Hinkley admits "another Jesus"

[Krusader]

It's interesting to note that President Hinkley is at least honest about the "Jesus" of Mormonism. The following appeared in the "LDS Church News Week:"

"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 Jspeh Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knoew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.' "

At least Hinkley has admitted that the Mormon Christ, who is the literal son of god and one of his goddess wives; who is the incestuous product of a physical relationship between Elohim and one of his spirit daughters, in the flesh, who is the literal borther of all the spirits born in heaven; is one of three gods (of this world, and one of millions of gods in the universes); who atoned for sins in the garden rather than on the cross, and who (some Mormon leaders have taught) had several wives, is NOT the same as the Jesus of Christians.

If you make up an imaginary Jesus, you also have an imaginary salvaiton!

[Amarok_Star]

I really really really hate to use this analogy, but I fell its the best I can do.
Think of religion as software. You buy the origional version that has X amount of features and abilites. Bill Gates (God) decides it is the best time to realease new upgrades for your software, such as more color, fonts, web acess, ect.
But what if, lets say: you bought a bootleged version of the software, unknowingly. This bootleg version has "improvments" that the pirate personally likes. However the Pirate, never knowing the exact specification of the softwares potential from Bill Gates, ignorantly includes data that is not 100% compatable with the program and there fore begins to act up. (false doctorine, splitting into multiple denominations).
Now Bill Gates releases an official uptade to the software, however Bill Gates, now aware of the incompatability with the pirates software, requires that upon installation all the Pirate data be erased.
This is Mormonism.

In Hinkleys mind, the "traditional" vision of Christ is both a distorted and incomplete vision of a much greater whole. In my analgy, the traditional vision is the pirated vision. Distoted over time by pirates, people who change scripture, and those who perform sacred ordanences without the preisthood.
Hinkley does not believe in the "traditional" vision of chirst because it is both distorted, incomplete, and inconsistant. A Catholic will have a different vision of christ then a Calvonist or a Methodist Ect.

[Bill the Cat]

It's interesting to note that President Hinkley is at least honest about the "Jesus" of Mormonism. The following appeared in the "LDS Church News Week:"


Yeah, that quote is by far the most overused one. It is the one time Hinckley has stepped out on a limb and attempted to differentiate LDS doctrine from Orthodox Christianity. I liked the interview with Larry King where he denied the teaching of God being an exalted human. I have the whole interview, so the "out of context" excuse can be easily dispatched.


I really really really hate to use this analogy, but I fell its the best I can do.
Think of religion as software. You buy the origional version that has X amount of features and abilites. Bill Gates (God) decides it is the best time to realease new upgrades for your software, such as more color, fonts, web acess, ect.

This has no real relation to Christianity and Mormondom

But what if, lets say: you bought a bootleged version of the software, unknowingly. This bootleg version has "improvments" that the pirate personally likes. However the Pirate, never knowing the exact specification of the softwares potential from Bill Gates, ignorantly includes data that is not 100% compatable with the program and there fore begins to act up. (false doctorine, splitting into multiple denominations).
Now Bill Gates releases an official uptade to the software, however Bill Gates, now aware of the incompatability with the pirates software, requires that upon installation all the Pirate data be erased.
This is Mormonism.

:huh: Mormonism is the pirated software, not the updated software. It looks loke the original on the surface, but underneath, it is completely different. Checksums are the best way to verify these key software components. One is correct, one is not.

In Hinkleys mind, the "traditional" vision of Christ is both a distorted and incomplete vision of a much greater whole. In my analgy, the traditional vision is the pirated vision. Distoted over time by pirates, people who change scripture, and those who perform sacred ordanences without the preisthood.

Hinckley is wrong. We can go back and look at the product specs (The Bible) and the beta testers (the Early Church Fathers) to see that what we have today is more accurate to these originals when it comes to basic interworkings. The Gnostics were the original pirates, and Mormonism espouses far more gnostic ideas than modern Christendom.

Hinkley does not believe in the "traditional" vision of chirst because it is both distorted, incomplete, and inconsistant. A Catholic will have a different vision of christ then a Calvonist or a Methodist Ect.


Rubbish. Catholics, Calvanists, Methodists, etc. all proscribe to a Jesus that is eternal, always God, eternally co-equal with the Father and the Spirit, has no natural "spirit-brothers", and a host of other doctrines set forth in the major Creeds. We may differ on how best to show our obedience to Him, but we all believe in the very one who the Scriptures speak of, not the amalgam of semi-Christian and Gnostic ideas proposed by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and their successors down the line.

