Jesus vs Jesus Debate

[rhinomelon]

Good explanation Rhyno. There is also the view that the Angel of the Lord who appeared to Abraham at the Oaks of Mamre, and who appeared to Minoah, Samson's father as well as his mother, who wrestled with Jacob, and in other instances in the OT which I cannot recall is also the Second Person of the Trinity.

Like the fourth person in the fiery furnace along with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego? I've heard this as well, but I've never really studied that particular belief in depth. Sounds like a good time to start!

Good thoughts. Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Herein lies the problem with this 'modalism'; Jesus has an actual physical resurrected body, and you say the Father does not have one. Well, were does it go? No analogy, no 'modalism', no abstract and unexplainable scenarios, I want an exact and specific response.

Just thought I'd sum up the questions I'd like to see Gordon address before we continue discussing around a possible double standard.

First, regarding the above. Can you tell me exactly where Jesus' body is now, and back it up with Scripture?

Second, can you find one verse for each unique LDS doctrine that sums up that doctrine without cross-referencing other verses? Specific examples might include the Great Apostasy, eternal progression, the necessity of temple marriage for exaltation, etc. Since apparently cross-referencing is not allowed for mainstream Christians wanting to explain their doctrine, perhaps you could set the example here.

When I say from the Lord, I mean out of his own mouth, through his prophets/apostles, and by the HG. Do I really need to give you a specific scripture that states if it didn't come from him then it's not doctrine?

And the third question bounces off the above statement. Given that we have linked to and posted a great deal of the biblical basis for our beliefs, do you have any references that might suggest that the Bible we are talking about did not come from God, either directly or through his apostles and prophets?

If you could answer these questions, it would go along way towards clearing up some of the mutual confusion that exists on standards of doctrine and interpretation. If you do not feel like answering the above questions, but instead wish to continue asking your own, please go right ahead. I am enjoying your questions, as they seem to be honest and challenging all at the same time. You make me think! Look forward to hearing from you Gordon, whatever you have to say.

Take care, everyone.

[rhinomelon]

I'll be away from the computer for the weekend, so if anything is posted here I won't get to it until Monday. Just FYI.

Have a good weekend everybody!

[Gordon]

If you could answer these questions, it would go along way towards clearing up some of the mutual confusion that exists on standards of doctrine and interpretation. If you do not feel like answering the above questions, but instead wish to continue asking your own, please go right ahead. I am enjoying your questions, as they seem to be honest and challenging all at the same time. You make me think! Look forward to hearing from you Gordon, whatever you have to say.

I just read your posts, and I will respond to both your's and SteubieU's remarks soon. I have a busy day today, so it will be later tonight.

[rhinomelon]

Take your time, enjoy your weekend! I'll look forward to reading your remarks on Monday.

Take care

[cjcampbell]

The problem with this approach is that in much of the US, at least, (and in a growing part of the US, at that), that members of the church who actually attend meetings outnumber those who attend meetings of all other churches combined. Granted, this reflects the increasing secularization of America, but it is also at least partly a result of the corrosive effect of preaching a gospel based on hating members of other sects rather than having something positive to offer themselves.

Hm, stats for that would be nice. Anyway, the vast majority of mainstream Christian churches do not factor in "hatred of members of other sects" into their worship or preaching at all. You are making a blanket statement which is, unfortunately, all too common among today's LDS.

Since what you call 'mainstream' Christian churches are, in fact, a minority of the church-going public in many areas, you betray a certain attitude altogether too common among evangelicals, whereas I have made no blanket statements at all. I simply characterize the Jesus vs. Jesus argument as hate based, which it manifestly is.

Although membership in the church accounts for only 2% of the US, the church has a relatively high activity rate, about 40% nationwide and much higher in some local areas. The Baptists do have a higher activity rate, but their presence is smaller in most of the west. According to 2001 statistics on the NCLS web site, most of their affiliated churches have a less than 15% activity rate, with most of that being confined entirely to Christmas or Easter, I might add.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the fourth largest church in the US. In highly secular areas such as the Pacific Northwest, California, and the like, and in areas where the church has a long tradition of presence, it does indeed outnumber in church attendance all other churches combined, and that area is growing.

