What constitutes us worshiping a different Christ?

[daplautz]

I have heard that some Christians believe that Mormons believe that we worship a different Christ. Why do they believe this and how would I be able to answer someone if they came up to me and told me that I believed in a different Jesus?

[Suzie]

President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints "do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He, together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.

LDS Church News - `Crown of gospel is upon our heads'

[Mute]

There are two main reasons I've heard for this. The first is because you have a different interpretation of the Bible and do not believe in the trinity. Because you believe God, Christ and the Holy Ghost are not one literal being, that is why they say you are not Christian.

The second reason is because of the extra beliefs you hold such as those found in the Doctrine and Covenants etc. Most Christian faiths do not believe there is anything other than what is found in the Bible and that there can not be anything else other than what is found in the Bible. Anything that says extra to what is found in the Bible is there for not Christian according to them. The reasoning they claim is that the God, according to the lds, is "soooooooo different" from their interpretation of the Bible (which they refuse to call an interpretation). There for because you worship a God who is "sooo different" you worship another God because it is too different from their interpretation to be considered the same God.

[daplautz]

In a subject that is not the same, but ties into what has been said:

So when we pray to God, he hears and answers our prayers. I have a testimony of that to be true. There are people, though, who believe that when they pray to the God that is part of the Trinity, he hears and answers their prayers, but not our prayers, since we pray to Heavenly Father, a part of the Godhead. What happens to all of these people that have different ideas on the nature of God. Do you think he answers all prayers no matter if he is being called different names like 'Jesus', 'Heavenly Father', 'Jehovah', 'YHWH', 'Allah', or 'Hari?'

[PrinceofLight2000]

In a subject that is not the same, but ties into what has been said:

So when we pray to God, he hears and answers our prayers. I have a testimony of that to be true. There are people, though, who believe that when they pray to the God that is part of the Trinity, he hears and answers their prayers, but not our prayers, since we pray to Heavenly Father, a part of the Godhead. What happens to all of these people that have different ideas on the nature of God. Do you think he answers all prayers no matter if he is being called different names like 'Jesus', 'Heavenly Father', 'Jehovah', 'YHWH', 'Allah', or 'Hari?'

I think HF answers all prayers regardless of whether or not the person saying the prayer fully understands His nature. So as far as praying to a single monotheistic God, yes. I'm not so certain about praying to other individuals such as saints or pagan gods, though.

[mightynancy]

I usually ask, "How many Jesus Christs do you think there are?" but I'm not known for playing nice.

[prisonchaplain]

Seeing Jesus as a totally separate being from the Father (and thus, perhaps not quite the same one true and living God as we perceive him to be, through the Trinity doctrine), and the belief that Christ's grace is not, of itself, sufficient to gain one entry into the Celestial Kingdom--we must also "do all we can," as a prerequisite...these two teachings are what cause many evangelicals to accuse you of worshipping a different Jesus. It's not that there is more than one, it's that you seem to believe of Him in a way that is so doctrinally different that we can't both be right...one has to be wrong...so wrong that it would qualify as Paul's "different Christ."

So, I suppose your answer is, "Well...I think we are right, but I also do not believe our understandings are THAT different. I would not call your Christ "a different Jesus." (Implied message: I'm nicer than you are!)

[skippy740]

There is also an undertone to "different Jesus" or the "Mormon Jesus" due to certain films made that are against our church and its teachings. The promulgation of such hateful films distorts the image of what the church teaches and what it stands for.

(Implied message: We can play nice with others, but other people are being mean to us first! And I'm telling!) :)

[jlf9999]

Seeing Jesus as a totally separate being from the Father (and thus, perhaps not quite the same one true and living God as we perceive him to be, through the Trinity doctrine), and the belief that Christ's grace is not, of itself, sufficient to gain one entry into the Celestial Kingdom--we must also "do all we can," as a prerequisite...these two teachings are what cause many evangelicals to accuse you of worshipping a different Jesus. It's not that there is more than one, it's that you seem to believe of Him in a way that is so doctrinally different that we can't both be right...one has to be wrong...so wrong that it would qualify as Paul's "different Christ."

So, I suppose your answer is, "Well...I think we are right, but I also do not believe our understandings are THAT different. I would not call your Christ "a different Jesus." (Implied message: I'm nicer than you are!)

Even taking your "niceness" approach into account, you are correct at least according to my understanding of the remark. I understand President Hinckley made the it too. However the intent is different I think. When some EV's make it, I think it is intended to be more tongue-in-cheek among the wittier types and more wide-eyed and fanatical among the nastier one's. Maybe the way to differentiate which type is talking is that one displays the boney finger of indignation and the other a silly grin.

