Fourth Abrahamic religion?

[Leaf474]

42 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The problem with these kinds of statements is that they attempt to differentiate between the historical Jesus and an ontological Jesus. That is, the argument is being made that it doesn't really matter that both groups might be looking at the same historical person, born at a specific point in time in a specific context - but the fact that there are two different sets of beliefs about who (or what) that person is (the ontological identity) enough to say that they are two different persons?

To put this in a slightly different context, it is no different from arguing that the Joseph Smith understood by critics of the LDS Church are presenting a different Joseph Smith than the one that members of the LDS Church know. It doesn't matter that they were both born in the same place and time - what matters is that the two group understand him in completely different ways. Or even more familiarly, this is like the woman saying of her husband of 50 years - he is not the man that I married. And why stop there? I am not the person I was an hour ago (and that person isn't coming back).

I don't have any issues with differentiating between ontological descriptions - I only have a problem when that ontological difference is intended to replace (or to disguise) that historical identity.

Yes, historical Jesus and ontological Jesus, that's a good way to put it.

 

Let me reiterate that I have no problem identifying the Saints as Christians. I'm simply attempting to explain what the Saints might be running into with some  Evangelicals.

 

I think that with the Evangelical emphasis on "believing in" Jesus, that ontological difference becomes very important for them.

 

To use a different example, suppose we consider a liberal scholar from the Jesus Seminar camp. They would see Jesus of Nazareth as just a regular person, with some significant leadership skills and charisma around whom grew up significant legends. They might say that they believe there was a real Jesus who walked the Earth and whose moral teachings they try to follow. But to Evangelical ears, that's not "believing in" Jesus.

 

Anyways, I'm attempting to explain the Evangelical view, since several people had expressed frustration at being able to understand it. I get that from the Saints point of view, it shouldn't be a problem 🙂

[Leaf474]

54 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The problem with these kinds of statements is that they attempt to differentiate between the historical Jesus and an ontological Jesus. That is, the argument is being made that it doesn't really matter that both groups might be looking at the same historical person, born at a specific point in time in a specific context - but the fact that there are two different sets of beliefs about who (or what) that person is (the ontological identity) enough to say that they are two different persons?

To put this in a slightly different context, it is no different from arguing that the Joseph Smith understood by critics of the LDS Church are presenting a different Joseph Smith than the one that members of the LDS Church know. It doesn't matter that they were both born in the same place and time - what matters is that the two group understand him in completely different ways. Or even more familiarly, this is like the woman saying of her husband of 50 years - he is not the man that I married. And why stop there? I am not the person I was an hour ago (and that person isn't coming back).

I don't have any issues with differentiating between ontological descriptions - I only have a problem when that ontological difference is intended to replace (or to disguise) that historical identity.

Also, just to follow up on the quote from Gordon B. Hinckley earlier in the thread,

"But no one believes more literally in the redemption wrought by the Lord Jesus Christ. No one believes more fundamentally that He was the Son of God, that He died for the sins of mankind, that He rose from the grave, and that He is the living resurrected Son of the living Father."

 

Is Hinckley not appealing largely to the ontological side of things? He's not saying that we definitely believe that there was a man named Jesus from Nazareth who worked as an itinerant rabbi circa ad 29. I mean, I know he definitely doesn't deny those things, he's just not focusing on them in that statement.

[Benjamin McGuire]

13 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

Is Hinckley not appealing largely to the ontological side of things? He's not saying that we definitely believe that there was a man named Jesus from Nazareth who worked as an itinerant rabbi circa ad 29. I mean, I know he definitely doesn't deny those things, he's just not focusing on them in that statement.

Yes, Hinckley is appealing to an ontological position. And yet ... aren't we all, in Mormon theology, fundamentally sons of the Living God? Which Christian denomination would claim that they believe less "literally in the redemption wrought by the Lord Jesus Christ"?

[Navidad]

16 hours ago, webbles said:

On my mission, there was a town that had recently had missionaries and a few people converted.  Many of the leaders of the town did a "rescue" of the new converts to save them from the "non-christian mormons".  Those that survived that experience were the core of the branch.  It was really impressive to me.

