Talk:Mormonism and Christianity/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).


Contents

[edit] Nature of God

Someone seems to be using this section not just to explain the differences between Mormons and Christians but to write an entire summary of Mormon belief. Could we focus on the differences, please? DJ Clayworth 18:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That someone would be me. Sorry if it's not clear yet, I'm still working on it. But I think it might be more informative to lay out the LDS understanding, then the Trinitarian, then compare and contrast. Does that feel like the wrong approach? We could probably use more on the Trinitiarian perspective if you think that's a good direction to go DJ...I Don't know if you feel up to it yourself, but I certainly don't feel qualified to speak authoritatively in that area. Let me know if you think this is a bad idea (Mpschmitt1 02:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC))

I think that is the wrong approach. We have summaries of LDS theology regarding God elsewhere. I think here we should concentrate on the differences, rather than things they both agree on. DJ Clayworth 18:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you point me to the page for that. There were a lot of doctrinal errors on this page I was trying to correct and I want to make sure the other page is not also a problem. (mpschmitt1 23:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC))

That would be Godhead (Mormonism). The section currently has several paragraphs that say "the main difference beteen Christian and Mormon theology is..." and then describe entirely different aspects - oneness, mortal pre-existence, etc. DJ Clayworth 23:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outreach by Evangalist Richard Mouw

I don't see any refererence to Richard Mouw in this article. His historic visit to Temple Square has caused quite a stir in the Evangelical camps. Here are some exerpts found here:

In what the Deseret News referred to as "stunningly candid" comments, Fuller Theological Seminary president and Beliefnet columnist Richard J. Mouw apologized to Mormons for evangelicals' tendency to distort the truth about Latter-day Saints' beliefs. "Let me state it clearly. We evangelicals have sinned against you," Mouw said. The speech is making the rounds among surprised and generally pleased evangelical and Mormon groups.

I know that I have learned much in this continuing dialogue, and I am now convinced that we evangelicals have often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of the Mormon community. Indeed, let me state it bluntly to the LDS folks here this evening: we have sinned against you. The God of the Scriptures makes it clear that it is a terrible thing to bear false witness against our neighbors, and we have been guilty of that sort of transgression in things we have said about you. We have told you what you believe without making a sincere effort first of all to ask you what you believe.

Indeed, we have even on occasion demonized you, weaving conspiracy theories about what the LDS community is "really" trying to accomplish in the world. And even at our best, we have-and this is true of both of our communities-we have talked past each other, setting forth oversimplified and distorted accounts of what the other group believes.

I also remained convinced that there are very real issues of disagreement between us-and that some of these issues are matters of eternal signficiance. But we can now discuss these topics as friends

I personally take great encouragement from words that Joseph Smith uttered on the occasion of the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in April of 1830: "we know," Joseph said, "that all men must repent and believe on the name of Jesus Christ, and worship the Father in his name, and endure in faith on his name to the end, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God." And then he added: "And we know that justification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true, and we know also that sanctification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true, to all those who love and serve God with all their mights, minds, and strength."

How can we best incorporate this information? Bytebear 21:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the Anti-Mormon article. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 01:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be mentioned in both? Bytebear 03:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that is a great idea. I wasn't implying that it shouldn't be added here; I was merely saying that it was already in wikipedia, but not on this page. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 05:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't think that was your style, so I am glad you clarified. I am trying to think of how to present it. I think a reordering of the content might make things fit better. I will think about it. Bytebear 06:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
This is an awesome idea. I had forgotten about that completely...I think this could go in it's own section or somewhere among the other sections related to Proselyting efforts. Perhaps a section called "Representations of the Church by other groups" and we could take it from Philastus Hurlburt, Eber D. Howe, Walter Martin and other more polemical writers and contrast that with the even handed treatment given by Richard Mouw, and other more fair minded writers. Kind of a "The Church has made some progress with the fairness of how it is represented, but theere is still work to do" statement. Another great example of this is the Library Of Congress Symposium on Joseph Smith. Mormon and non-Mormon scholars spoke at it (including Mr. Mouw) and it was a very fair and even-handed treatment.Mpschmitt1 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC).
That's great. I would like to show that the divide in doctrine still exists, but now that the LDS church is emerging as a world religion, Christians and Mormons are beginning to look at the similarities more than the differences. Of course Mormons have mostly been on the defensive, but both sides have evolved from basic name calling, whether it be "whore of babylon" on one side or "satanic cult" on the other. Bytebear 17:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. The doctrinal differences are important and the discussion of doctrine is essential. I'm LDS, but I like the tone of respectful testimony and analysis that scholars like Mouw on the one side and Millet on the other are beginning to foster and it would be good to explore that, pointing out that avoiding contention has been key to successful witnessing on both sides of the fence. To make sure I'm not sounding too wishy washy though, I want to make it clear that I agree with you on the issue of the doctrinal conversation. The questions raised by the different viewpoints on things as important as the nature of God between Mormons and other Christians are not to be overlooked. These are eternal questions and questions of great import. Given what is at stake, passionate but respectful and Christ-like dialog on the subject is essential. It serves no one for both sides of the conversation to say, "Well that's what you believe about God's nature and this is what I believe and we can both be right, and isn't that wonderful!" I think we can agree that relativism is always problematic. But I very much like the recognition that is beginning to grow in parts of the evangelical community concerning three key points related to LDS studies:
  1. Mormons are not the strange, cultish oddballs they are often portrayed to be by the more sensational anti-mormon literature. Rather they are (speaking generally of course ~ there are always exceptions) honest, upright, God-fearing people who love their families, their neighbors and the Lord and who try with all their heart to serve and follow Christ the best way they know.
  2. Much of anti mormon literature in the past has been too innaccurate, unfair, or incomplete to adequately describe Mormonism and Mr. Mouw is right in his assertion that sensationalized, "demonizing" literature on the subject of the LDS faith does not help anyone.
  3. LDS Scholarship has risen in quality and quantity over the past decade and many of the "old standby" criticisms of the Church have been more than adequately addressed. This, unfortunately, has still not completely staved off the determined critics who still bring many of these issues up in their books, seemingly determined to use out of context and often extra-canonical statements to define the beliefs of the Church, rather than tried and true canonical sources. For an interesting read on many of these issues, I highly recommend Jeff Lindsay's Site on LDS apologetics as well as fairlds.org and shields-research.org Mpschmitt1

[edit] Divine calling of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr.

I added this under the "Differences in doctrines and core beliefs" section because I (and the LDS references I cited) believe this is the most significant difference. I acknowledge that the last sentence "Historic Christianity teaches that Joseph Smith, Jr. was not a Prophet because the doctrines he taught were false." is a oversimplification / overgeneralization, I hope that the historic / Nicene Christians who monitor this page will edit / enhance this statement rather than deleting the entire contribution. 74s181 02:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

To be more NPOV is should be restated as, "because the doctrines he taught they believe to be false". Wikipedia is not an arbitrator of truth, just a reporter of facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs) 03:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] POV Changes

Several changes have been made today by User:theHerget which to me seem POV. Can I get a second opinion, before I revert them? See [[1]] Bytebear 02:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

let me add that I don't think all the edits are POV, but some definitely are, particularly about Mary and God having sex. Bytebear 02:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the changes made by that editor and I agree with your assessment. If the editor in question wants to come to the talk pages and discuss the changes, it would be different. But it is another thing to insert many POV changes without discussing them on the talk page first. The original language did a good job of communicating information while remaining NPOV. janejellyroll 03:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the changes and then saw this discussion. Obviously, I also believed they were pov and/or introduced erroneous statements. If the editor wishes to discuss any specific edits, it would be best if he/she were to discuss it here first. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The charge that Mormons believe that God had Sex with Mary is categorically false, and doesn't belong on any page used for objective research. Jeff Lindsay more than adequately addresses this issue here Mpschmitt1 00:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the cross Section

I merged in this material from what was once a separate article because it seemed relevant to the discussion. However, I am unaware of the position of Latter Day Saint denominations on this issue other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Could someone help? Chiros Sunrider 04:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we please have some real references?

This section could use some real references from mainstream Christainity:

  • ==Divergence of Mormonism from historic Christianity==

Smith stated that, as a fourteen year old boy, God, in a theophany (or "First Vision"), ..... Unsurprisingly, traditional Christian denominations disagreed and attempted to discredit Smith.[1][2]

What we have are two references: Exmormon.org, which has nothing to do with mainstream Christianty and a review from FARMS.byu.edu. Please tell me that there are better references for what mainstream Christianity thinks than a pro Mormon website and an anti-Mormon website. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed a few references from the Bible to "prove" the christian POV, but this doesn't fly as the same scripture is used in LDS teaching (although interpreted differently). We need references to actual cristians and not from scripture. I would say that the D&C can be used cases where mainstream Christianity disagrees with the concepts defined (specifically "nature of God". Bytebear 20:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
This is an unnecessary requirement. No one should be trying to "prove" anything, but only to "verify". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accepted canon section - closed canon vs Nicene Creed

The first line under the Accepted canon section states: "Traditional Christians believe that the canon of scripture is closed, making the Bible the only sacred text for Christians." However, when it comes to a discussion of the nature of God, most non-Mormon Christians seem to consider the Nicene Creed to be a higher authority than the Bible.