[cjcampbell]

Who actually believes that a dead guy came back to life after three days? How many people had parallel experiences?

If there was a historical resurrection, I wish the dead guy would just stop screwing with us then and show up. All this nonsense about which Jesus is which seems pretty irrelevant until he does.

The notion that I have to believe it before I can know it is like telling me to jump off Moroni's head atop the SL temple to get a testiphony of the church.

Well, eventually you will die and you will find out for sure. So it is possible that you really could get a testimony by jumping off Moroni's head. Of course, we would not expect to hear an immediate report back from you!

[Gordon]

Well, eventually you will die and you will find out for sure. So it is possible that you really could get a testimony by jumping off Moroni's head. Of course, we would not expect to hear an immediate report back from you!

That was funny!

[NauvooSaint]

Colossian 2:9

Bradley E. Barnhart, priest (RLDS Restorationist)

Springfield, OR.

[rhinomelon]

Since what you call 'mainstream' Christian churches are, in fact, a minority of the church-going public in many areas, you betray a certain attitude altogether too common among evangelicals, whereas I have made no blanket statements at all. I simply characterize the Jesus vs. Jesus argument as hate based, which it manifestly is.

Just curious, cjcampbell, what do you think my definition of the term "mainstream Christian" is?

And about the blanket statement, I was not referring to the attendance statistics, but to the assertion that mainstream churches preach a gospel of hating members of other sects. I doubt you could find one denomination that had "hate members of other sects" as a basic tenet in their statement of beliefs.

Is the "Jesus vs. Jesus" debate truly hate-based? Or is it rather a divisive issue that can be used in a hateful way? If this line of thinking is hateful, then wouldn't the central LDS tenet of the Great Apostasy, as well as Joseph Smith's account of the First Vision, be grouped in that category as well? Mainstream Christianity finds that argument offensive, after all.

Just curious. Take care, everyone

[thesometimesaint]

rhinomelon:

It "may" not be hate, but I can just feel the love they have. Every time they tell me how they "love" the Mormomns SOOO MUCH.

[SteubieU]

rhinomelon:

It "may" not be hate, but I can just feel the love they have. Every time they tell me how they "love" the Mormomns SOOO MUCH.

I think the feeling is mutual:

we don't love you because you are LDS, but because you are a person for whom Jesus Christ has died and because you do not have the gospel.

I think you would say the same thing about us, wouldn't you? You don't love me b/c I am a Catholic, but because Christ atoned for my sins and I need to hear the message of your gospel?

[Magyar]

rhinomelon:

It "may" not be hate, but I can just feel the love they have. Every time they tell me how they "love" the Mormomns SOOO MUCH.     

I think the feeling is mutual:

we don't love you because you are LDS, but because you are a person for whom Jesus Christ has died and because you do not have the gospel.

I think you would say the same thing about us, wouldn't you? You don't love me b/c I am a Catholic, but because Christ atoned for my sins and I need to hear the message of your gospel?

But if properly shared, the message of "our" gospel will build upon the faith you already have. The Spirit will witness truth as it is shared, adding to what you already know. We ask you to pray whether the Book of Mormon is true, not whether the Catholic Catechism is false.

Whereas, "hate" messages focus on tearing down a person's current faith.

[SteubieU]

rhinomelon:

It "may" not be hate, but I can just feel the love they have. Every time they tell me how they "love" the Mormomns SOOO MUCH.

[Magyar]

rhinomelon:

It "may" not be hate, but I can just feel the love they have. Every time they tell me how they "love" the Mormomns SOOO MUCH.

[rhinomelon]

I think what SteubieU is getting at is that the Great Apostasy has a great many implications for LDS-mainstream Christian relations. In order to join the church, I would have to give up many of my beliefs. I could not in good conscience be LDS, and still believe in the Trinity, for example.