I once, when attending Baylor was a youth pastor in a small Texas town with two churches - Church of Christ and Baptist. One fall, one of them held a revival meeting and several people from the one converted to the other. Oh my, it created so much tension that it overflowed into the small public school district where the superintendent was a staunch member of one of them. So don't feel too bad. These kind of internecine controversies happen all the time. I regret wherever and whenever they occur.

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, Sara H said:

I've never talked to an LDS person who thought that some Christian sects were part of the restoration. Have you?

I will offer an answer to your excellent question. I have talked to many (how many is many?) members of the church who do not believe that there was a total apostasy; who believe that there was at worst a partial apostasy in which the Spirit continued to work, comfort, and guide folks.

Read the first paragraphs of the below page with its account of Wilford Woodruff's acknowledgement and gratitude for the visions, wisdom, insight that Presbyterian pastor Robert Mason has on his life. Robert Mason clearly had visions and spiritual insights from 1800 until his death. Its not me claiming this; it is on the church website! In my opinion (which is worth not very much), there is a clear movement in the church from total to great to partial apostasy, with many if not most LDS members in the great to partial categories.

I am always interested in the great diversity among LDS Church members in their beliefs, but even more so in their definitions of their beliefs based on their own personal experiences and insights. It has created a very diverse church under the umbrella of one that is very hierarchical.

I get a laughing bewildered look from folks when I talk about being a faithful-non-member - that is something they have never heard of - I stipulate to that. You heard it first here . . . l will go so far as to make a prediction, since I am not a prophet who prophesies - my prediction is that in ten years, there will be a category in the church handbook for ward attendees who are "faithful non-members" or some characterization of that same reality with new and broadened opportunities for them to minister.

I also predict the teaching of the total apostasy will continue to shrink in scope and size as more members of the church read more non-LDS church history, especially that published by LDS historians. Certainly there were other restorationist churches in the mid-19th centuries carrying on a restorationist tradition that began in the 14th century with the Waldensians and Hussites, and perhaps even continued with the works of folks like Erasmus, and the pietists in the Catholic movement. Was not the Council of Trent in the middle of the 16th century a restorationist attempt from within? Thanks for letting me opine!

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-wilford-woodruff/chapter-1?lang=eng#p1

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, Calm said:

You need to expand your thought a bit as I don’t know what you are asking.  

It was snarky anyway.

What if they don't THINK?

Let it be.

[Navidad]

21 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

It's possible my experience of evangelicalism was of a more fundamentalist variety then yours 😀

 

Do you believe it's possible to preach another Jesus, or another Christ, today? If so, what would that look like?

I like your first statement here a lot. I am sure that my friends here on the forum will affirm that I have been preaching a distinction between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists for years on this forum. Whenever, including today, I read posts about my friend's negative experiences with Christians it rings every bell in my head that they have been interacting with Fundamentalists who would also be highly critical of those of us who have come out of the Fundamentalist camp into Evangelicalism, a movement that didn't exist prior to the 1940s. I don't see Fundamentalists and Evangelicals and Mainline Christians as on a continuum. Interacting in my life with all three, I see them as clearly three separate groups, created and existing to differentiate themselves from the other two. Fundamentalism was created in the 1920s to differentiate from the social gospel of the Mainline churches. Evangelicalism was created in the 1940s to differentiate itself from the Fundamentalists, and the Mainliners have been steady in differentiating from both the others through it all. Some groups, like the Moravians strive to be in between Evangelical and Mainline with affiliations in both camps.

Yes, I believe it is possible to preach another Jesus, or Christ today. That Christ would be one who is not the literal historical Son of God; one who swooned on the cross, but didn't die; wasn't resurrected, but whose body was stolen; who didn't/doesn't have a glorified resurrected body; who didn't ascend back into heaven; and whose atonement was made up, or was not historically a fact. When I get around folks who claim the historical Jesus was a metaphorical figure, I begin to see another Christ. The historicity and the salvific nature of the atonement of Christ from incarnation to ascension is what is vital to me. Now, there may be lots of variances in some of the details, but the basics of the Savior/Christ must be there for the Biblical Christ to shine through. I don't know if that is a good answer or not. It is simply my thinking on the subject.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Navidad

[InCognitus]

9 hours ago, Sara H said:

Please reassure me that you are aware that for the past nearly two hundred years, we have been telling Christians that we have come to earth to restore the original form of Christianity.