I'd like to rework the statement a bit, clarifying this position. It sounds a bit like original research, but I suspect I can come up with some quotes from prominent 'traditional' Christians who use the Nicene creed to rebut any varying interpretation of the nature of God or the relationship between God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost based on scriptural references. Any thoughts? I'd especially like to hear the opinion of a 'traditional' Christian on this.74s181 15:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, it sounds like original research. I've never heard such a thing. Sounds like a life-time Mormon trying to understand traditional Christians, IMHO. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 21:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"...life-time Mormon trying to understand traditional Christians..." Guilty as charged. Or, to be completely honest, trying to better understand the Nicene Christian position so I can help Nicene Christians understand that they have accepted post-Biblical scripture (the Nicene Creed).

Here's a quote that says the Nicene creed was inspired by the Holy Spirit and that it is a litmus test for anyone claiming to be a Christian. According to these folks, if I disagree with the creed then I am not a Christian, even if I can support my non-Nicene position from the Bible (I guess quoting the Bible would be part of "...teaches anything..."). Sounds to me like the creed is considered to be revelation or new scripture that trumps the Bible. http://www.armenianchurchlibrary.com/files/wolves_among_us_frkrikorandyeghiahairabedian.pdf (quote is near the end, page 15 of the PDF) "...we have as the base of our doctrines the Nicene Creed which is the summary of the most fundamental teachings of the Bible... Aristakes... was our Church representative at that great council, which we believe was inspired by the Holy Spirit... Any person or group who teaches anything contrary to the Nicene Creed is not Christian..."

I'll keep looking for a better quote, but I think this one takes it out of the realm of original research, I just have to figure out the best way to phrase this. Thoughts? Have I completely misinterpreted the 'traditional' Christian view of the Nicene creed? I talked to a couple of 'traditional' Christian friends this week, they have never even heard of the Nicene Creed but when I asked them if they thought Mormons were Christians, they said no, gave a definition of the Trinity that sounds just like the creed, and said the definition was fundamental.74s181 06:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Our Christian brothers and sisters interpret the Nicene Creed as a summary of the teachings of the Bible; not a new teaching. Any doctrine that conflicts with this teaching is viewed as heresey.
Taking the position that this 4th century doctrine is requisite for being Christian is a difficult one for many Restorationists to swallow. More to the point, how does a doctrine that is not clear, not mentioned, and at best only alluded to by few scritptures turn into a fundamental doctrine? I think it revolves around the difficulty of the early church fathers coming to grips with Christ being divine and mortal while only having one God. The best they could come up with is the Nicene Creed; it allows for both.
This is an old conflict. The way I have always handled it is focusing on what Christ taught. What was His definition of a Christian or a disciple? Whan that is postulated that is the only definition of a true Christian thta is valid. The definition that is attempted to be bandied about by others is more applicable to determining if an individual is a part of 4th century Christiainity, which LDS and Mormons firmly claim not to belong. Does this help? --Storm Rider (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It does help, and I agree with what you say. I personally prefer the definition given in John 13:34-35:
34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.
However, the Nicene Christians continue to insist that their definition of Christianity is scriptural, many of them not realizing it is based upon the Nicene Creed and successor creeds rather than the Bible. Many have a testimony of Jesus Christ but when it comes to Mormonism they have been taught a false doctrine (the Nicene Creed) all their lives and so they are like the stony ground in Mark 4:15, unable to even consider a more correct doctrine, even when Biblical scripture is given to support it. I hope to get their attention and get them to realize that this doctrine that they consider fundamental is not even scriptural, it is as you said a compromise intended to solve what on the surface appears to be a scriptural contradiction.
My intent is a small edit to the first line under Accepted canon, something like "Although some traditional Christians seem give greater weight to the Nicene and other successor creeds of the Trinity (citation here), most believe that the canon of scripture is closed...", along with more information in the Nature of God section, somewhere in the paragraph that begins "In the majority of the Christian religions extant today, God is considered to be..." I would add a statement something like, "Although most traditional Christians believe that the Trinitarian doctrine is Biblical it is actually based on the doctrinal compromise formulated at the Council of Nicea..." . 74s181 18:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It sounds acceptable, but it will garner a lot of comment. Be sure that you reference as much as possible; Nicea was only one council and there were several that addressed this issue. The purpose of the article is to inform or report information and not to take sides, declare truth, etc. Stay as neutral as possible; quoting recognized, acceptable sources will help you. This can be an excellent addition the article. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
This has been on my mind for a while but I haven't gotten to it so I'm glad the discussion is turning that way. It always strikes me that the term "Historic Christianity" is used a lot by polemics writers to establish supremacy of Contemporary Christian doctrine over LDS doctrine. But a close examination of the actual history of Christianity (after the start of the Apostasy from the second century on), reveals that around the same time the councils like Nicea were deciding the nature of God, there were other doctrines being taught by the same men from those councils that are considered heresy now by "Historic Christianity". If one reads into further centuries one will find clearly heretical doctrines being taught in plain daylight by the most prominent chuch leaders and theologians (melding of church and state; the cult of relics; prayer to saints; transubstantiation; the idea that Christianity could be spread by militaristic conflict, and that those who took up the sword in the Crusades were promised a great reward in heaven; the sale of indulgences; the preference being given in Medieval times to the rich and the powerful, while the poor were actually oppressed by the Church; the inquisition, and all of the torture and atrocity that accompanied it as the Church flexed it's muscle to wipe out the heathen; the persecution that the early reformers like Wycliff, Luther, et al received. All because they were trying to teach principles of religious freedom and access to scripture that all Christians take for granted now (including Mormons); and the list goes on and on. I've been feeling for a while that the term "Historic Christianity" is a bit of an enigma. First of all any serious student of Christian history must conceed that there was a long period of total apostasy. It's the only logical conclusion. We're talking about hundreds of years during which time the Church of Christ was not even remotely similar to the Church and principles Christ established. It was guilty of gross crimes that were surely offensive in the sight of God and directly in conflict with the most basic of Christ's teachings ("Do unto others", "Love thy neighbor", eschewing the riches of the world in favor of lessening the suffering of others, etc) and had lost the prophetic direction that it enjoyed under the apostles. So when someone tells me that Mormonism isn't similar to "Historic Christianity", I can respond, "You're darn tootin' we're not!" What we're really saying here is that Mormonism rejects the conclusions of the Nicene Creed (and others) concerning the nature of God, because they were drawn up by unauthorized men doing their best to describe God without getting the answer from the Source, and that it differs from other contemporary Christian religions in it's teachings on continuing prophecy and an open cannon of scripture (as well as priesthood, and other important elements), but that there are striking similarities between it and the earliest recorded Christian writings. So that's a question I'll leave out there as we explore this further (and I know this isn't an unbiased assessment, but hey this is the discussion panel, we can clean it up for the objective section :-). My main hope is that we could find a better way to describe other Christian churches in the article, since I think Historic Christianity could refer to any number of things, many of which most contemporary Christians would also consider heretical... Mpschmitt1 02:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I agree that I will need more than a single reference. And although I do personally "...take sides..." I agree that the correct thing to do here is to present facts that people may be unaware of and let them draw their own conclusions.

Mpschmitt1, it sounds like you are advocating an overall replacement of the label "historic Christianity" with something else. I'm all for that, I agree with with what you're saying. But we need a foundation to build that argument on. I've been thinking for a long time that the Council of Nicea was the turning point, a place one can point to and say, "Here is the apostasy", but only because it is the oldest, best documented event that resulted in doctrine that is still believed but is clearly in contradiction with the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles as found in the Bible.

