Question for LDS History Buffs

[msnobody]

Hi, Sara H,
Glad you’re here. You make a very good point. As a whosoever, I long to be united in Christ with Latter-day Saints. Sadly, the one thing [Jesus Christ] that should unite us is the very thing that divides us. President Hinckley, I think, noted the divide, at least I think he did with his “not the same Jesus” comment he once made. I may be remembering out of context, however.

I do however, think there are some members of the LDS church who have trusted in Christ alone.

This is a good place to explore the history of the church (knowledgeable people here), and unlike other discussion boards, posters can speak freely here. Really, this discussion board is like none other that I’ve ever come across. Many here are former LDS, now atheist or agnostic, some with a return to belief in God or a higher power, and Jesus Christ. Probably mostly leaning in the atheist or agnostic arena. There are a few non-LDS Christians here as well. Probably many lurkers.

Glad you’re here, hope you stay.

[dastardly stem]

It's more like someone claiming to be a Sherlock fanatic, reading it and memorizing it, then adding to that the stories written by Fleming about Bond, having his name replaced with Holme's, and seeing that character a continuation of Doyle's Holmes.

Yes, that would be a closer analogy for the specific case of Mormon Jesus. My analogy was just to illustrate the general point that identity is more than a name.

I think the general point remains the essential one, even if a third, Mormon-like reader has both the Sherlock Holmes and the James Bond stories all under the name of Sherlock Holmes, and if furthermore Fleming's novels have been edited to make 007 and other characters refer now and then to Baker Street and Moriarty. Suppose this third reader says that they really love their whole (piratically expanded) Holmes canon, but they consider The Adventure of the Casino Royale to be the classic, definitive Holmes story, while those bizarre early texts with hounds and violins and stuff must have been unreliable editions. They say they're a Holmes fan, but they really just aren't.

This kind of thing really does happen in fan fiction. It happens in professional fiction when new authors write new stories featuring already popular characters after the original authors have died. Heck, it even happens when the original author substantially changes the character. In A Study in Scarlet Holmes is a deliberate Philistine who doesn't know that the Earth orbits the Sun, and doesn't want to know it, because it doesn't affect him. In later novels by Doyle himself, though, Holmes is a cultured polymath who drops quotes from Goethe.

Having the same name isn't enough to make two characters really be the same character.

I'm reminded of the different gospel acocunts. Mark's Jesus, for instance, is markedly differnt than John's. He's different from Matthew's, even though Matthew copied most of Mark word for word into his own account. He's quite different from Luke's as well. I don't know how far we take this labeling and identity thing, really. It sounds funny to me. But religion plays it a little different. One claims to be a follower of some mythic character? Who cares, as i see it. Let them self-identify. Also, let them self-identify on gender.

[Kishkumen]

I like what both msnobody and dastardly stem have said. In this time when people correctly recognize the limitations of tribal affiliations, I hope we could find ways of uniting on points we can agree on as opposed to fighting over the things we do not agree on. I think there is something about living a Christian life that can transcend belonging to a particular organization. At the same time, it is good to be realistic about the fact that people will not agree on all the particulars. Each of the four gospels tells a distinctive story that comes from a unique perspective and is written with a distinctive purpose. I am glad they are all there, but I don’t lean on them equally. Mark and John are more interesting to me than Matthew and Luke.

I also really enjoy aspects of the LDS Standard Works that still contribute to my spiritual views to this day.

At the end of the day, however, texts and organizations are not as powerful as the experience of living a Christian life, I would wager. One can live a Christian life as a Mormon, Catholic, or Baptist. One can lead a rich and meaningful life as a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim, or an atheist. Those who fret over the fact that others see the world differently instead of living with an eye to being decent to others at all times have missed the boat.

[Philo Sofee]

I like what both msnobody and dastardly stem have said. In this time when people correctly recognize the limitations of tribal affiliations, I hope we could find ways of uniting on points we can agree on as opposed to fighting over the things we do not agree on. I think there is something about living a Christian life that can transcend belonging to a particular organization. At the same time, it is good to be realistic about the fact that people will not agree on all the particulars. Each of the four gospels tells a distinctive story that comes from a unique perspective and is written with a distinctive purpose. I am glad they are all there, but I don’t lean on them equally. Mark and John are more interesting to me than Matthew and Luke.

I also really enjoy aspects of the LDS Standard Works that still contribute to my spiritual views to this day.

At the end of the day, however, texts and organizations are not as powerful as the experience of living a Christian life, I would wager. One can live a Christian life as a Mormon, Catholic, or Baptist. One can lead a rich and meaningful life as a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim, or an atheist. Those who fret over the fact that others see the world differently instead of living with an eye to being decent to others at all times have missed the boat.

Well said Kish

[High Spy]

I was hoping a link to this thread and my reply to it would trigger a response from The Spirit, but the Davidic Servant hasn’t yet reacted in any way that has been made known to me.