Our beliefs are different enough that conversion either way requires the destruction or abandoning of previously held convictions and beliefs. It's a simple fact. Having said that, we would both agree that there are good ways and bad ways to confront erroneous beliefs and replace them with the truth.

There are some people, I agree, that consider destroying one's faith in the LDS church, without replacing it with faith in Christ, a step up anyway. I vehemently disagree with such a position.

And I appreciate your tone, Magyar. While you may not look down on heroes of mainstream Christian faith, I've seen others who do just that.

Take care, everyone

[KevinG]

Trying to destroy my faith in the LDS Church would be attempting to destroy my faith in something Christ has led me to. The belief that you could destroy someones faith in a Christian church and not damage their faith in Christ is somewhat troubling to me.

I have a more discerning question for this thread.

We of course all have differences in our conception of Christ. Even within our faith(s) we come to a knowledge of our Savior as individuals, and as such have differing understandings and levels of knowledge. In essense we all have our individual experiences with the Savior. Claiming "a different Jesus" is like the blind men castigating each other over who really has hold of the elephant.

That being so... what is it specifically about the LDS belief in Christ and the Godhead that would prevent us from receiving Salvation from the Savior?

[SteubieU]

Is it? As a missionary, and elsewhere in my life, I never taught that any of your Catholic heroes were anything less than that.

I hold the belief that the Great Apostasy happened before the Catholic Church even came into being, and I certainly don't believe that its leadership proceeds with any intent to deceive. They work with what they have inherited, and their faith and piety pleases God.

Comparable in my faith tradition would be someone believing that the LDS Church led west by Brigham Young arose AFTER a general apostasy at the death of Joseph Smith, after the original church was lost. Brigham could be a laudable man of God in this scenario, doing the best with what he had available to him.

Condemnation would fall upon the authors of the post-1844 apostasy, not him; as condemnation should fall upon the twisters of doctrine, the Hellenizers, the Simon Magus'ses, the Gnostics and others who corrupted the original Christian Church and left only shattered pieces among the dross for good men to pick up after them.

When I visited the LDS temple in San Diego, one of the persons I talked to specifically mentioned the Council of Nicea as the breaking point in the Great Apostasy.

For me, that is a moment of great triumph: Christianity winning over paganism. I'm not certain, but I believe that man at the temple specifically mentioned St. Athanasius. For me, he IS a great hero... accepting LDS would mean rejecting that idea.

THe problem with your analogy is that I'm pretty sure some of the people you would hold up as evidence of the Great Apostasy in action would be Catholic Saints.... they wouldn't just be heirs of that apostasy, but contributors to it.

[KevinG]

Is it? As a missionary, and elsewhere in my life, I never taught that any of your Catholic heroes were anything less than that.

I hold the belief that the Great Apostasy happened before the Catholic Church even came into being, and I certainly don't believe that its leadership proceeds with any intent to deceive. They work with what they have inherited, and their faith and piety pleases God. 

Comparable in my faith tradition would be someone believing that the LDS Church led west by Brigham Young arose AFTER a general apostasy at the death of Joseph Smith, after the original church was lost. Brigham could be a laudable man of God in this scenario, doing the best with what he had available to him.

Condemnation would fall upon the authors of the post-1844 apostasy, not him; as condemnation should fall upon the twisters of doctrine, the Hellenizers, the Simon Magus'ses, the Gnostics and others who corrupted the original Christian Church and left only shattered pieces among the dross for good men to pick up after them.

When I visited the LDS temple in San Diego, one of the persons I talked to specifically mentioned the Council of Nicea as the breaking point in the Great Apostasy.

For me, that is a moment of great triumph: Christianity winning over paganism. I'm not certain, but I believe that man at the temple specifically mentioned St. Athanasius. For me, he IS a great hero... accepting LDS would mean rejecting that idea.

THe problem with your analogy is that I'm pretty sure some of the people you would hold up as evidence of the Great Apostasy in action would be Catholic Saints.... they wouldn't just be heirs of that apostasy, but contributors to it.