Naturally.  Everyone believes they have the correct church, or otherwise, why be a member of it?   I find no fault for someone else believing they are in "the true church".  I might disagree with them, but what is wrong with this?  People tell us we are wrong all the time.  So what?

9 hours ago, Sara H said:

This is because we believe that the Christians' interpretation of Christ has been tainted by pagan beliefs and practices. Naturally, they will suppose that we adhere to a different Christ because of this!

Actually, the "different Christ" approach is just attack rhetoric.  It is an effort by some to find any kind of biblical basis for dismissing another church that they perceive as being heretical.  This is nothing new.  It has been going on since the beginning of time.  The Catholics have done it against the Protestants.  The Protestants against the Catholics.  It has been Christian against Christian.  One man's orthodoxy is another man's heresy.  

The problem with the "different Christ" approach is that it wrests the scripture that is used to support it (2 Corinthians 11:4).  What did Paul really mean when he said to not receive a different Jesus than the one preached by the apostles?  Did Paul mean the individual he met on the road to Damascus, or did he mean the creedal Jesus?  Or what?  

9 hours ago, Sara H said:

They are entitled to the same degree of protection for their faith as we are for ours.

Finally we agree on something.

9 hours ago, Sara H said:

You cannot, in my opinion, expect to be received with open arms while at the same time telling an entire group of people that they have numerous heathenistic beliefs and practices and expect them to believe that you're a Christian. That is completely absurd! 

Nobody is asking to be received with open arms.  But claiming the title of Christian is not theirs to define.  It's a term defined in the Bible and the Book of Mormon.  It precedes all of these disagreements.  If being a Christian means to be a follower of Jesus Christ (as it says in the Book of Mormon and Bible), then nobody can take that away from another person.  Nobody.

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

Yes, historical Jesus and ontological Jesus, that's a good way to put it.

 

Let me reiterate that I have no problem identifying the Saints as Christians. I'm simply attempting to explain what the Saints might be running into with some  Evangelicals.

 

I think that with the Evangelical emphasis on "believing in" Jesus, that ontological difference becomes very important for them.

 

To use a different example, suppose we consider a liberal scholar from the Jesus Seminar camp. They would see Jesus of Nazareth as just a regular person, with some significant leadership skills and charisma around whom grew up significant legends. They might say that they believe there was a real Jesus who walked the Earth and whose moral teachings they try to follow. But to Evangelical ears, that's not "believing in" Jesus.

 

Anyways, I'm attempting to explain the Evangelical view, since several people had expressed frustration at being able to understand it. I get that from the Saints point of view, it shouldn't be a problem 🙂

Go for it! Perhaps where we might differ a bit might serve to show the diversity within the broad Evangelical community as well as the distinction between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism.

Edited September 12, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Yes, Hinckley is appealing to an ontological position. And yet ... aren't we all, in Mormon theology, fundamentally sons of the Living God? Which Christian denomination would claim that they believe less "literally in the redemption wrought by the Lord Jesus Christ"?

The Unitarian Universalists

[Navidad]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What if they don't THINK?

Then they would deemed a philosopher! 😇   The devil made me write that!

[Navidad]

11 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Actually, the "different Christ" approach is just attack rhetoric.  It is an effort by some to find any kind of biblical basis for dismissing another church that they perceive as being heretical.  This is nothing new. 

Wow I really like that. I hereby request permission to use it in one of my next books - the one on Religious Dogmatism. thanks.

[manol]

34 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am always interested in the great diversity among LDS Church members in their beliefs, but even more so in their definitions of their beliefs based on their own personal experiences and insights. It has created a very diverse church under the umbrella of one that is very hierarchical.  [emphasis manol's]

Very astute observation!