[just Johnna]

It's interesting to note that President Hinkley is at least honest about the "Jesus" of Mormonism. The following appeared in the "LDS Church News Week:"

"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 Jspeh Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knoew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.' "

At least Hinkley has admitted that the Mormon Christ, who is the literal son of god and one of his goddess wives; who is the incestuous product of a physical relationship between Elohim and one of his spirit daughters, in the flesh, who is the literal borther of all the spirits born in heaven; is one of three gods (of this world, and one of millions of gods in the universes); who atoned for sins in the garden rather than on the cross, and who (some Mormon leaders have taught) had several wives, is NOT the same as the Jesus of Christians.Y'know, I read and reread the statement by President Hinckley, and found it said nothing about goddess wives, incest, the number of gods in the universe, where the atonement took place, or whether Jesus married while in mortality. Not that those topics wouldn't draw interest.

Because Jesus Christ and the Father appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820, we believe in an anthromorphic God and a theomorphic man, and we understand that the persons of the Godhead have a perfect accord that is not trivial, as God the Father is not formless. We believe that when the bible says prophets spoke to God face-to-face it is more than a metaphor, that he does answer prayers and intercede in the affairs of men, and that the majesty, glory, and power of God are beyond description.

Well, at least we agree on answered prayers, interceding, and that the majesty, glory, and power of God are beyond description. But the rest would be differences in how we understand the nature of God.

[Krusader]

Y'know, I read and reread the statement by President Hinckley, and found it said nothing about goddess wives, incest, the number of gods in the universe, where the atonement took place, or whether Jesus married while in mortality. Not that those topics wouldn't draw interest.

Because Jesus Christ and the Father appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820, we believe in an anthromorphic God and a theomorphic man, and we understand that the persons of the Godhead have a perfect accord that is not trivial, as God the Father is not formless. We believe that when the bible says prophets spoke to God face-to-face it is more than a metaphor, that he does answer prayers and intercede in the affairs of men, and that the majesty, glory, and power of God are beyond description.

Well, at least we agree on answered prayers, interceding, and that the majesty, glory, and power of God are beyond description. But the rest would be differences in how we understand the nature of God.
Well, Christians believe in an "anthropomorphic" God, in that Christ took on the additional nature of manhood, becoming the God Man (hypostatic union) - not that he ceased being God, but took on an additonal nature. As far as man's destiny is concerned, we will receive a "body, like unto his own" glorified body when Christ returns (according to Paul). Not that we become like him pertaining to His Deity, for man does not become God, but is a creation of God. However, our glorified form at the Resurrection will have the same properties as Christ's glorified Human Nature.

However, if the Mormons are shocked that evangelical Christians point out some of the things that your Church has taught regarding the nature of God, the conception of Christ, and so on, they need to distance themselves from those teachings of their former prophets (as they have renounced Brigham Young's Adam god teachings), and admit that (for instance) the King Follett discourse and other writings are no longer considered to be representative of the LDS Church.

If you stick simply to the BOM, you will find that basic Christian doctrine is taught there (with some modification - Campbellite theology, for instance) and that the multiple gods and men becoming gods theories are nowhere to be found.

Is it any wonder if evangelicals are rather confused - so many voices, so many strange teachings - and the prophets of the LDS don't seem to agree with each other.

[{Tim}]

I really really really hate to use this analogy, but I fell its the best I can do.
Think of religion as software.
...Y'know, that's actually a really good analogy for the Mormon view of the gospel. :thumb:
Of course as you can see (:btc:!), we orthodox Christians disagree that this is the way it really is...

Tim

[just Johnna]

Well, Christians believe in an "anthropomorphic" God, in that Christ took on the additional nature of manhood, becoming the God Man (hypostatic union) - not that he ceased being God, but took on an additonal nature.
Yes, but you also believe, that in order to be perfect, God the Father must be without body, parts, or passions.

To my frame of reference, it looks like your ideas of the nature of God rest more on philosphical ideals than anything else. I've been cheered by the Open View movement, which at least doesn't dismiss what scripture says on apparent conflict with classical greek thinking.

As far as man's destiny is concerned, we will receive a "body, like unto his own" glorified body when Christ returns (according to Paul). Not that we become like him pertaining to His Deity, for man does not become God, but is a creation of God. However, our glorified form at the Resurrection will have the same properties as Christ's glorified Human Nature.This is where you and I differ, on the nature of man, since I believe something about the soul is uncreated and akin to God.

However, if the Mormons are shocked that evangelical Christians point out some of the things that your Church has taught regarding the nature of God, the conception of Christ, and so on, they need to distance themselves from those teachings of their former prophets (as they have renounced Brigham Young's Adam god teachings), and admit that (for instance) the King Follett discourse and other writings are no longer considered to be representative of the LDS Church.
Sometimes I wonder if you realize what you're saying, and do it anyway for rhetorical effect. Inasmuch as I can be shocked, the capacity for which I am sadly lacking, it would be over the lack of respect and the rancor. You have cherry picked ideas out of the history of Mormon thought, and related them in stock phrases designed to sensationalize.
If you stick simply to the BOM, you will find that basic Christian doctrine is taught there (with some modification - Campbellite theology, for instance) and that the multiple gods and men becoming gods theories are nowhere to be found.