Edited April 23, 2011 by jlf9999

[prisonchaplain]

Then there is the Pauline understanding. If the Christ taught is "too different"--if it is "a different Jesus" then Paul says fellowship is not possible. To one way of reckoning, that is the reality. We do not share sacraments, including baptism. We do not speak in one another's pulpits or lecturns (unless as an outsider explicating an outside religion).

Ironically, since this is the current reality, I do not believe Paul would suggest we be mean to each other. What he wanted us to avoid was bringing in guest speakers with wildly different doctrines about Jesus, and presenting them as "just another one of us, giving a talk."

[jlf9999]

Then there is the Pauline understanding. If the Christ taught is "too different"--if it is "a different Jesus" then Paul says fellowship is not possible. To one way of reckoning, that is the reality. We do not share sacraments, including baptism. We do not speak in one another's pulpits or lecturns (unless as an outsider explicating an outside religion).

Ironically, since this is the current reality, I do not believe Paul would suggest we be mean to each other. What he wanted us to avoid was bringing in guest speakers with wildly different doctrines about Jesus, and presenting them as "just another one of us, giving a talk."

I understand but which version is accurate? Your side says to trust 2000 year old traditions. You demand adherents trust man. Our take is to seriously ask God for His affirmation of what is right. All you have to do is be teachable, sincere and have faith He will answer. It is the opposite of trusting man to do the right thing.

[bytebear]

The only difference is that we believe Paul was talking about our church, and we are gracious enough to include other churches under the umbrella of "Christian."

[prisonchaplain]

I understand but which version is accurate? Your side says to trust 2000 year old traditions. You demand adherents trust man. Our take is to seriously ask God for His affirmation of what is right. All you have to do is be teachable, sincere and have faith He will answer. It is the opposite of trusting man to do the right thing.

Doctrines that have been prayed over, sustained, and taught for 2000 years, having withstood varied challenges, and having been upheld by those we believe God ordained to leadership and to the gift of teaching...well, yes, they do earn a certain level of trust. As I learned in debate, the burden of proof is upon those proposing to overturn the status quo. Of course, underlying your suggestion is another doctrine--that of the Great Apostasy.

[jlf9999]

Doctrines that have been prayed over, sustained, and taught for 2000 years, having withstood varied challenges, and having been upheld by those we believe God ordained to leadership and to the gift of teaching...well, yes, they do earn a certain level of trust. As I learned in debate, the burden of proof is upon those proposing to overturn the status quo. Of course, underlying your suggestion is another doctrine--that of the Great Apostasy.

Yes. But it is still up to the individual to abide by Jame's admonition. James 1:5. I can only assume that means in all things religious but feel OK in adding an implied "everything" to it too. If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. I don't read anything in that about it being OK to just take another man's word for it.

[prisonchaplain]

I doubt too many would disagree with you jlf...I sure don't.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Seeing Jesus as a totally separate being from the Father (and thus, perhaps not quite the same one true and living God as we perceive him to be, through the Trinity doctrine), and the belief that Christ's grace is not, of itself, sufficient to gain one entry into the Celestial Kingdom--we must also "do all we can," as a prerequisite...these two teachings are what cause many evangelicals to accuse you of worshipping a different Jesus. It's not that there is more than one, it's that you seem to believe of Him in a way that is so doctrinally different that we can't both be right...one has to be wrong...so wrong that it would qualify as Paul's "different Christ."

So, I suppose your answer is, "Well...I think we are right, but I also do not believe our understandings are THAT different. I would not call your Christ "a different Jesus." (Implied message: I'm nicer than you are!)

Regardless, I don't see how any of that makes a Catholic less Christian than a Mormon or vice-versa. We believe in the same Christ that lived and died 2000 years ago, we just disagree on what His eternal nature is.

Anyone who takes Jesus Christ of Nazareth (the same Jesus) as their savior despite different ideas about His nature or role should be considered a Christian. I don't understand how the designation could be interpreted otherwise, and probably never will.

I usually ask, "How many Jesus Christs do you think there are?" but I'm not known for playing nice.

I wish I could laugh and thank. So much.

Edited April 24, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000

[PrinceofLight2000]

I usually ask, "How many Jesus Christs do you think there are?" but I'm not known for playing nice.

I wish I could laugh and thank. So much.

[PrinceofLight2000]

Posting for reference:

Mormons--Can They Be Considered Christians?