I would like to see the label 'traditional Christians' or 'historic Christians' replaced with 'Nicene Christians', but I think the first step towards that is to establish that these Christians are united in their belief in something other than the Bible. I think it is the Nicene Creed, but I'm not a professional historian, so if someone else knows of an earlier event equal to or greater than the Nicene Council in significance then let's go with that.74s181 12:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I was probably one of the first proponents to use the term historic Christianity in this article. At the time we dicussed Traditional and Historic; they both have their short comings and their strengths. However, I do like the term Nicene Christian. It seems to be a more descritive term than the other two. LDS contend there is a differnence between Christianity at the time of Christ and that of the 4th century. Of course, our Catholic brothers and sisters contend there is no difference. The advice is to be bold, but I would like to see some comments from our Protestant and orthodox editors. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
"...our Catholic brothers and sisters contend there is no difference...", LDS also believe there is no difference between the church that Jesus Christ organized and the LDS church. Both of these are POV. The labels "Nicene Christian" and "LDS Christian" are equally neutral, they both represent groups that are subsets of those who self-identify as "Christian". The Nicene Christians might argue that they are the vast majority, well, so are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the vast majority of LDS Christians, but the smaller groups are still represented and considered part of the Latter Day Saint movement, at least on Wikipedia. 74s181 13:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just went in and made a bunch of edits. I like the feel of it now that we're not using the phrase "Historic Christianity". It feels more even handed. But as always feel free to be bold in your corrections Mpschmitt1 00:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I also made some less important edits after that, so maybe the best thing is to just read the whole article through again and you'll see what I changed regarding the Historic vs. Nicene Christianity thing. Mpschmitt1 00:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I just finished making several changes, I found some more 'mainstream' and 'historic' labels and changed them to Nicene. I also made considerable changes to the Accepted Canon section, .74s181 04:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)\
Hi everyone, hope it's not too late to chime in on this subject. As an Orthodox Christian, I certainly accept the label 'Nicene', but would also argue that 'historic' is actually a better term. This is because for most of the last 2,000 years, most of Christianity has historically claimed to affirm the Nicene Creed. To most readers, 'historic' or 'traditional' will be much more informative terms than 'Nicene', which is really meaningful to those familiar with the Nicene Creed AND with which Christians do and do not claim to adhere to it. And Mpschmitt1, it is not self-evident that the entire church was apostate for centuries. While a few things like prayer to saints we still practice (and isn't Joseph Smith supposed to have seen Peter and other saints in some of his visions?), many of the clear abuses were opposed by various saints and martyrs as much as they were affirmed by others. While the church has always been full of sinners, it has also always had the grace of the Holy Spirit working in her, calling her members to further repentance.
And regarding the closed canon, Storm Rider was correct when he said that we traditional Christians regard the Nicene Creed as a summary or explanation of the Bible's teaching (and Jesus' of course), rather than a new scripture. The Bible is the 'highest' or 'most authoritative' part of Church tradition, the Nicene Creed is another important part, and so forth. Looked at in this way, the official teachings of various current Mormon apostles could probably be regarded as part of Mormon tradition now, and worthy of reading and study, without anyone needing to try and add them to the Mormon canon. Wesley 17:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Wesley, it is great to see you editing again; I have missed your input! Orthodoxy claims to be the direct doctrinal offspring of the church founded by Christ. This would be their POV, but it is not factual. LDS claim to be the restoration of that original church founded by Jesus Christ, but lost through an apostasy. That would be their POV, but it also is not factual. When we use the term Historic Christianity we refer to the church formalized by the great councils. It is the history we know today as Christianity. However, it can also be interpreted to be THE church of Jesus Christ. I can understand Mp's concern. A Nicene Christian used as a descriptive does have merits. How do we use the term Christian without implying POV in this article? --Storm Rider (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Side note everyone: If I have offended anyone with anything I've said, please forgive me. I'm not trying to bash anyone elses beliefs here, simply to provide evidence for my own, but I fear I may have crossed that line a bit with previous comments and if I've offended at all, I'm sorry... Goodness knows I don't like it when I feel like people are attacking what I believe...and Wesley you are correct to call me on what you did...I do acknowledge that there have been good God-fearing people throughout the History of Christianity (your namesake not excepted) and I wasn't implying that is not the case, but if you look at the Church as an institution (especially from around 300 to around 1500 when Erasmus et al ushered in the era of New Learning) it seems very apparent that the Church (speaking collectively and not individually) as an authoritative organization had lost it's bearings. Else what was the need for Martin Luther and his fellow reformers to do what they did? Something huge happened in the Reformation that could not have happened in earlier centuries because there would have been a lot more "heretics" burned I think... What are your thoughts there? Mpschmitt1 23:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a new section to continue the "Nicene" labeling discussion... 74s181 13:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Mpschmittl, since you asked, I'll briefly offer another perspective on that stretch of church history. I believe the Church as an institution maintained its authority and grace throughout that period, though not without difficulty. For instance, John Chrysostom was bishop of Constantinople at the Second Ecumenical Council in 381 that affirmed and extended the Nicene Creed; not long afterwards he died during a forced march to his second exile, because his homilies criticized the excesses of the royal court. He was no imperial puppet despite being a "Nicene Christian." The Fifth Ecumenical Council was convened by the emperor of the time in hopes that a compromise would be found that would heal the division that resulted from the Fourth; instead it had the result of that division being made permanent. Iconoclasm was initiated by an emperor, affirmed by a council he called, but resisted by the people (especially monks) and eventually refuted by another council that today is recognized as the authoritative Seventh Ecumenical Council. These are not isolated examples. Sometimes the emperors agreed with the church, sometimes they didn't, but the church as a whole continued to defend and proclaim the faith. It's also worth noting the evangelization of the Slavs by Cyril and Methodius, who undertook to translate the Bible and various prayer books into their native language in the 800's, in contrast to the Roman general policy of doing everything in Latin only.
The Great Schism was at least partly because the Roman bishop wished to assert his authority to determine doctrine on his own, over and above any other bishop or council of bishops. The others insisted on the authority of the councils, and so they divided. The Protestant Reformation failed to correct this error, and instead took it further: with sola scriptura, every layman was free to interpret the Bible for himself, effectively making everyone their own Pope, allowing for the further propagation of all kinds of errors, and leading to the further schism into over 30,000 denominations we have today. This is part of why I think the most reasonable and likely hope for Church unity is a return to the Orthodox Church. (See also the closing section of the Great Apostasy article.) Incidentally, I offer this not in attempt to persuade or convert anyone, but just to illustrate that there's more than one way to reasonably look at the history of the church. Wesley 14:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wesley, I'd recommend Paul Johnson's A History of Christianity if you haven't read it yet. I think he does a tremendous job of laying out the history of Christianity from Paul to the modern era in a way I haven't really seen anywhere else. He makes a very good case there for what I'm saying, though I think I see your perspective as well. The one thing I have a hard time with though is that 1200 or so year period where I think the Authority of the church was universally destroying rather than defending anything remotely resembling the simple truth of the Gospel. I can see God's hand in the lives of people like St. Francis of Asisi, Martin Luther, etc. but I see more of man than the divine in the way the Church carried itself officially and drifted into a certain brand of imperialism. Especially in the way they persecuted the reformers who were doing many things that are just common sense like putting the Word of God in the hands of the people. That's the part I have a hard time with. To be sure though, there have always been people from Paul to today who found the straight and narrow path and walked it circumspectly, despite the fact that their leaders were not doing so. And in that sense, I agree with you that the Church lived on in the hearts of the people to a certain degree. But from a divine authority perspective, the official Church leadership demonstrated in those centuries couldn't hold a candle to the prophetic and revelatory direction given by the early Apostles. Without that thread of divine correction, we can see that docrines like the cult of the relics and the sale of indulgences began to be far more commonplace than they should ever have become in the Church of Christ. Mpschmitt1 03:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In return, I'd like to recommend The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware. Many in the West assume that the history of the Roman Catholic Church is identical to the history of the Church; while there is considerable overlap, there are considerable differences. For instance, the Orthodox Church has never (to my knowledge) endorsed the sale of indulgences; they don't even have a doctrine of Purgatory. And they have generally endeavored to translate the Bible into people's native languages. I would also encourage you to read some of the ante-nicene fathers at http://ccel.org (and elsewhere of course: I personally like the collection in The Apostolic Fathers). In The Martyrdom of Polycarp for instance, it mentions that Christians were eager to gather his bones following his death, suggesting that the veneration of relics had already begun in the second century. Nothing like reading the original source material. The accounts of the saints includes many stories miracles, healings, people literally glowing during prayer (which was the focus of the Hesychast debate in the 1300s), and angelic visitations. If stories of such divine supernatural occurrences are the measure of God's presence, the Church has had these over the course of centuries as well, among laity, monks, and yes, even bishops. I won't attempt to defend every practice of the Roman Catholic Church, nor condemn them out of hand. But I would encourage you to look beyond it at both the Orthodox Church, and to take a closer look at what the earliest Christians wrote and practiced. Of course you'll find the Orthodox Church has had her share of faults as well, but at least criticize her for her own faults and not someone else's. Wesley 17:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. I'll check that book out...Thanks. And thanks for the distinction on the Orthodox Church. Mr. Johnson's book is very much coloured with a Catholic perspective as he is himself a Catholic, but he does a very good job of objectively presenting the information in most cases. By the way, ccel.org is another favorite of mine too :-). Since you mentioned early Christian writings I'd also recommend Barry Bickmore's online bookRestoring the Ancient Church: Joseph Smith and Early Christianity. It is definitely written from a pro-Mormon viewpoint and they could use a better editor in places, but there's a lot of neat source material referenced there that demonstrates similarities between Mormonism and early Christianity. Mpschmitt1 02:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accepted Canon -- Versions of the Bible?

Hello, all. This is my first post, so please be gentle. I find this article to be refreshingly NPOV. Although I am a devout Protestant, I have seen too many needlessly controversial treatments of Mormon/Protestant theological differences. That being said, I do have a question about the implication that most Protestant denominations have a set "infallible" version of the Bible. While certainly our Roman Catholic friends have their translations (the Jerusalem and New American Bible come to mind), and while certain denominations tend to stress the King James, I believe that the majority of denominations at least tacitly allow or even encourage their respective members to choose their own translation -- or translations. I'm not sure exactly how to reword the section, and it really isn't, in my book, a major question, but I'm not sure that one could find a citation to readily cover the wording as it stands currently. Thanks for your patience. BrotherSun 12:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcome! I've been hoping for a good Protestant to come along and comment on the most recent revisions to this page. In regards to your question, I think the sentence you have questions about is:
"Some Protestants consider their Bible the only infallible authority, a doctrine called Sola scriptura, though different Protestant faiths consider different versions of the Bible to be the "infallible" one."
This statement has been pretty stable for the last couple of months, the last part of the sentence was added sometime in early / mid December. Since this statement isn't currently cited I don't think there is no reason why you couldn't rework it a bit if you believe it is incorrect.
BTW, we recently made a global change to terminology and since you're here, I'd like to get your opinion (as a good Protestant) on the label 'Nicene Christian'. Previously the labels 'mainstream Christian', 'traditional Christian', 'historic Christian' have been used, and those of us who belong to churches in the LDS movement have felt that these terms are mildly POV. We feel that we belong in the greater Christian 'tent' along with everyone else who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Who gave His life as a sacrifice for all mankind. It seems to me that most non-LDS Christian churches are united in wanting to keep us out of the tent, and the thing that seems to unite them is acceptance of the definition of the relationship between God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ codified in the Nicene and successor creeds. Thus the label, 'Nicene Christians'. So, what do you think?