Is it any wonder if evangelicals are rather confused - so many voices, so many strange teachings - and the prophets of the LDS don't seem to agree with each other.Of course there will be many voices and everything will be strange if you want to find the disparate elements from which to build absurdities.

[Krusader]

Yes, but you also believe, that in order to be perfect, God the Father must be without body, parts, or passions.

Response: Please explain where the Bible speaks of God as having a physical body?

To my frame of reference, it looks like your ideas of the nature of God rest more on philosphical ideals than anything else. I've been cheered by the Open View movement, which at least doesn't dismiss what scripture says on apparent conflict with classical greek thinking.

Response: My view of the Godhead relies on "sola scriptura."

This is where you and I differ, on the nature of man, since I believe something about the soul is uncreated and akin to God.

Response: "And God breathed into him, and man became a living soul." The soul is a creation of God not some type of eternal intelligence.


Sometimes I wonder if you realize what you're saying, and do it anyway for rhetorical effect. Inasmuch as I can be shocked, the capacity for which I am sadly lacking, it would be over the lack of respect and the rancor. You have cherry picked ideas out of the history of Mormon thought, and related them in stock phrases designed to sensationalize.
Of course there will be many voices and everything will be strange if you want to find the disparate elements from which to build absurdities.
Response:
The problem is that the Mormon church claims to be led by prophets who are directly inspired by God. Yet, today's prophet disagrees not only with Young but with Smith as well. How do Mormons explain that? And, Justjohnna, it's not just me - but the entire evangelical community which notes these problems. Are you unable to admit that the LDS Church has never really come forth with any coherent doctrine on the Godhead? First you gave us modified Trinitarianism leaning toward modalism; from there it went to Tritheism, then to polytheism and eventually to the deification of humans as gods.

Maybe as a Mormon you aren't confused - but it seems to me that the LDS Church is a bastion of confusing ideas competing with one another....especially about the nature and number of gods.

[just Johnna]

Response:
The problem is that the Mormon church claims to be led by prophets who are directly inspired by God. Yet, today's prophet disagrees not only with Young but with Smith as well. How do Mormons explain that?If by "today's prophet disagrees" you mean the T.V. interview, I could just point out that it is true he understands the philosophy behind the couplet and that it is true we don't much teach or emphasize it.
And, just Johnna, it's not just me - but the entire evangelical community which notes these problems.ah, but are we LDS experiencing this as a problem? I recognize the leaders of my church as men of God; I consider them to be doing a good job; I pray for them.
Are you unable to admit that the LDS Church has never really come forth with any coherent doctrine on the Godhead? First you gave us modified Trinitarianism leaning toward modalism; from there it went to Tritheism, then to polytheism and eventually to the deification of humans as gods.My dear, you're making me laugh.

We did not pass through those stages--and that which you mislabel as polytheism and deification of humans was established by 1844. But your language suggests we would have spent 50 years at each step.

Before the doctrine of the Godhead was well distributed, members had as a default the idea of Trinity, which it is very similar to. Analyzing the Book of Mormon for its modalistic language is an artifact of, what, the last five years? It's silly to read that analysis back into the historic understanding of 1830s mormons.

Also, when considering the Book of Mormon, please remember that we consider it a translation of an ancient document, most of which is an account before the mortal ministry of Jesus Christ. Therefore, if Christ's role as the Angel of the Lord is presented somewhat modalistically, it is quite understandable from our point of view.

It is true that the idea of God the Father having a body was not well distributed through the church until the Nauvoo Period (1840-1845), and before that some members brought a trinitarian idea of God with them as a default, as demonstrated in the Kirtland sermons and journals.

Maybe as a Mormon you aren't confused - but it seems to me that the LDS Church is a bastion of confusing ideas competing with one anotherI think part of that is our freedom. United in our recognition of the restoration of priesthood authority, we don't split into sects over OVT, preterism, free will, election, omnipotence, who to ordain, how to worship. Frankly, your world is the wild one. It looks very unpasteurized. You can take as a data point on my parochialism.
....especially about the nature and number of gods.Yet it's quite settled on what's important. The Godhead that is relevant is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. And as we are all children of God, this life is our opportunity to receive him and become like him.

To you these terms are not tight enough, but it is the prophet's job to declare doctrine, not mine, and he does so at the good pleasure of the Lord. I share my understanding with my fellowsaints, and base it on my reading of scriptures and yes, my experience, but whether my specific way of looking at things is right or useful to anyone is in God's hands.

