DiscussMormonism.com

I know there aren't many EV's on this board, but maybe this will draw out a few EV lurkers if they're out there.

For years, I used the "another Jesus" argument online with LDS. If you are an EV who posts on LDS related boards, I'm more than sure that you've used it.

So, here's the thing. If you are an EV believer, you likely believe that God/Jesus/Spirit has the power to reveal his/their/it's true nature to every human being just as you believe this was revealed to you.

Why do you think that God needs intervention from you to reveal this?

Quite frankly, when I read the expressions of LDS (not all) regarding their belief in Christ as Savior (I was reading the MAD board this past week and a post I read could have easily been written by an EV) I see that they express themselves in exactly the same way that EV's do. Not all, but enough for me to think that their belief is just as sincere as EV's.

Essentially, if LDS experience the spirit in the same way that EV's do, what business is it of other types of believers to attempt to discredit their experiences? Don't you think that it's possible that even though you disagree with LDS perspectives regarding the origins of Jesus, that they can still experience the power of the spirit?

Who are you to say it's not genuine? Who are you to say that the spirit isn't working in their lives and in their hearts in the same way that you believe that the spirit works in yours? At what point do you yourself have the power to determine the authenticity of the Christ they experience?

I'm just asking.

And if you come back at me with "they worship a false Christ", I'll ask one more time for emphasis:

At what point do you yourself have the power to determine the authenticity of the Christ they experience?


.

Can I speak as an EV or do I represent another EV instead of the approved variety?

I figure it like this. When LDS folks read the New Testiment and are considering that Jesus and his words they are thinking of the same Jesus as other people. On the other hand I do not think the whatever it was claiming to be Jesus that commanded polygamy is the same Jesus as the one in the New Testament. I do not know what it was but I do not trust it as a source of light and life.

huckelberry wrote:Can I speak as an EV or do I represent another EV instead of the approved variety?

I figure it like this. When LDS folks read the New Testiment and are considering that Jesus and his words they are thinking of the same Jesus as other people. On the other hand I do not think the whatever it was claiming to be Jesus that commanded polygamy is the same Jesus as the one in the New Testament. I do not know what it was but I do not trust it as a source of light and life.

What about the Jesus that commanded the Crusades? The Spanish Inquisition? The Salem Witch Trials? The IRA? The Holocaust?

Is your Jesus the one who commands his followers to publicly harass homosexuals and claim that "God Hates America"? The one who tries to block the distribution of condoms in AIDS-ridden Africa? The one who was supposed to come in 1914, 1925 and 1975, and who will condemn you to eternal oblivion for accepting a blood transfusion?

Or are the only people who worship your Jesus those who believe exactly what you do: the only "perfect" version of Christianity?

Good questions, Huck & Thama.

Fact of the matter is that actual Book of Mormon doctrine more closely allies with EV concepts than it does to Mormon dogma created after it was published.

In other words, the Book of Mormon is EV scripture. Most Mormons don't read it, or if they do read it, they minimize it's teachings, don't understand or believe it. Smith made it a fairy tale by living opposite of it's teachings (practicing Mormon adultery, doing things in the dark like Kishkumen, forgetting charity by destroying people's reputations, making crap up like the temple ordinances, the first vision and priesthood authority..)

Sure, there's a few verses that will cause some contention just like in the New Testament, but it's about being born again, becoming a child of Christ and developing love and charity toward all mankind.

Too bad it's not true. It has a lot of wisdom to teach a peaceable walk.

Thama wrote:

huckelberry wrote:Can I speak as an EV or do I represent another EV instead of the approved variety?

I figure it like this. When LDS folks read the New Testiment and are considering that Jesus and his words they are thinking of the same Jesus as other people. On the other hand I do not think the whatever it was claiming to be Jesus that commanded polygamy is the same Jesus as the one in the New Testament. I do not know what it was but I do not trust it as a source of light and life.

What about the Jesus that commanded the Crusades? The Spanish Inquisition? The Salem Witch Trials? The IRA? The Holocaust?

Is your Jesus the one who commands his followers to publicly harass homosexuals and claim that "God Hates America"? The one who tries to block the distribution of condoms in AIDS-ridden Africa? The one who was supposed to come in 1914, 1925 and 1975, and who will condemn you to eternal oblivion for accepting a blood transfusion?

Or are the only people who worship your Jesus those who believe exactly what you do: the only "perfect" version of Christianity?

I am actually wondering how someone could start with my comment and conclude that i must think that only people who think exactly like me worship the same Jesus as me. I have noticed that people who read the New Testiment and believe that Jesus and thus follow the same Jesus as I do may think all sorts of things which I may or may not agree with.

Or perhaps to review the argument. I think most likely Joseph Smith and associates engaged in a thought experiment seeing polygamy as a special faith commitment. I do not think that means he was following a different Jesus I think it means in the belief he was following himself. In the same way I feel comfortable sure that Phelps views about homosexuals are a product of his own understandings not some special instructions from Jesus.

At to my view it is evident that Jesus calls, invites and gives fundamental instructions but the actual details people believe are there own thoughts. I do not think that is an inferior think instead people doing their own thought is exactly what God wants at least as a step along the learning and growing path. I suspect however that some understandings such as Phelps may not qualify as steps in a growing process but just a dying process.

huckelberry wrote:I am actually wondering how someone could start with my comment and conclude that i must think that only people who think exactly like me worship the same Jesus as me.