[prisonchaplain]

Regardless, I don't see how any of that makes a Catholic less Christian than a Mormon or vice-versa. We believe in the same Christ that lived and died 2000 years ago, we just disagree on what His eternal nature is.

What do you suppose Paul meant with his reference to "a different Jesus?" Whenever I have read it I assumed he was speaking of teachers who would call themselves Christians, but who teach about him different. What was Paul trying to accomplish with his warning?

2 Corinthians 11: 3But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

4For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

5For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. 6But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things.

Edited April 24, 2011 by prisonchaplain
add biblical reference

[PrinceofLight2000]

What do you suppose Paul meant with his reference to "a different Jesus?" Whenever I have read it I assumed he was speaking of teachers who would call themselves Christians, but who teach about him different. What was Paul trying to accomplish with his warning?

2 Corinthians 11: 3But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

4For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

5For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. 6But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been throughly made manifest among you in all things.

I'd classify it more along the lines of false messiahs, considering it's widely accepted that there's only one Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

While I'm here:

It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense... When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.

What do you think "the Christian doctrine" is, PC? Is it following a rigid trinitarian view of the nature of God and Christ coupled with a belief that revelation stops at one of many interpretations of the Bible's text? Or is it simply that one declares Jesus Christ of Nazareth as his personal savior from the bondage of sin? I contend that it's the latter, and I also contend that it's a very arrogant, self-important notion that a so-called Christian would shatter the golden rule and isolate the title to only those who follow their heavily personalized doctrines about Christ's nature.

Let me pose a few more questions. Should Catholics consider Baptists not Christian because they don't believe in the priesthood authority of the Catholic church? Should the same Baptists consider Methodists not Christian because they don't baptize by immersion? Should the Methodists consider the Catholics not Christian because they don't use the same Bible text that the Methodists do? If not, why should a Mormon be considered not Christian for not believing in the Trinity, or that works are a crucial aspect of salvation?

Edited April 24, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000

[prisonchaplain]

I'd classify it more along the lines of false messiahs, considering it's widely accepted that there's only one Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

I suppose this is possible. However, I do not see a lot of conflict in the New Testament with competing messiahs. Admittedly, this reference of Paul's is vague enough. However, we know that he had detractors, and much of 2 Corinthians is a defense of his ministry and apostleship. So, I am more inclined to think the issues are of deep doctrine. After all, today it is common for New Testament scholars to see Paul as the primary theologian.

While I'm here: What do you think "the Christian doctrine" is, PC? Is it following a rigid trinitarian view of the nature of God and Christ coupled with a belief that revelation stops at one of many interpretations of the Bible's text?

The Trinity is a common benchmark. Even the World and National Council of Churches (which most evangelicals consider "liberal" and overly inclusive, require trinitarian theology of its membership. On the other hand, pentecostals and charismatics (only the Catholic Church is larger than the nearly 600 million of us worldwide) do accept modern revelations, dreams, tongues and interpretations, and prophecies. We've not yet seen any that needed to be added to the canon of Scripture, but we do accept that God still speaks.

But, having said trinitarianism is Christian doctrine, what do I make of non-Trinitarians who are Christians. For example, the United Pentecostal Church is in agreement with about 98% of my doctrine. However, they are Modalists, believing that God is one person, three modes (Father, Son and Spirit). To them, it's all Jesus. This doctrine of theirs is not Christian (so say I). However, do I condemn them to hell? To borrow our current President's wise response, "That judgment is above my pay grade."

Or is it simply that one declares Jesus Christ of Nazareth as his personal savior from the bondage of sin? I contend that it's the latter, and I also contend that it's a very arrogant, self-important notion that a so-called Christian would shatter the golden rule and isolate the title to only those who follow their heavily personalized doctrines about Christ's nature.

The charge of arrogance may well be accurate. On the other hand, it would be false comfort for me to say that doctrine does not matter, that a person can believe whatever they want about Jesus, the Father, salvation, etc., that it matters not. Being closed to sound doctrine, to the likely wooing of the Holy Spirit, and being adamantly stuck in a seriously wrong belief...well that would be sin.

So...I agree that some are too quick to judge. On the other hand, I would also be cautious about brushing all differences aside, and saying it does not matter. That might be tolerant, but it is too easy, and too lazy. Far better to do as folks like Robert Millet (BYU) and Greg Johnson (an evangelical pastor in Utah) have, and engage in those sometimes uncomfortable "convicted conversations" about faith.

Let me pose a few more questions. Should Catholics consider Baptists not Christian because they don't believe in the priesthood authority of the Catholic church?