You still haven't figured out that a prophet does not function as some sort of occultic channel. The prophet can also be limited by the (un)righteousness of the saints (cf. Moses and children of Israel) and the time and culture in which he lives (some of Paul's remarks on women seem to fall in this category to me.) But I don't expect, if the saints were living in perfect holiness and peace, that the doctrine of Trinity is what would be declared at this point as the closest model of truth.

[Krusader]

If by "today's prophet disagrees" you mean the T.V. interview, I could just point out that it is true he understands the philosophy behind the couplet and that it is true we don't much teach or emphasize it.
ah, but are we LDS experiencing this as a problem? I recognize the leaders of my church as men of God; I consider them to be doing a good job; I pray for them.
My dear, you're making me laugh.

We did not pass through those stages--and that which you mislabel as polytheism and deification of humans was established by 1844. But your language suggests we would have spent 50 years at each step.

Before the doctrine of the Godhead was well distributed, members had as a default the idea of Trinity, which it is very similar to. Analyzing the Book of Mormon for its modalistic language is an artifact of, what, the last five years? It's silly to read that analysis back into the historic understanding of 1830s mormons.

Also, when considering the Book of Mormon, please remember that we consider it a translation of an ancient document, most of which is an account before the mortal ministry of Jesus Christ. Therefore, if Christ's role as the Angel of the Lord is presented somewhat modalistically, it is quite understandable from our point of view.

It is true that the idea of God the Father having a body was not well distributed through the church until the Nauvoo Period (1840-1845), and before that some members brought a trinitarian idea of God with them as a default, as demonstrated in the Kirtland sermons and journals.

I think part of that is our freedom. United in our recognition of the restoration of priesthood authority, we don't split into sects over OVT, preterism, free will, election, omnipotence, who to ordain, how to worship. Frankly, your world is the wild one. It looks very unpasteurized. You can take as a data point on my parochialism.
Yet it's quite settled on what's important. The Godhead that is relevant is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. And as we are all children of God, this life is our opportunity to receive him and become like him.

To you these terms are not tight enough, but it is the prophet's job to declare doctrine, not mine, and he does so at the good pleasure of the Lord. I share my understanding with my fellowsaints, and base it on my reading of scriptures and yes, my experience, but whether my specific way of looking at things is right or useful to anyone is in God's hands.

You still haven't figured out that a prophet does not function as some sort of occultic channel. The prophet can also be limited by the (un)righteousness of the saints (cf. Moses and children of Israel) and the time and culture in which he lives (some of Paul's remarks on women seem to fall in this category to me.) But I don't expect, if the saints were living in perfect holiness and peace, that the doctrine of Trinity is what would be declared at this point as the closest model of truth.
Response:
But, my dear, when you have Jesus stating to the inhabitants of the North American continent that He is the Father and the Son, (not as He says in Scripture: If you have seen Me you have seen the Father, speaking of his substance of Being and His qualities, but not confusing the Persons), that IS modalism. And this was pointed out by Christians a lot longer than a few years ago! When you have Mary called the mother of God, somewhat Catholic I might interject, in the BOM, later changed to "son of God," we again see the tendency toward modalistic interpretation. Let's face it, Smith was confused about the Trinity, did not understand the fact that Christians taught that there were three Persons in the Godhead of the same substance, power and glory, but One Being called God. He slipped into modalism, later into polytheism, and eventually into the strange teaching that there are gods spread out across the universe who were once sinful human beings. You can't reject the King Follet discourse without rejecting Smith as a prophet. Mormons love to pick and choose fromt he sayings of their leaders, and it's very difficult to pin them down on doctrine since there are so many confusing and conflicting teachings. The bottom line, however, is whether Smith was right or wrong when preaching at King Follet's funeral. (Of course, I know the Mormons have rejected the theory that Adam is God - therefore calling Young's prophethood into question as well).

Also, don't talk to me about the "sects" within the Christian Church. After all, we all agree on the essentials. However, since Smith's death the Mormon Church has split into 101 different sects. At this rate, you will far surpass any splits in Christianity! (See Divergent Paths of the Restoration).

[Amarok_Star]

[QUOTE=Crusader]Response:
But, my dear, when you have Jesus stating to the inhabitants of the North American continent that He is the Father and the Son, (not as He says in Scripture: If you have seen Me you have seen the Father, speaking of his substance of Being and His qualities, but not confusing the Persons), that IS modalism.

Sorry, but your just plain mistaken. The reason Jesus said that was because
A) He is one in purpose with the father, so having a vision with him is the same concept of having a vision of heavenly father.
B) Yaweh(Yehova, Jesus ect.) is the God of Moses and Avraham and the whole old testament. He is also the one who spoke to Lehi and the Brother or Jared.