The LDS do not have teachings on who were the bad guys and good guys at the councils, or even which event or series of events were the final straw to priesthood authority. Some even believe that it was the persecution that removed the authority from the earth and Constantine and the rest were doing their best to reconstitute something that was broken beyond the ability of men to repair it.

You would have to give up almost none of your heroes to join the LDS Church, but you would probably find yourself in many discussions with some of the more zealous LDS history buffs who think they have it all worked out.

It would make for entertaining Sunday School lessons.

[rhinomelon]

That being so... what is it specifically about the LDS belief in Christ and the Godhead that would prevent us from receiving Salvation from the Savior?

Good question. And I had a good answer, but the computer just ate it, so I'll try again! As I think I've said before in this thread, neither I nor anyone else has the ability to judge who is saved and who isn't. We don't have a spreadsheet detailing how many erroneous beliefs one can have before they miss the boat. So I can't tell you specifics, as I don't know for sure that you have been prevented from receiving salvation.

That being said, I believe that truth and right beliefs are vitally, indispensably important to healthy, saving Christian faith. Because of this, I reject error and try to teach others to do the same. I am still learning a great many things, so obviously I don't have all the answers. But right belief is important, so I will fight against erroneous beliefs that could possible have an effect on one's salvation or faith in Christ.

To turn the question around a bit, what is it about mainstream Christian belief in Christ that would keep us from the celestial kingdom?

The belief that you could destroy someones faith in a Christian church and not damage their faith in Christ is somewhat troubling to me.

I think damage to one's faith is inevitable in these situations. If I converted to the LDS church, several deeply held aspects of my faith in Christ would have to be painfully excised. The same is true for LDS converting to mainstream Christianity.

But compare it to surgery. Rarely can a dead or infected organ be removed without causing collateral damage to other organs, but once it's removed and the healing process is done, the body is much better off than before.

THe problem with your analogy is that I'm pretty sure some of the people you would hold up as evidence of the Great Apostasy in action would be Catholic

Saints.... they wouldn't just be heirs of that apostasy, but contributors to it.

Good post, Steubie. Took the words right out of my mouth

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts, Gordon, when you have the time. Hope you're having a good day, everyone. Take care

[Beowulf]

Rhinomelon, you are right, of course.

Your conversion to my version of Christian belief, or mine to yours, would require a wrenching change in faith and perspective.

I acknowledge this, and therefore stand in awe of those people who are still able to convert to LDS despite this barrier.

Despite these differences, however, the commonalities based on belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ and in his role as Savior remain. Surely we can acknowledge this shared devotion.

Beowulf

[The_Monk]

I could not in good conscience be LDS, and still believe in the Trinity, for example.

I disagree. There is more disagreement on the nature of man and god between LDS and non-LDS then there is on the nature of the Godhead itself. The question is, what kind of unity is the unity of the Godhead? We're agreed that there are three and those three are one. It's just a difference in how that one-ness is defined.

For example, see the LDS blog thread here

[FormerLDS]

Dadof7

I have a more discerning question for this thread.

We of course all have differences in our conception of Christ. Even within our faith(s) we come to a knowledge of our Savior as individuals, and as such have differing understandings and levels of knowledge. In essense we all have our individual experiences with the Savior. Claiming "a different Jesus" is like the blind men castigating each other over who really has hold of the elephant.

That being so... what is it specifically about the LDS belief in Christ and the Godhead that would prevent us from receiving Salvation from the Savior?

What is it specifically about the LDS belief in Christ and the Godhead that would prevent us from receiving Salvation from the Savior?

Did the rejected in Matthew 7 not believe in Jesus Christ?

"22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

They had a belief in Christ, yet what prevented them from receiving Salvation from the Savior?

[Outshined]

What is it specifically about the LDS belief in Christ and the Godhead that would prevent us from receiving Salvation from the Savior?

Nothing; it's an excuse for proclaiming exclusion of someone else, nothing more.