christian world, and then s/he hears you believe Jesus appeared in America. So, they might assume...must be some different Jesus, then.

Jesus in America...that just gets to the whole issue of whether Joseph Smith really had his vision, heard from God...the whole truth of the foundational stories of your faith.

As for what is significantly different--the nature of Jesus, of the Godhead, the nature of humanity (premortal existence), and the Plan of Salvation--it is our differences on these that leads to the accusation "another Jesus."

Thanks PC. I believe I understand better now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO, it would be tough to "prove" that. On the other hand, if I said that there were actually three gods, and that Father is the biggest one, Jesus is medium, and the Holy Spirit is the small god. So, when I pray, I ask from the big god--the Father. Sometimes though, I just want to be understood, so I go to Jesus, the medium-sized brother god. And, once in awhile, I just need a little spiritual jump-start, so I go to the little god, the Holy Spirit.

Could I believe like that and call myself a born again "saved" Chrstian? I'd make a lousy Mormon, too. And yet, if that person were an 8-year old child, or an adult who was mentally challenged...God likely would indeed reward such a faith.

So, do you have to believe the Trinity to be saved? Perhaps not. However, the Trinity is true, it is biblical, and it is certainly historic teaching. So, the further one gets from that doctrine the more tenuous it gets. Where's the breaking point? At what point do we say, "That's not even the authentic Jesus?" Since there may be no definitive line, what we all do is urge people towards the best understanding we can muster.

So, would you argue that the "liberal Christian" who believes the Bible is mostly allegory, and does not really believe that Jesus literally rose from the dead, is not a Christian, and one who believes in "another Jesus?"

Thank you for this example. At least we can say there is a line. What can reasonably be said in these discussion is:

Trinitarian: History and teaching are on our side. The Trinity has withstood centuries of criticism, and remains the authorative doctrine on the nature of God. Depart from it at spiritual peril.

LDS: Joseph Smith, like Jesus, came as revelation from God, to restore lost truths, and spiritual authority. He corrects some wrong directions in doctrine that have prevailed, just as Jesus did. Ignore God's prophet at spiritual peril.

Sound fair?

Sounds very fair. On the issue of Trinity, though, it all falls on one verse, "God is spirit." In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams (a very religious man) said, "some would say I am no Christian" because he questioned how the Trinity was interpreted. Yes, he agreed that God is a spirit, "but what does that mean?"

Even Mormons agree that God is (a) spirit, embodied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Jesus appearing in the Americas is much older than Joseph Smith there are strong legends around the world of Jesus appearing, I know Latin and South America have one or two. The Cornish Tin Miners had a chant for many centuries because Jesus had visited there - its part of why the Holy Grail was thought to be in Glastonbury, the idea he was there is usually he travelled with Joseph of Arimithea, but there are other legends that are of him as an adult.

And as Jesus was Jewish his body became alive at around 16 weeks when he started kicking, that is the point at which a Jewish Fetus is alive:)its only his followers who's lives begin at conception:)

Edited by Elgama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. He got it on Christmas Day. :) QUOTE]
That just made me laugh.. heres why...
Christmas is actually a pagan holiday from ancient Rome named Saturnalia honoring Saturn the god of Agriculture.
Palestine is very cold in the winter so why would sheaperds be outside with thier flocks when they could be inside thier home Luke 2:8-12 they stayed outside from march untill early october. (Spring through early fall)
In 350, Pope Julius declared it as a christian holdiay so it can help convert Romans who were pagan.
It is known Jesus lived 33.5 years and died during passover (the time of easter) do some math and we come to the conclusion that 6 months before passover is sept/early oct time frame.
But hey the Bible does say and i quote : "Do not worship the Lord your God in the way these pagan peoples worship their gods" duet 12:4
Edited by Bassistdude4HF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do NOT know that he lived 33.5 years. The Bible gives no specifics on this. We know he lived between 30-34 years. Most scholars believe he was 33 when he died, as most Rabbis normally began their ministry at 30 years of age, and it is believed his ministry lasted 3 years. However, there is no proof of specific periods of time he lived/served in the Bible.

Even the Gospels conflict on time periods. The Roman tax that Luke mentions probably was not given in the days of Herod the Great. And Herod died in 4 BC, meaning Jesus was probably born as early as 6 BC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Palestine is very cold in the winter so why would sheaperds be outside with thier flocks when they could be inside thier home Luke 2:8-12 they stayed outside from march untill early october. (Spring through early fall)...

CLARIFICATION: Christ was born in the spring, BUT I've heard this lame argument about the weather too many times.

I visit Israel every December. I see shepherds with their flocks grazing IN SHEPHERDS' FIELD of Bethlehem each year when I'm there. The grass is green and growing, the weather is in the 50's-60's most days.

Just sayin'.

Edited by Prodigal_Son
typos with the quoting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share