Imo the LDS body of thought (scriptures, teachings of leaders, writings of scholars and thinkers, individual inspiration, etc.) is indeed rich in diversity, even if such diversity is not officially sanctioned.  And in my opinion, the (arguably in some ways controversial) LDS doctrines on the Holy Spirit facilitate this! 

Implicitly if not explicitly LDS teachings on the Gift of the Holy Ghost empower rank-and-file individuals to trust what is effectively an internal voice (God the Holy Spirit) over any external voice.  Not that there isn't great diversity of thought in other religions, but I'm under the impression that relatively few religions have a doctrinal stance that gives permission to individuals to actively trust their own personal guidance over everything else. 

 

Edited September 12, 2023 by manol

[Leaf474]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Yes, Hinckley is appealing to an ontological position. And yet ... aren't we all, in Mormon theology, fundamentally sons of the Living God? Which Christian denomination would claim that they believe less "literally in the redemption wrought by the Lord Jesus Christ"?

True! It just looks to me like it's reasonable to bring up ontological differences when evaluating whether it's the same Christ. I think that's what Evangelicals tend to do.

 

Thanks for the convo!

[LoudmouthMormon]

When someone becomes a Baptist or Church of Christ (or other sects that follow a "believer's baptism"), they don't believe in infant baptism, so someone might need to get rebaptized.  

Oneness Pentacostal churches require anyone joining to get rebaptized, no matter who dunked them the first time.

Catholics don't believe in rebaptism, but they do believe some religions that profess Christ and baptize are so heretical, it was never a 'real' baptism in the first place.  They'll also have you go through a 'reception of baptized Christians into the full communion of the Catholic Church' or some such.

Some Eastern Orthodox churches re-baptize converts from Protestant and Catholic Churches.  It varies from diocese to diocese.

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons don't recognize previous baptisms conducted by any other denomination.

Seventh Day Adventists routinely rebaptize persons who observed the Sabbath on the first day of the week (which they consider to be the wrong day), and now decide to keep the seventh day as Sabbath.

 

With all this "your baptism wasn't good enough" going on in large swaths of Christianity, I simply can't go with @Sara H's notions that we're not Christian.  (Unless she thinks Baptists, Church of Christ folks, Eastern Orthodox, Jehovah's Witnesses, and 7th Day Adventists are also not Christian.)  

 

[Leaf474]

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I like your first statement here a lot. I am sure that my friends here on the forum will affirm that I have been preaching a distinction between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists for years on this forum. Whenever, including today, I read posts about my friend's negative experiences with Christians it rings every bell in my head that they have been interacting with Fundamentalists who would also be highly critical of those of us who have come out of the Fundamentalist camp into Evangelicalism, a movement that didn't exist prior to the 1940s. I don't see Fundamentalists and Evangelicals and Mainline Christians as on a continuum. Interacting in my life with all three, I see them as clearly three separate groups, created and existing to differentiate themselves from the other two. Fundamentalism was created in the 1920s to differentiate from the social gospel of the Mainline churches. Evangelicalism was created in the 1940s to differentiated itself from the Fundamentalists, and the Mainliners have been steady in differentiating from both the others through it all. Some groups, like the Moravians strive to be in between Evangelical and Mainline with affiliations in both camps.

 

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Yes, I believe it is possible to preach another Jesus, or Christ today. That Christ would be one who is not the literal historical Son of God; one who swooned on the cross, but didn't die; wasn't resurrected, but whose body was stolen; who didn't/doesn't have a glorified resurrected body; who didn't ascend back into heaven; and whose atonement was made up, or was not historically a fact. When I get around folks who claim the historical Jesus was a metaphorical figure, I begin to see another Christ.

Are you saying all of those factors add up to a different Christ, for that if someone holds to at least one of those things, then they are believing in a different Christ

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

The historicity and the salvific nature of the atonement of Christ from incarnation to ascension is what is vital to me. Now, there may be lots of variances in some of the details, but the basics of the Savior/Christ must be there for the Biblical Christ to shine through. I don't know if that is a good answer or not. It is simply my thinking on the subject.