They consider Protestants to be "separated bretheren." I find that an authentic description.

Should the same Baptists consider Methodists not Christian because they don't baptize by immersion?

No...because those Baptists do not believe that water baptism is a prequisite of salvation. So, the doctrine, while important, would not be "salvific."

Should the Methodists consider the Catholics not Christian because they don't use the same Bible text that the Methodists do?

Those extra Catholic texts contain some of their unique doctrines. We find them troubling, but that is not usually where the most heated discussion focus.

If not, why should a Mormon be considered not Christian for not believing in the Trinity, or that works are a crucial aspect of salvation?

First, I'll repeat that who is actually a Christian, and ready for God's kingdom is a matter that I cannot determine. So, while I might express great concern about some serious misunderstandings about crucial doctrine, i won't be the one threatening those who disagree with me that the flames of hell are eagerly awaiting them.

Having said that...what doctrines could be more important than who God is, what His nature is, and how we reconcile with Him? It is sad that the issue gets clouded with the accusations of who's Christian and who's not. However, the doctrines are vitally important. And, we who love God ought to be willing to engage in uncomfortable, sometimes impassioned discussions and studies about them.

Maybe Paul is simply referencing pretend messiahs. However, I find the thought that he was addressing false teaching about the Messiah to be more likely. Thus, these discussions are so worthy and good, when done right.

Edited April 24, 2011 by prisonchaplain

[Dravin]

Having said that...what doctrines could be more important than who God is, what His nature is, and how we reconcile with Him?

I can understand that, take for instance John 17:3, though you have to decide exactly what it is talking about when it talks about knowing. I even brought this up in a different thread, at what point does an incorrect knowledge of the character of God turn into idolatry? Those who worship Ahura Mazda are worshiping what they understand to be God, but most of Christianity, if not all of Christianity would say they worship false deity. I think the umbrage from LDS circles comes from a couple of main things:

1. By and large we're more than happy to let others share the name of Christian even despite having some rather marked differences in doctrine. So we extend a courtesy (for lack of a better term) and find others who aren't willing to do the same. It's kinda like a political discussion between people on opposite poles, one guy accepts that the other guy, while misguided, is genuine about his desire to see the country best off. In return the other guy accuses you of having your ulterior motive being the willful and intentional destruction of the country.

2. We, really, really, really, want to be accepted by mainstream Christianity. This is a psychological urge rather then a doctrinal one, but to be so excluded smarts some. This ties some into #1.

3. It's often hurled as an attack. Even if there is legitimacy to a claim from certain trains of thought, when hurled as invective, it can sting.

Edit: Sorry, I got the scripture reference wrong. I was thinking of John 17:3, not 17:13.

Edited April 24, 2011 by Dravin

[prisonchaplain]

Your point is well taken. After all, if anyone can lay claim to the term Christian, it's Catholics. They had it for a little over 1000 years, almost exclusively (I know...Orthodox did too). Personally, due to this very confusion, when people ask me what religion I am, I say "Assemblies of God." If they don't know, I explain I am Christian, evangelical, pentecostal...any labels that might give them a clue. "Christians has indeed become way too broad." Besides, even non-Christians are fully aware that when someone says, "I'm a Christian...a Mormon (or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...you know...Mormon), well...that the kind of Christian here is going to be different from either a Baptist or a Catholic.

[Dravin]

I fixed my scripture reference, it may make a bit more sense now PC.

[Traveler]

I have heard that some Christians believe that Mormons believe that we worship a different Christ. Why do they believe this and how would I be able to answer someone if they came up to me and told me that I believed in a different Jesus?

One of the interesting things we can understand about Jesus Christ from the Holy Scriptures is that Jesus Christ was also accused of worshiping a different G-d than the rest of Judaism. The Pharisees and Scribes in the days of Jesus found his teachings “foreign” to their understanding of scripture and practice of religious. To counter Jesus’ powerful message the Pharisees and Scribes reacted to the “new” doctrine without acceptance but arguing instead that their doctrines that have been prayed over, sustained, and taught for 2000 years, having withstood varied challenges, and having been upheld by those the Jews believe God ordained to leadership and to the gift and calling of teaching the Jews.

The scriptures testify of truth - they also clearly testify that when the truth of Christ is taught among mankind by those called and ordained of Christ that the religious establishment will oppose the restored truths of Christ in efforts to preserve their traditions. I see nothing in scripture to lead us to believe that as the time approaches in these last days for the Messiah to come again among us that we should expect anything different from “established religions” than when he came the first time.

The Traveler