Thank you for the info. I had noticed with interest the use of the term "Nicene Christianity", and I do agree that it is a step in the right direction for fruitful discussions not only with members of the LDS Church but also with members of the churches whose common ancestry is in the Restorationist movement of the early 1800's.

I can understand how the terms "historic", "traditional" and "mainstream" can seem POV to some people; however, I do see some minor issues with the term "Nicene". While many -- perhaps most -- Protestants would agree in substance with the doctrinal statements of the Nicene Creed (or the Apostles' Creed, for that matter), there are some denominations which would object to being classified as "Nicene" in any form. The Baptist and some Pentecostals come to mind, as these Christians do not normally accept any human creed above the Bible.

However, on the whole, I do think that the term "Nicene Christianity", when used to refer to the church of the early centuries, is for the most part acceptable.

BTW, my own Protestant beliefs are of a moderate Anglican theological background, but I was raised Baptist so I tend to be a touch more sola Scriptura than most Anglicans. BrotherSun 17:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added a new section to continue the "Nicene" labeling discussion... 74s181 13:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV QUESTION

I reverted a couple of edits to the opening section because I felt the parts taken out were important, although I agree with the changes to the opening paragraph so I left those in. On the NPOV issue. It seems to me that people only call the NPOV card on this page when Mormonism is presented as anything less than a strange heretical cult. Just for the record we have tried to keep this page as objective as possible, but we are not perfect. The fact that we disallow sensational and untrue statements about the Mormons in favor of accurate depictions of Mormon beliefs is not a reason to question the neutrality of this article. Neither is the fact that we refrence well researched historical facts when pointing out that LDS theology and practice bear some similarity to first century Christianity. If you do have a good reason for calling the neutrality of the article into question, please post something on the discussion page so we know why you have questioned the neutrality and we can discuss it. You may just persuade everyone that your point of view is reasonable and that we were, in fact, not being neutral in a particular section or sections. I'm removing the NPOV for now, but please feel free to make your case here and we can discuss it.... Mpschmitt1 18:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

"It seems to me that people only call the NPOV card on this page when Mormonism is presented as anything less than a strange heretical cult." Thats an interesting interpretation, but it should be pointed out that there are some very basic concepts in Mormonism which, according to mainstream Christianity, do indeed make it a "strange heretical cult." That indeed is the point of the article - to address what particular claims are divergent from Christianity. In that respect, its necessary just to get right to the main beliefs which the two partisan parties have about the other which they think are "strange heretical and cultish" - preferably in order from greatest to least.
The reference to the "Nicene Creed" while compact is not as clear as simply referring to Protestantism and Catholicism - ie the Christian context where Mormonism arose from and contends with. Not making this clear makes it appear as though the vast majority of Christiainty is somehow not represented. When you say "we have tried" - who is "we"? Your criticism in general appears to be concerned with matters of tone - which by avoiding we run the risk of adding (tone) which supports the proponent view. Thats not a basis for making an edit, IMHO. Yes, I should have commented when I added the tag. -Ste|vertigo 08:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Strange to whom? The problem is the label 'Mainstream Christianity'. The implication of this label is that there is a 'normal' Christianity that Mormonism is outside of. And what is that so-called 'normal' Christianity? At the core it is the acceptance of the the Ecumenical councils, not the Bible, as the final authority on Christian belief. Since the Nicene council was the first such council it makes sense to use that label, it is more neutral than 'mainstream' or 'historic'.
'Mainstream' is wrong because although currently a small part of the greater Christian community, the LDS movement generally and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in particular is the fastest growing Christian group in the world.
'Historic' and 'Apostolic' are wrong because the core doctrines of Nicene Christianity are not in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles as recorded in the Bible and documented pre-Nicene Christian belief and practice.
'Nicene' is correct because it includes the churches that most people mean to include when they say 'mainstream' or 'historic' or 'Apostolic', and excludes the churches most people mean to exclude when they use these labels.
Most Nicene Christians are so steeped in the creedal traditions that they are unable to even consider alternative doctrines, even when they are supported by the Bible. Some Christians that I know have never even heard of the Nicene creed, yet state its contents as the authoritative definition of the Godhead. So, if you can come up with a better label than 'Nicene' let's hear it, but for now, I think this is the most correct, most neutral label.74s181 14:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
"Historic", "Mainstream", "Ecumenical", "Trinitarian", "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Nicene", "traditional", "Majority", "prevailing", "dominant", "creedal" are all readily recognizable terms outside of Mormonism, for indicating the same thing. While they are not favorable to the Mormon claim, they are "normal" terminology. When these terms are not used in their normal sense, this is "wrong"; however, it may arguably be more neutral, and therefore more correct for Wikipedia, to use them carefully and with qualifications for the sake of the issues in debate within the article itself, which arise uniquely from the LDS perspective. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I've added a new section to continue the "Nicene" labeling discussion... 74s181 13:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that Stevertigo has made several edits resulting in wholesale deletion of content. While I think we all agree that the article needs triming, Stevertigo's edits appear at first glance to be somewhat one sided, mostly removing criticism of Nicene Christianity along with removing support of the Mormonisim position.

Wrp103 did a partial reversion, just as I was trying to figure out what to do. I still think we have lost some content but don't have time to figure it out right now.74s181 15:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Equip.org. I should add that it's not LDS.org either. I'm not trying to turn this into a surreptitious Pro-Mormon web page, but I am trying to keep the non-factual, sensational stuff that belittles Mormon belief out of it. I am also seeking to provide evidence (as such evidence exists) of certain links between modern LDS practice and Early Christianity because it's germane to the subject, and because it's well documented. I've replaced the last paragraph of the introduction again. I'm not sure why it keeps getting removed, but could somebody explain what their objection is to it before they do it again? If I can change it so it's more objective, I'd be happy to, but I think the reference to Barry Bickmore's book is _very_ important to this discussion since it presents a lot of factual information about links between LDS practice and belief and that of early Christians. I feel that the statement about the Nicene Creed is a statement of fact. Latter-Day Saints do not accept it as doctrinally binding. Is there a way I can state that more neutrally, because I think that is the one of the biggest differences between Mormon beliefs and other Christian denominations. I would prefer this page not to become a tennis match between the polemecists and apologists on either side of the debate. I want people to present evidences that support their statements and let the evidence speak for itself. If some Christian historical evidence supports the Latter-Day Saint perspective and doctrine, that's fine. If it doesn't, that's fine too, but lets try to stay factual and objective. The 'We' in my statements above refers to everyone who contributes to this page, Mormon and Non-Mormon alike who does not have a problem with being respectful of other people's work. Some of the edits that have been made at times remove very relevant content to the purpose of this page, so if I put some back in, I'll always explain why I feel they should not have been removed. If you disagree with things I put back, just let me know and we can hash it out...(and feel free to remove it again, but please let me know the reason as well :-) To me Mormonism is Christianity, which is in my opinion an equally valid perspective, whether or not the polemecists happen to agree with me. The entire point of showing where Mormonism is divergent from Christianity is a bit muddled in my opinion for this reason. The point of the changes I'm trying to put into this article is to demonstrate that "Historic Christianity" in many ways either favors Mormon teaching over that of other branches of Contemporary Christianity or it refutes it, depending on which portion of the over 2000 year history of Christianity your are talking about. The idea that you can demonstrate Mormonism to be a "strange and heretical cult" on the basis of the historical record alone is nonsense and is very akin to the bunk that CRI and other organizations like them present to the Christian world as objective research. I disagree with the statement "That indeed is the point of the article - to address what particular claims are divergent from Christianity." I would prefer a compare and contrast approach rather than focusing only on differences, as there are important similarities. Focusing only on differences tends to lead to a tone that borders on polemical.Mpschmitt1 21:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The fundamental problem with this article is, always has been, and always will be, its tendency toward trying to interest only Mormons and investigators of Mormonism. Non-Mormons (other than "anti-cult" organizations) don't define themselves by contrast to Mormonism: but the reverse contrast is inherent to the Mormon religion, with regard to catholic Christianity. I hope that the Mormon editors can see that, they are not going to be the ones who are most likely to notice the drift away from neutrality that has taken place. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the fundamental problem is actually that we have two groups with very conflicting standpoints and agendas trying to meet in the middle. Certainly all Mormons who contribute to this page are doing so because they believe there is something good and worth defending in their religion. But it is just as certain of those who contribute to this page who hold the view that Evangelical Protestantism is the true way to follow Christ (or Catholicism or any number of other Christian perspectives for that matter). When you write from one perspective or another, you are going to present and be drawn to sources that support your case. Ultimate Neutrality has always been nigh impossible in history and religion. Some of the trouble in the LDS/Nicene Christian debate comes from the fact that both sides believe quite firmly that they have divine sanction for their beliefs and that the other side would be much happier if they could just accept that fact. The trouble with this page though, is that it should be a portal for information as much as possible and the conclusions should be drawn by the reader. Will I attempt to paint the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the best light possible? Yes. Why? Because I firmly believe it to be the most amazing, beautiful and divinely inspired organization I have ever encountered in my life and because I have a testimony (which I beleive was given me by the Holy Ghost) of it's truthfullness and divine comission. Given that, it would be rank dishonesty and disloyalty to God for me to not seek to present it well. But it would also be contrary to the will and character of God to be dishonest about what I represent or to coat things over. I think my brothers and sisters who take the opposing viewpoint feel just as strongly about their convictions, and I would expect them to make their case just as fervently on this discussion page. The point is though, that what ends up in the article must represent that meeting point. It must represent the facts, not hearsay. It must present things as neutrally as possible, not as sensationally as possible. The objective of this article is not to steer people away from those dangerous Mormons. Nor is it to steer people away from those crazy Evangelicals..,It is to present the facts. I've found a disturbing pattern in many of the books I've read by concerned Christians of other denominations about the Latter-Day Saints:
  1. They often use non-canonical sources of alleged Mormon teachings, misinterpret (either intentionally or no) what was being said, and then condemn Mormons for believing something they don't believe.
  2. They are often written in an ominous tone and focus only on the negatives. Nothing is ever said about the tremendous good Mormons do for eachother, their communities and the world at large.
  3. They blithely ignore the glaring similarities, focusing often on fringe doctrines as they point out differences, while ignoring the obvious great love Mormons have for their Savior Jesus Christ and great gratitude they have for the Atonement. This is particularly bad because this could be a very good common stone for Evangelicals wishing to witness to Mormons to stand on as they bridge that divide.
  4. Because the Authors are not themselves Latter-Day Saints (or because they are Ex-Mormons with a chip on their shoulders), the full picture of what life as a Mormon is like is never really presented and readers get a skewed (usually to the negative) perspective of the reality of being Mormon. I feel so blessed in my life. I see countless blessings in the lives of so many of my fellow Latter-Day Saints. I see God's hand in their families and in their Churches. You don't get that view when you're only setting out to tear down what you don't fully understand.