Oh, I think you're pretty even keeled. From what I've seen, anyway.

At to my view it is evident that Jesus calls, invites and gives fundamental instructions but the actual details people believe are there own thoughts. I do not think that is an inferior think instead people doing their own thought is exactly what God wants at least as a step along the learning and growing path. I suspect however that some understandings such as Phelps may not qualify as steps in a growing process but just a dying process.

You say it is "evident that Jesus calls" but then you give two sentences worth of excuses. The things you are excusing are, of course, the things that make Thama say there's no way to tell who is called and who is just making stuff up. God wants people doing their own thoughts like "the Crusades? The Spanish Inquisition? The Salem Witch Trials? The IRA? The Holocaust?" as a growing process or dying process?

Or maybe people are just making things up?

The Dude, your comments point out that I should try to clarify further what I picture God asking people to do with their own thinking. I notice my sentence was a bit sloppy. Now posted it might be better to type againr rather than improve the punctuation in the above words.

Jesus calling sometimes is used thinking of some special calling creating faith. I did not mean anything like that. Instead I was referring to anybody reading the reports of his words being called by those words to consider what Jesus is proposing people should do. The other group I referred to , those who use their own understanding and imagination in response, also refers to everybody who encounters the words of Jesus. We all, believers, unbelievers, sensible, fanatical, clearheaded, or mudbrained use our own human understanding with all its ignorance and limitations to understand and interpret what Jesuss call might mean to us now.

Clearly some people understand better than others. That creates a wide variety of responses. There is also variety of views which come from just being individuals in different locations. Just how you respond for example to IRA being included in the list of negatives might fluctuate with just how Irish your sympathies are.

huckelberry wrote:I am actually wondering how someone could start with my comment and conclude that i must think that only people who think exactly like me worship the same Jesus as me.

Sorry, after countless encounters with online EVs, I've been conditioned to assume certain things, the most universal being the idea that "Mormon Jesus" =/= "Real Jesus".

Or perhaps to review the argument. I think most likely Joseph Smith and associates engaged in a thought experiment seeing polygamy as a special faith commitment. I do not think that means he was following a different Jesus I think it means in the belief he was following himself. In the same way I feel comfortable sure that Phelps views about homosexuals are a product of his own understandings not some special instructions from Jesus.

At to my view it is evident that Jesus calls, invites and gives fundamental instructions but the actual details people believe are there own thoughts. I do not think that is an inferior think instead people doing their own thought is exactly what God wants at least as a step along the learning and growing path. I suspect however that some understandings such as Phelps may not qualify as steps in a growing process but just a dying process.

You sound a lot closer here to a Methodist or Presbyterian than an EV, honestly. Do you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, and if so, do you believe that there is a correct interpretation of it?

Thama, it is not what I think of first when I think EV but I cannot escape knowing of the type to which you refer. But then I am Presbyterian so do not regularly find myself with the type. In becoming Presbyterian I was not required to sign on to the idea of innerrancy. I believe God is real, Jesus is really divine and rose from the dead and that the Spirit of God inspires scripture and uses it with people now. I think inerrent is inaccurate. I do not think it is possible to say there is one true interpretation of scripture. that's sort of an interesting point you made about the implication of inerrancy. I see the words of scripture as being based upon the human limitations of the authors so the words may point to Gods presence and to what God would like use to be aware of. They cannot mark out absolute truth.

My first comment above was a bit of irony about whether or not I am the true EV. I have never received a full defination. I suspect that some people, sure they are the true EV type, would reject me. However I might consider that CS Lewis is still, after some fifty plus years, the favorite EV author. At least that has been reported by the magazine Christianity Today which I am EV enough to subscibe to. I think Mr Lewis was far closer to my way of understanding than the online EV type we both have at read a few posts from.

huckelberry wrote:Thama, it is not what I think of first when I think EV but I cannot escape knowing of the type to which you refer. But then I am Presbyterian so do not regularly find myself with the type. In becoming Presbyterian I was not required to sign on to the idea of innerrancy. I believe God is real, Jesus is really divine and rose from the dead and that the Spirit of God inspires scripture and uses it with people now. I think inerrent is inaccurate. I do not think it is possible to say there is one true interpretation of scripture. that's sort of an interesting point you made about the implication of inerrancy. I see the words of scripture as being based upon the human limitations of the authors so the words may point to Gods presence and to what God would like use to be aware of. They cannot mark out absolute truth.

My first comment above was a bit of irony about whether or not I am the true EV. I have never received a full defination. I suspect that some people, sure they are the true EV type, would reject me. However I might consider that CS Lewis is still, after some fifty plus years, the favorite EV author. At least that has been reported by the magazine Christianity Today which I am EV enough to subscibe to. I think Mr Lewis was far closer to my way of understanding than the online EV type we both have at read a few posts from.

Much of my extended family are Presbyterians (I knew your theology sounded familiar!), and I've never heard of a Presbyterian congregation considering themselves EV before. Neither would I consider Lewis to be an EV... he's Anglican, and you don't get much farther from Evangelicalism than that! The evangelicals I know are generally from either (or a combination of) Baptist or Pentecostal traditions, and are far more cavalier in their ideas than you appear to be.

I'd call you "mainstream Christian" pretty comfortably, although you can label yourself whatever you like in the end.