Thanks for the conversation ❤️

[tagriffy]

On 9/11/2023 at 10:06 AM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Just stopping by to mention that Imma hold on to the title Christian for the time being.  If I'm talking with other Christians who like to talk religion, I'll go with "Non-trinitarian Christian".  I'm also happy being known as a member of the CoJCoLDS, or LDS, or a saint, or a Mormon.   I'm happy to be known as inheritor of the Abrahmaic covenant and promise.  Happy to talk about which tribe of Israel I'm a part of.  Happy to talk about the similarities and differences between Pope and Prophet/President.  Always happy to draw a distinction between me and a Scientologist.

I have zero interest in carving out any "4th abrahamic religion" niche for me and mine. 

For my part, I simply identify as Mormon. If my interlocutor thinks that means I'm Christian, good for them. If they don't, not my problem.

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

The Unitarian Universalists

Touché.

[Leaf474]

Maybe it's all about what definition of Christianity is used.

 

Is a person a Christian if they claim to be a follower of Christ "disregardless" of what characteristics or activities they attribute to that Christ?

 

Some Hindus talk about "Christ Consciousness". Christians?

[InCognitus]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

His Firstborn Son, our Elder Brother, was the key to that plan.

It's kind of strange, actually, that the more in-depth Christian scholars of today have been coming to understand some similar things we believe as Latter-day Saints.  

I mentioned elsewhere that I was reading Michael Heiser's book, The Unseen Realm.  He is a Protestant Christian.  His book discusses an ancient Israelite perspective on the council of gods described in the Old Testament that flows into New Testament times, and how it is God's plan for humans to participate in the divine council with him.  Related to the quote above, this is what he says on page 313:

"The wording of Revelation 2 is especially powerful when read against this backdrop [of Numbers 24:17 - which he says is about the dawning of the returned kingdom of God under its messiah]. Not only does Jesus say that he is the messianic morning star in Revelation 22:16, but when he says 'I will give him [who overcomes] the morning star' (Rev 2:28), he grants us the authority to rule with him.  As dramatic as these thoughts are, we’ll see one that trumps them all in the next chapter. We aren’t just God’s children and co-rulers with his Son. We’re Jesus’ siblings—and each of us will meet the council with him at our side." (bold emphasis added).

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

Then they would deemed a philosopher! 😇   The devil made me write that!

You have broken my heart, now with this insult questioning my authority in my sacred priesthood.

 

 

 

 

🤭

[Sara H]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

I will offer an answer to your excellent question. I have talked to many (how many is many?) members of the church who do not believe that there was a total apostasy; who believe that there was at worst a partial apostasy in which the Spirit continued to work, comfort, and guide folks.

After reading the link you gave me, I'm confused. When I read the article in the link, I see nothing but a total rejection of Christianity. What do you think the article is trying to say? What's spiritual darkness?

 

 

 

In this part of the story, it says that God took his gospel away from the earth. That no church, not even Christian churches, was teaching a "full gospel of Christ." What good can this do for Christians?

 

 

 

 

[Sara H]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

Read the first paragraphs of the below page with its account of Wilford Woodruff's acknowledgement and gratitude for the visions, wisdom, insight that Presbyterian pastor Robert Mason has on his life. Robert Mason clearly had visions and spiritual insights from 1800 until his death. Its not me claiming this; it is on the church website! In my opinion (which is worth not very much), there is a clear movement in the church from total to great to partial apostasy, with many if not most LDS members in the great to partial categories.

I really want to know how you think the piece in the link you gave shows Christianity in a good light, because when I read it, all I see is a complete rejection of the Christian faith. 

 

 

In this part of the piece, it says that there is no church of Christ on earth, no fruit, and no men of Christ who can perform ordinances in the name of Christ. He is talking about the Christian religion. 

 

 

 

 

[Sara H]

Here, he says that there has only ever been one religion and that there will never be another. From what I can tell, he seems to be talking about the message I follow and rejecting the Christian gospel. 

 

[Sara H]

Rejection of the Christian faiths one more time.