I don't want this page to turn into any of those things. That is, in my opinion, the fundamental concern for all of us. As long as the truth is told, I'm happy. But it must be the whole truth, and unfortunately for some, that means that we might say some positive things about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the process, because there is much good in that Church and much good in it's people. I know it doesn't fit into a neat and tidy box you can label "heretical cult" and throw away, but I think that was intentional :-)Mpschmitt1 02:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There are good places for this apologetical task (for that is what it is). Wikipedia is not one of them. I would not be perceived as being civil, if I were to even begin to express my sorrow over this organization, or give even the most general idea of my feelings about its founder. Wikipedia is not a good place for that, either. As hard as it is, leave agendas, sentiments and other baggage aside. Just because it's hard doesn't mean that it should be so carelessly abandoned, as the newer sections of the article blatantly did. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **
There are some decent, and well-reviewed scholarly sources for pointing out the contrasts and similarities between "Mormonism and Christianity". We should use those, rather than the rhetoric laden "sources" that dominate the references section of this article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Just one request Mark.... before you remove any sources I have cited in the article please give them a read through. Much of what I have put in there, while it may come from Mormon apologetic sites, is very factual and matter-of-fact in it's reporting. I've tried to avoid things that are overly patriotic. Much of what have put in focuses on the historical facts surrounding similarities between LDS Beliefs and the earliest beliefs of Christianity, which is essential to the case this site is seeking to make. Jeff Lindsay, Barry Bickmore, and others, while obviously Mormonon apologists do a very good job of making their case with relevant source material. I wouldn't object to a link to an article by a Baptist or member of some other Christian denomination (even if it reflected negatively on the LDS Church), as long as it was well sourced and referenced...I think that whatever sources we pull from are going to be written by someone with a preference to one side or the other. The important question is are they capable of remaining objective and factual. (removed my email. Let me know if you still need it)Mpschmitt1 13:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Mpschmitt1 - It's obvious from your use of these references that you believe them to be "excellent". But rather than roll my eyes at that and deleting these "sources", I simply want it to be acknowledged that what the reader will find when visiting these sites is an undisguised LDS point of view. It is dictated by the topic that we will document beliefs, after all - it would be much better, however, to point to something more stable, credible and authoritative than a personal website. And, from now on, I want to see a better job done of documenting the facts, as distinct from verifying beliefs, and a bit of common sense about knowing the difference. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you are right there Mark. Perhaps if we repackaged the historical stuff and separated it from the LDS favoring conclusions it would be better. Still though (you can't possibly have read the entire thing yet), I would recommend you read it through. There is a lot of "excellent" (I'd leave off the quotes myself, but to be cordial, I left them in. Don't roll your eyes at me, young man! :-) stuff in the Barry Bickmore book that cuts right to the heart of the debate over whether Mormonism has any similarities to "Historic Christianity" and what the term historic Christianity actually means. I think that's germane to the page topic, and hopefully we can find a way to include some of it in a more camp-neutral way later on. As I say below though, kudos to you and and Vassyana for cleaning up the intro in a neutral and respectful way that both sides can feel good about. Mpschmitt1 02:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
And, one more note while we're still talking about things in personal terms. Evangelical and other Christians have repeatedly and brutally hurt themselves and their task, by answering the spectacular slanders of Mormonism with monstrous slanders of their own. They have sinned against themselves, and against God by preferring slanders over facts, with regard to the Mormons, and have failed because of this to answer their proper calling. May God forgive us. Meanwhile, may we get back to writing an Encyclopedia article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mpschmitt, you certainly hit the nail on the head with your last comment (re: two groups and two agendas). Information of an encylopedic nature should be verifiable, not just opinion -- no matter how it's intended.

However, I would also say that many of the points you mention are used not only against Mormons/LDS believers, but also against other members of the various Christian communities by their fellow travelers. The phrase in the introduction:

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints consider the Nicene Creed (written in the 4th Century) to be a later, spurious "doctrine of men."

has also been applied by non-Nicene Restorationist Christians to Nicene Christians repeated times, and at times by those who are as opposed to LDS beliefs as they are to Nicene beliefs.

I suppose that the only thing we can do is to take Mark's advice and get back to editing an encyclopedia article, rather than a religious tract.BrotherSun 10:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro in need of attention

1. What does "theologically tenuous" mean? Why not just "tenuous"?
2. Why are "proselytization methods" methods mentioned as part of the divergence? They don't seem much differant than many other Christians, in my experiences with various missionaries.
3. 1st and 2nd paragraphs completely unsourced.
4. 3rd paragraph only references a claim of the LDS and the rest has no citations.
5. "almost all other Christian denominations are united in reciprocally considering Mormonism to be a heretical form of Christianity, or more pejoratively, a cult." Borders, if not crosses the line of POV.
6. "Some Latter Day Saint denominations, such as the Community of Christ, have attempted ecumencial dialogue with other branches of Christianity regarding their theology. Conversely, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the most populous branch of the LDS movement, though cordial to and respectful of those of other Christian faiths, has remained resolute in its docrine and practices, affirming them to be divinely inspired of God and received by prophetic revelation." Provides a false impression of the CoC, who continue to believe in the Book of Mormon and continuing revelation.
This whole article needs some serious attention, but I thought I would start by trying to work to revise the introduction. What do people think of my objections? How do others view the introduction? Vassyana 00:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

2. One thing I hear a lot is "stealing" sheep from other folds, meaning proselytizing within the Christian community or to folks who already believe in Jesus. There is a lot of irony there that I just won't go into. Bytebear 00:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
As I said, it's not really any differant from any other missionary experience I have had. Nearly all of them feel compelled to explain how they are right, pushing their own particular brand of Christianity. Very rarely do missionaries accept that you've accepted Jesus and move on. Vassyana 03:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Im ignoring the section above, because some of it seems to be based in a claim that Ive deleted "critical material" - something which I havent done. I have done work on the lede, so here are responses to the above points.
1. theologically tenuous means that the differences between are largely theological (as opposed to political, scientific, philosophical, or personal). Tenuous is in the dictionary.
3. We dont source every statement, as its often too easy to lay the "unsourced" criticism as a tactic rather than a means to improve the article - Note that the previous version wasnt "sourced" either - it doesnt matter as long as the intro is succinct and fairly with the particular points.
Other points were not my work, so Ill respond inline above -Ste|vertigo 00:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Not if it explains the position of most Christians accurately. -SV
6. What do you mean by "false impression?" -SV
1. It's a cumbersome phrase and while the parts are technically correct, the intended meaning is not clear to a reader. I've edited this for clarity.
3. While we do not need to source each and every statement, when multiple paragraphs have few to no citations, it is problematic.
5. I'd dispute that it does. Please provide a citation proving this if you wish to see this remain in the article. Regardless, using the pejorative certainly is POV and hardly the majority view.
6. The contrast of the mainstream LDS against the CoC makes it appear that the CoC has not "remained resolute in its docrine[sic] and practices, affirming them to be divinely inspired of God and received by prophetic revelation". On the contrary, they still uphold the Book of Mormon, have their own Doctrine and Covenants and still retain a President-Prophet with a belief in continuing revelation. Vassyana 03:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to render many of these objections moot. Please review and comment. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a great deal of redundancy in the intro. If we added "continuing revelation" to the list of divergence in the first paragraph then everything other than the first paragraph of the intro could be removed, as it is already mentioned in the first paragraph and then covered in greater detail in the body of the article. 74s181 13:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It exaggerates to say that it's "a great deal of redundancy", but removing the two paragraphs (3 and 4) which serve no summary function, but only broadcast the conclusion, would make sense. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Or, condense them, a little more. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I chopped it down a bit more. See "Being Bold" below. Vassyana 19:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historic, Mainstream, Nicene, etc., what is the best label?

There has been some discussion about this in other sections, I thought it made sense to dedicate a section to it. I don't know if it is appropriate to move material from those other discussions here or not, for now I'll reference that material, if someone with more wiki-experience thinks it is ok to move the material here, please do so.

Please see material in the following sections for background on this discussion:

Accepted canon section - closed canon vs Nicene Creed
Accepted Canon -- Versions of the Bible?
NPOV QUESTION

A list of possible labels was given, I'll repeat that list here.

"Historic", "Mainstream", "Ecumenical", "Trinitarian", "Catholic", "Orthodox", "Nicene", "traditional", "Majority", "prevailing", "dominant", "creedal" are all readily recognizable terms outside of Mormonism, for indicating the same thing.

"Historic", "Mainstream", "Traditional" are labels that have been used previously to group Christian churches that accept the doctrines of the Nicene and later ecumenical councils. I and some others believed that these labels were slightly POV for various reasons, so after a brief discussion they were all replaced with 'Nicene', as in 'Nicene Christians', 'Nicene Christianity', etc.

Some non-LDS Christians have voiced support for this, others have objected. So let's discuss it some more.

Personally, I could live with "Ecumenical" or "creedal". But:

"Ecumenical" might be a problem because I think some of the non-LDS restorationist churches participate in ecumenical organizations.
"Creedal" might be a problem because some Protestant faiths specifically reject creeds.
"Trinitarian" is a problem because LDS believe in a Trinity, we just define it differently, i.e, three individual beings, one in purpose.

I still think "Nicene" is the best choice. Although some Protestant churches officially reject the creeds, they still seem to accept the creedal definition of God as authoritative, resisting any appeal to the Bible for an alternate definition.

So, what do you think? 74s181 13:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think 'ecumenical' is likely the worst of these, because of the way that word is used today in the 'ecumenical movement' -- like denominational pluralism. A lot of "Nicene" or historic churches do not participate in ecumenical movements or organizations, especially those that practice closed communion. Another problem with "Nicene" is that many Protestant groups do have a creed, but choose instead the Apostle's Creed or their very own "Statement of Faith" or similar creed. I still maintain that "historic" or "traditional" are better terms because they encompass the visible expression of Christianity, as determined by historical records, over the course of 2,000 years or so; and because 'historic' in particular is a term that any reader can understand, without needing a degree in theology or needing to take time to review a year's worth of Talk pages to understand what is meant by it. I think most readers will understand that just because something is "historical" doesn't mean it's "right." There's still room to debate and disagree about things like the Great Apostasy, later revelations, etc. Wesley 17:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the offense mentioned by 74 is that so many Christian churches think Mormons belong to a cult; a term designed to belittle and condemn. In using more exact terminology it is hoped to underscore the fact that Mormons are striving to be acknowledged for being Christian based upon their interpretation of the Bible.
Christianity has developed a definition that to be recognized as Christian one must accept the Nicene Creed and its equivalents as truth. Mormons reject this position because it is a contrivance of man i.e. Jesus never said if you follow me you must believe this. This requirement of faith is a 4th century development.
I am still on the fence. I am comfortable with the term Historic Christianity because it acknowledge the wonderful history. Given that I believe in the apostacy, I also acknowledge that is though it is a history of incredible, profound demonstrations of faith, it is a history without the authority (or priesthood) to act in God's name. The mere fact that I believe in an apostacy makes history an acceptable term. On the other hand, for readers who are not Christian the nuance of the term could easily be lost and historical becomes the equivalent of truth. However, for this same reader, would the term Nicene Christian be understood? Regardless of what is choosen, a clear statement of definitions should be included in the article. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Nicene Christianity works fine. It is wikilinked to prevent any confusion. However, traditional Christianity would be an acceptable substitute. "Ecumenical" is definately problematic, both for the reason cited above and the fact many Nicene/traditional churches are not part of, or explicitly reject, ecumenicism. Vassyana 18:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
My list could have been much longer, and it should be. My point like Wesley's is that, Wikipedia shouldn't have to be so incredibly nervous about using words in their normal sense, simply because that is perceived as prejudicial. The appropriate terms should be used in their appropriate contexts. Sometimes "historical" is appropriate, especially in contrast to Mormon beliefs that the developments of history, or the surviving historical record, are corruptions. "Traditional" is appropriate, when speaking of ancient practices that are generally acknowledged as having been received from generations for general observance, in contrast is to practices that the Mormons say were not retained. "Ancient" is the right word, in contrast to notions that are without dispute completely new. "Biblical" is appropriate, in contrast to doctrines only possible by benefit of the Book of Mormon. "Orthodox" is correct, especially if intending reference to practices in the churches that the whole world calls Orthodox, many of whose practices and beliefs are retained in other churches who share their history (unlike Mormonism). "Catholic" is right, for the same kind of use. "Ecumenical" is a proper word, when speaking of things that the Christian world believes in common, from which Mormonism and other splinter sects dissent. And so on.
There is no "best label" in general. We would be imposing our own weird agenda on the material, if we try to pick one - that's called "Original Research" here (a weak term for "making up your own ____ "). These things should be common sense. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree. Vassyana 18:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. In that case, the only thing to do is to use the common metasyntactic variable here - namely "mainstream", and (of course) define its meaning in the context of this article. Not rocket science. -Ste|vertigo 07:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Another option - "post-Nicene Christianity". This is accurate and I don't think it is offensive to those who don't use the Nicene creed but believe in the same 'three-in-one' Trinity. It is perhaps a bit clumsy, and by itself wouldn't be understood by non-historians or people who haven't read the talk page, but with a single statement of explanation at the begining of the article I think it would work. See my comment under the 'Being bold' section.

I think this term is both very offensive and POV in that it assumes there's a big difference between 'pre-Nicene' and 'post-Nicene' Christianity, which is a very biased and prejudicial assumption. It's also somewhat ambiguous: does it mean post-Nicene Council (the first or second Nicene council?), post-adoption of the Nicene Creed, or post-rejection of the Nicene Creed? Compare it with words like post-modernism and post-Christian. Wesley 17:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to summarize the discussion and make a change.

The problem is, we need a label that:

Both LDS and non-LDS can agree upon
Doesn't require a lengthy explanation
Isn't confusing to those who are not scholars or haven't read the talk page.
Catholic could be misinterpreted by many as referring to the Roman Catholic Church.
Creedal is offensive to some because some churches who teach that Mormons are not Christians explicitly reject "creedalism".
Dominant is not too bad, but still a problem because although LDS are still a small minority, they are growing much more quickly than other Christian faiths, and if the trend of the last 150 years continues they will be the majority Christian church in 50 years or so.
Ecumenical is is offensive to some because some churches who teach that Mormons are not Christians aren't part of the Ecumenical council.
Historic has been supported by some LDS editors, I don't like it because I think it implies that Christianity today is the same as it has always been, LDS say it is not, this is the discussion.
Mainstream has same problems as Dominant and also carries an implication of correctness.
Majority has same problems as Dominant.
Nicene is obscure because although most believe in a Nicene Trinity, they don't recognize the term.
Orthodox could be misinterpreted to refer to the Greek or Russian Orthodox Churches, also because it implies that current Christianity is the same as original Christianity, the LDS say it is not, this is the discussion.
Post-Nicene is offensive to some because it implies that Christianity changed.
Prevailing has similar problems as Dominant.
Traditional is currently my favorite. It does carry an implication of correctness but I think most will recognize that even though many people may believe a particular tradition, we all know that some traditions are false.
Trinitarian is misleading because LDS also believe in a trinity, they just definine it differently and that is the crux of the biscuit.

So I'm leaning towards traditional, if no one objects I will do a global edit / replace as soon as I have time for editing. 74s181 15:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should leave it as mainstream. The mainstream Christianity article makes it clear it is a relativistic term. "Traditional" is highly problematic, as it usually refers to "traditionalists" such as the Catholics and Orthodox, or to "traditionalists" such as fundamentalists and conservative Christians. No matter which term we use, there will be some "implied content" to the reader. I strongly believe mainstream is the best of available options, and it has held as a stable edit. Vassyana 15:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Being Bold

I cut down the intro, rewrote some parts and added a couple references. How does it sit with people in its current state? Comments or criticisms to my edit? Vassyana 19:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I fiddled with it a little. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Good fine tuning! Vassyana 05:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that. Nice and neutral. A little bummed the Barry Bickmore reference got lost, but it really doesn't fit in the intro, so I think you're right to have removed it after all. Perhaps someday we can add a section on similarities between LDS beliefs and early Christianity and use some of that material. Good job you guys! :-) Mpschmitt1 02:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! As long as people are OK with the edits I'm making, I'm a happy camper. Reasonable consensus is key. We can always use the discarded material to flesh out other parts of the article at a later point by referencing the history. I'm going to try and focus on fine-tuning and trimming the existing article. But, if you want to give a crack at adding other relevent sections, I've no objection and would likely pitch in on such an effort at a later point. Vassyana 05:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Note that "Nicene Christianity" as we are using it, does not match the definition as given in the actual article. Some good edits, but not describing the dwarfing difference in sheer size between Mainstream Christianity (why not clarify the term here) and Mormonism I think is a little bit of the Napoleon complex showing up in our editing. Sorry, but part of defining the scope means dealing with the fact that one is bigger (although certainly not any more special). -Ste|vertigo 07:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree on the point about Nicene vs. mainstream Christianity. I do not agree on the size differance point though. It is already clear that mainstream Christianity is by far the large body. If we were to go out of our way to note such a size distinction in every article addressing a contrast, that would require amending a ridiculous number of religious articles. The Catholics themselves comprise roughly half the Christian population. This means any Protestant denomination we discuss in a contrast would be similarly outsized. (This is because, when combined, The Catholic-Orthodox branch of Christianity comprises a clear majority unto itself.) Vassyana 08:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

How about an intro like this:

Christianity is... and some citeable, very general, non-creedal statement that LDS and other Christians can live with.
Mormonism, or the Latter Day Saint movement consists of those groups who accept Joseph Smith, Jr. as a prophet who was called by God to restore the doctrines and authority of the original church organized by Jesus Christ.
Nicene Christianity represents the beliefs of the majority of Christians today and consists of those who accept the Nicene Creed or similar Trinitarian definition of God and Jesus Christ,
Mormonism and most of Nicene Christianity have conflicted on theological grounds... continuing with most of current introduction. Sorry, out of time.74s181 12:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I like this approach. I suggest we include something like "for the purpose of this article" so that we don't get into squabbles about the "real" definition of any of those terms. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
This approach is right on the money. I concur with wrp103 (Bill Pringle) and 74s181. Good idea, guys. Chiros Sunrider 16:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, this is not possible. I wish that you could see why. What Christianity is, is not a piecemeal thing with some bits tacked on but the meat of it is acceptable to the LDS. This is precisely the nature of Christian apologetics: to show why the "very general", "non-creedal" definition of Christianity that is acceptable to everyone who calls himself a Christian, is not Christianity in anything but a "general" and sociological sense. Personally, and to speak plainly, I would be eager to say that the LDS retains much of a Christian view of man and of morality, of the goodness of creation, and regard for the life and the words of Jesus, as is well-reflected in their sense of community and in the personal discipline of their lives. But none of this has anything to do with their doctrinal distinctives, which includes the rejection of what Christianity is in its normal sense. What overlaps is from Christianity, and we have it in common, but it is not what Christianity is. It is derivative.
I'm only saying this to explain why this plan sounds as impossible to my ears, as it would in your ears if I said Presbyterians are Mormons, based on how much we have in common; and then proposed that "for the purposes of the article" Mormonism will be defined in "general" and "non-creedal" terms acceptable to all Presbyterians and Mormons alike. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Point taken, Mark. After thinking it over, I no longer see the need for the modifications proposed above. However, based on Wikipedia precedents and policies, it seems that we should use a rather general definition of Christianity when writing articles. This is largely a result of the policy on self-identifying terms, which is part of NPOV. Articles cannot make judgments on whether this group or that group is "really" Christian, they can only deal with such issues in more objective terms. It is clear that, whether or not they are justified, Latter Day Saint denominations generally identify themselves as Christian. Since articles must be descriptive rather than prescriptive in such matters, we find ourselves obliged to note the use of the terminology, as well as the controversy surrounding it (as, I noticed, is already done to some extent in the intro). Please understand that I don't intend to belittle your point of view in any way. In fact, it may be helpful to add material to the article (another section in the body, perhaps?) explaining the issue more fully, so that Christian groups who do not agree with the LDS' self-identification as Christian may have their case presented fairly. Chiros Sunrider 09:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
It is completely understandable to me why the LDS consider themselves Christian. It's not my intention to argue with that self-identification, but only to explain how this self-identification is acknowledged by the non-LDS. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The only problem I have with the new intro would have to be the phrase:

"While the majority of Christians only accept as scripture some variant of the Christian Bible"

To me, this sounds as though there are great theological differences between the various translations of the scriptures, rather than some minute points (yes, I know that there are some very debated points about certain verses, as well as in some cases sections of books and even entire books, but here I am referring to whole translations). To the best of my knowledge -- and experience -- most Nicene Christians have little problem with the various translations used, outside of the denominational limitations (such as the Roman Catholic approval by a recognized authority for liturgical use), and many denominations have more than one recommend version (or authorized version). These are not necessarily "variant" as so much as they are "different" interpretations. I know this might seem like nit-picking, but to me it does stand out a bit as POV. BrotherSun 06:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering "Christian Bible" redirects to Bible, I don't see a need to distinguish the Bible as "Christian". Mormons use the KJV, a very common version used amongst many Christian denominations, so I would be concerned about any wording that implied that Mormons use a "different" bible. Bytebear 07:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Bytebear's edits have resolve any issues with such language. (Good edit by the by.) However, I did want to address the "variants" question. "Variant" is an appropriate description. The clear majority of Christians (Catholic-Orthodox) accept a number of books into the canon that most of the rest of Christianity does not. Such variation in canon is enough to affect doctrine. Most Protestants reject the books of the Maccabees and the implied doctrine of Purgatory contained within them, as an example. (Though the Orthodox do not hold to the doctrine of Purgatory, they do hold to a doctrine of purification after death based on that scripture.) Just my view. Vassyana 09:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mark in one context; the proposed language seems to fall short. Christianity, that recognized as mainstream, or Nicene Christianity, has created a definition to describe themselves that is based upon 4th century doctrine. Christ had a much simpler definition of what a "Christian" or follower of Christ was, Luke 9:23, And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. I believe this is the definition of a true follower of Jesus Christ. The first definition is a true definition for someone who is a follower of the doctrines of the 4th century chruch and its subsequent branches, which may also be a follower of Christ, but are not the only followers of Christ. More importantly, there is not group that owns the term "Christian" and the imposition of a definition that was not spoken by Jesus Christ can only be recognized for what it is, a definition of man. In closing, both definitions are correct when we understand the context of a statement, but I personally will not acknowledge any definition of a Christian, or follower of Jesus Christ, unless it comes direct from the Bible.

This is a worthwhile article, however its importance should focus on what doctrines/beliefs are in common and what doctrines exist that separate Mormonism from other Christian churches. We should not not to homogenize the groups in the introduction. In truth, I certainly believe there is more in common than what separates us. In my opinion, the greatest difference rests soley upon authority. Catholicism and its many children claim to have the authority through apostolic succession where as Mormonism claims an apostasy followed by a restoration of the authority to act in God's name...which is apostolic succession. Stick to a brief introduction what briefly outlines the differences and then move on. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Mark and Storm Rider that making the introduction bland and homogenised in regards to a definition of Christianity is not the route we should take. It would only serve to muddle an already complicated topic and oversimplify the point. Vassyana 08:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Worked on the first section. Changed Nicene Christianity to mainstream Christianity in section title. Trimmed down the section. Combined redundant information. Cleaned up language a little here and there for NPOV and clarity. Wikilinked some terms for clarity like consubstantial and Trinitarian. Still looking to trim down the last paragraph about Restorationism by about half. Thoughts? Criticisms? Vassyana 09:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, thank you for pruning down that last paragraph. Very good edit. I just wikilinked Restorationists and seperated the comment about the LDS priesthood, for clarity. Thanks again for the edit. Vassyana 11:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] b

Vassyana 08:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC) scribeth: "If we were to go out of our way to note such a size distinction in every article addressing a contrast, that would require amending a ridiculous number of religious articles. The Catholics themselves comprise roughly half the Christian population. This means any Protestant denomination we discuss in a contrast would be similarly outsized. (This is because, when combined, The Catholic-Orthodox branch of Christianity comprises a clear majority unto itself.) "

Im happy with the work being done. But on the above point, to not mention size would be going out of our way to hide something basic to the issue of the relation. I dont suggest its important only here, but nor do I suggest its applicable everywhere. In the context of this article, referencing Catholicism and Protestantism (both sizable chunks of Christianity) only in a footnote is.. unnecessary. -Ste|vertigo 22:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
How do you think it would be best to address the size differance in such articles? Why do you feel it is important? Vassyana 05:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, we seem to have agreed that using "mainstream" here, so that point is probably moot. -Ste|vertigo 07:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. Just to make sure we're working on the same page: You feel that using the phrase "mainsteam Christianity" indicates that Mormonism is a minority body clearly enough? Vassyana 16:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small question about the intro

Is there any particular reason why part of the article reads, "consider themselves to be followers of the Jesus, Christ, (hence "Christians") and believe"? Perhaps I am missing the point, but wouldn't it be more effective just to replace it with "consider themselves to be followers of Jesus Christ (hence "Christians") and believe"? Chiros Sunrider 08:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just assuming here, so take it with a grain of salt. It may have been an edit to try to highlight that LDS follow the actual Jesus, since some anti-Mormons often try assert that the LDS follow a differant Jesus and G-d from the majority of Christians, rather than just a differant interpretation of them. Regardless, you're correct that it is not needed in the article. Just thought I'd provide an explanation from what I've seen. Vassyana 16:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The phrase was very awkward. I'm glad it's gone. Incidentally, they said concerning the golden calf, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!" (Ex 32:4) Were they still in Egypt? Didn't Elohim deliver them? But God was against them. There is more than a problem of "interpretation" going on there. When anti-Mormons say that the LDS follow a different Jesus and a different God, this is what they mean. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have had several people tell me Mormons worship a different Jesus. Their argument is that our interpretation of who Jesus was, along with a view different than the Trinity means that Mormons worship a different God. In a way, they are correct ... the two views are pretty much incompatible. The real argument, however, would be which one is correct, and that could take a very long time to resolve. As I used to say to a Jewish friend of mine: "When the Messiah comes, the only difference between the two of us will be if it is His first or second visit." By that time, we will all mostly be in agreement with each other. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 17:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I have always be amused with this quality of critique. The image in my mind is that two Christians with different beliefs are on their knees in prayer. Who is listening to their prayers? Are there people that actually think (that being the operative term) that God is prevented from hearing the prayers of all those who strive to follow His Son, Jesus Christ, because they do not have identical beliefs? How is God prevented from hearing prayers? A differnt god or a different Jesus? I have only know one Jesus of Nazareth that hung on a cross, died for my sins, taught the spirits in prison, rose the third day, appeared to his disciples and returned to sit on the right hand of God. He is the same Jesus for a Catholic, Easter Orthodox, Baptist, and Mormon. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The reasonableness of this argument is not so far away, leaving off whether the problem is so radical as all that. If they bowed down to a golden calf, and then got up to play, is their prayer and celebration unto God? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, if the two kneeling, praying people both believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, was born of the virgin Mary, lived a perfect life, healed the sick, taught the true gospel, etc., was crucified, died for the sins of the world and rose from the dead on the third day, then I suspect that both of their prayers are heard and acknowledged, even if one is a Baptist and one is LDS. And BTW, I don't know of any LDS who bow down or pray to golden calves, or any other gilded animal, where in the world did that come from? "All Mormons have horns, I comb my hair so they don't show". 74s181 02:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I believe that the prayers of anyone who is sincerely asking God for help is heard, regardless of whether they are praying to Jesus, a Golden Calf, or anything in between. Just as a (good) parent loves their child regardless of how they behave, I believe that Heavenly Father loves all of us and answers our prayers. It is not up to us to decide who is sincere, whose prayer will be heard, etc. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 02:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
An gentle sentiment. "Thus says the LORD God of Israel, 'Put your sword on your side each of you, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and each of you kill his brother and his companion and his neighbor.' ... Then the LORD sent a plague on the people, because they made the calf, the one that Aaron made." Ex 32:27;35 — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One true church

I changed: "Just as larger Christian denominations argue amongst themselves as to which is the one and only true and holy church"
to
"Just as larger Christian denominations make varying claims about the one and only true and holy church"

I made this change based on the fact many notable denominations do not feel any earthly church is the one true church, all of them being man made creations, as noted in the one true church article linked. Vassyana 16:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "notable denominations" or "man made creations"; but anyway, the sentence is better. However, if you want to be clear about what you mean, you'll need to be less anonymous about who you are referring to by "larger denominations". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
From here: "Protestant and Evangelical Christians hold that the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church" refers to the "true" church of Christ and the Communion of Saints (i.e. those who have been saved through Divine Grace). From this perspective, any earthly church is an imperfect man-made institution intended to represent the "true" church - the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that exists in eternity."
To some extant we do need to use some general terms and rely on wikilinks to clarify our meaning, such as in this instance. It is simply not practical or efficient to rehash other articles in this one. Vassyana 18:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The statement from that WP article is not supportable. No credible Christian opinion would hold that the any "earthly church" is a man-made institution - unless they meant to deny that it is legitimate. And, neither would any credible Christian opinion hold that any earthly church is perfect. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the differance between what you assert and what that article says ("any earthly church is an imperfect man-made institution intended to represent the "true" church") is semantic, or minor.Vassyana
Interesting. How do you determine that? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I changed what the WP article says. We'll see if it stands. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The process has evolved over time, but the Roman Catholic church is rather firm in stating that they are the One and only true Church. You will find several documents that will then explain what that means with a more inclusive approach, the words still remain. Mormons are just as strident in their claims of being the one true church. The opposite is not that all other churches are false, but that others are lacking in truths.

Do we really need to point this out? On the one hand I have voiced concerns in the past about which Christianity are we going to use as the foil to Mormonism. Catholicism has different grounds than Protestants or Evangelicals. For example, the works vs. grace debate is virtually moot between Mormons and Catholics while it is a debate between Evangelicals and Mormons (and Catholics for that matter). It would be easy for this article to bleed into many issues. I think I would suggest not trying to identify which Christian churches make which claims of being the One, Holy church. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm on the same page as you on this. Vassyana 18:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to be stubborn, and I'm not insisting really - I'm just pointing out from the little bit that I know about who says what outside of the LDS, that the statement (couched in its explanation) didn't strike familiar chords with me. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to express that paragraph much differently, in a way that is more relevant to the topic (IMHO):

“ Christian denominations have contradicting claims regarding the authority of their institutions to speak for the whole Christian church. But most of these traditions acknowledge a common history, and mark their departures from one another at particular points in time, and over specific issues. In the broad outlines of their doctrine they are largely in agreement with one another, compared to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ... etc. ”

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand your point and agree that it may be the best way to present the issue, but what I think you are really saying is that restorationists are outside the historical church began in 325 (I don't wish to get into the argument of when "the" church began in this article; I am aware of the history of Apostolic succession, but many scholars remain unconvinced that there was a single church known as the Christian church prior to the 4th century.) I would concur; they are outside of this religious history and that is one of the great differences. The one believes the church never left while the other says there was an apostacy. If the apostacy had not occurred, in their view, there would have been no need for a restoration. For Mormons in particular they bypass the this history and believe they go right to the ancient church of Jesus. In reality, from a Mormon perspective, either the Catholic church is the true church and all the others are simply the creations of men (well meaning maybe, but wihtout any authority from God) or it is not true. If it is not true, there had to be a restoration, ergo restorationism and the Church of Jesus Christ.
Even more to the point, the Trinitarian doctrine was not a teaching of Christ in the sense you must believe this to be a follower. This again is a 4th century creation. The question for me is how to present these positions without belittling either side or aggrandizing either side. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs) 21:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
What I mean to say is, as you say, that Mormons do not see the history since the Great Apostasy as belonging to their history. Furthermore, they do not see the historical record (as it has survived editing by the apostates) as being reliable. Other Christians, not Restorationists, see history as it comes down to us as their own story including the time after a division from which the two disagreeing parties went their ways. It is following that historical schism that the two groups might anathematize one another, but prior to this they recognize that the eventual rupture was a long time in developing. This does not "aggrandize" their view. It's simply things as they are according to recorded history - but some, like the Mormons and other Restorationists, Elaine Pagels and Dan Brown, radically anti-catholic Protestants, Muslims and many other revisionist visionaries and "iconoclasts" doubt the record. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **
I don't mean to make Wikipedia say that one view is right, and the other is wrong. But I am trying to overcome the bias of the present paragraph, which puts the issues in the fundamental LDS framework, so that it sounds like the LDS agenda in other ears. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I recognize that it's a significant change to make, so early in the article; but the present paragraph strikes me as being so alien as a description of how things are seen outside of the LDS, that I've got to be bold, here. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Bart D. Ehrman's has done some masterful work on early Christianity that I have found fascinating. His "Lost Christianities" and "Misquoting Jesus: the story behind who changed the Bible and why" among several others are excellent books. I would recommend reading them. Dan Brown??? As in the author of the DaVinci Code? He is not someone I would think of to quote or to use as a reference. Pagels is interesting and can be novel, but I am not sure she has the credibility of Ehrman or L. Michael White, author of "From Jesus to Christianity". "The Record" is not quite what it was held to be; there is a definite break between apologists and scholars today. Much of it has evolved over the last 50 years with the advent of the Nag Hammedi scrolls and the Dead Sea scrolls. What we know now is that the religous terrain was not quite so uniform as we once thought. The first 300 years after Jesus' resurrection was a tumulteous period and we would have had a very different "mainstream" Christian church today if it had not been for Constantine.
I recently read an article[2] that I found interesting. It was in the monthly LDS church magazine recounting the reviewing the parable of the Good Samaritan. It quoted several of the early church fathers: Ireneaus and Clement. These men are worthy of study and I have found those recognized as church fathers to be men of God. It is interesting that they are being quoted in a monthly magazine for LDS. --Storm Rider (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
What counts for "excellent" and "scholarship" is not a stable thing. Though I am no prophet, I would recommend that such duck dishes are best eaten with plenty of salt. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The, Comma

If the comma looks better invisible, then I'll remove it. But it is sounds weird in English to say out loud, "Jesus the Christ" instead of "Jesus, Christ". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 08:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

That looks much better. The phrase Jesus the Christ may be an accurate label (Jesus the Messiah), but it is very formal and most are unfamiliar with the appelation. Jesus Christ works better. --Storm Rider (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/r/Talk%7EMormonism_and_Christianity_Archive_10_14e1.html"