Talk:Mormonism and Christianity/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Doctrinal issues with previous material

I've removed an item that has claims to represent LDS theology, but does not accurately portray doctrine:

  • They do not believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all three coeternal and without change in their divinity.

Mormons do believe that these beings are eternal and unchanging, but the semantics of what is wrong with the statement are too lengthy to explain in this setting without causing a much-heated discussion.

I've also reverted to earlier change with a clarification after posting the following to User:Jwrosenzweig's talk page:

I don't understand the minor clarification you gave to the Mormonism as a Christian religion page. Mormons believe that you are saved by both grace and works - therefore, why was it deleted? If Protestants also believe this, then delete the whole bullet. In the mean time, I'm adding back in to properly reflect Mormon theology
Feel free to respond on my or on the Mormonism as a Christian religion talk page

Some of his other edits were not in harmony with established or researched doctrines of the church. There are differences to commonly-held beliefs and doctrines. Other Christians may believe in aliens, but that does not make it a christian doctrine. -Visorstuff 10 Nov 2003

If you think that Mormons believe that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are coeternal without change in their divinity, then you are using very different definitions of those words than I intended. By "eternal" I mean without any beginning and without any end. I have been told repeatedly, and have read, that Mormons believe that God the Father was created by some other god or God, that He was not divine at the time of His creation but that he later became so, and that He has a physical body. Similarly, I've been told that Jesus came into existence at some time after God the Father, that He was not immediately divine but later became so, and that he also has a physical body. By "without change in their divinity" I mean that all three were always God, are now God and always shall be God; By "coeternal" I mean that all three persons of the Trinity are without beginning as well as without end, that no one of them preceded or followed another in existence, much less in divinity. Is there a better way to express this difference in understanding? Wesley 05:56, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I believe you are pretty correct in your understanding, but I mentioned that this was a semantic problem. An example of what I mean can be demonstrated by the following statement: "Some Mormons believe that Eternity could be a 'set amount of time'. The God of this Earth is our God in this eternity, but in a previous eternity, he could have been a man on another planet seeking his own salvation." I do not endorse of necessarily believe the above statement, but the wording of the disputed portions was not good (there are other problems as well). How the sentences read was not correct and would never be stated like it was in the article by the LDS Church. We do believe that God is an eternal and unchangable being, but we do not understand fully the concept of time when it comes to the eterninites. My big problem with the article has been that common Mormon speculation and what most Mormons 'may' believe are written like they are official church doctrines. There is a big difference to most Mormons. My attempt is not to hide or give an apologetic viewpoint, but to make sure that official doctrines are properly presented. I do like the direction this article is going, however. -V 11 Nov. 2003

I certainly don't want to misrepresent the LDS's official doctrines. Do they take any official stance regarding the origin of God the Father? What are considered official sources of church doctrine? What about statements that Joseph Smith Jr. made concerning theology that aren't part of the LDS canon of scriptures? Wesley 17:20, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Here's the simple and long answer:
During the 1960s and 1970s the Church went through something commonly referred to as the "correlation" program. The general officers of the church sought to clarify and set what was official doctrine and what was speculation. Since that time, the church teaches the same thing in every congregation - lesson manuals are distributed to each ward, and ideally adherents will be taught the same lesson everywhere in the U.S. on the same day, within a week or so (ie - if you are taught lesson 15 on Nov 9 in California, you should be taught lesson 15 on November 9 in New York or Florida. All of this material is gone over in committee to ensure that the doctrines are correct and represent official viewpoints.
Therefore if something can be found in official Church printed materials since about 1971, it can be considered official doctrine. If not, it will likely be speculative and not doctrinal.
One of the reasons for this was that people were telling others things that they heard such-and-such a general authority said and was written down in so-and-so's journal a hundred years ago - so it must be true. Even statements allegedly made on the same occasion by Joseph Smith differ greatly depending on which journal source you get it from. This is complicated greatly by the close social organization of the LDS Church that allows faith promoting stories to spread faster than they can be disproven.
The correlation effort has not completely wiped out the years of speculative beliefs held by members of the Church. Some of the speculation may be correct, some is not, however, the membership of the church has been asked to accept materials coming out of the correlation program as official and other information as not authoritative. The Church has made a great effort to go back to original documents, approved and non-approved transcripts and journals to determine what was exactly said prior to sound recordings and then preserve the result in correlated materials.
Unfortunately, some critics have taken the results of this effort and accused the church of practicing revisionist history. Most of the time, the church is very open to why the changes were made and which sources they come from in the documentation of Church manuals or other published materials (such as the Church's magazine 'The Ensign'). Such is the case with changes made in the Book of Mormon that align closer to pre-publication manuscripts and first edition copies edited by Joseph Smith to fix printer and typesetting errors. Critics use this as a tool to show changes in the Church - but there were lengthy articles about the changes at the time of the printing of the current edition, and it is stated why changes were made in the preface of the Book of Mormon.
As far as your other questions, official materials do say that God is an exalted man (what that means is not elaborated on to my knowledge), the Father of all of our Spirits, and is the being Mormons worship. Mankind are quite literally children of Heavenly Parents.Visorstuff

Premise is problematical

I really can't see what this page is arguing about. It seems from the quotes from various LDS leaders that the LDS consider themselves to be a separate belief system from mainstream Christians. If that is the case why on earth would they want to have themselves classified as Christian? They fully admit that they believe different things (I mean really different, not just the minor differences that are between Christian denominations). If we asked whether Christians were Mormons, would they say yes? DJ Clayworth 16:42, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Do LDS accept the Nicene creed? That is a test very frequently used to distinguish Cristian from non-Christian. DJ Clayworth 16:52, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's the classic duck-geese problem. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, isn't it a duck? No, it's really a goose. No wonder bird-lovers are crying fowl!
Seriously, who cares whether what kind of cat a panther and a jaguar really are? They're both definitely feline: no one confuses a mountain lion or an ocelot with canines (like Lassie the collie) or bovines (cows and bulls and oxen).
They sure act Christian, any way. Who cares about fussy little details like transubstantiation, the trinity, and whether Jesus is the only eternally begotten son of God? As the hymn goes, "And they'll know you're God's children by your love..." --Uncle Ed 17:08, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)


But the whole thing becomes more complicated when the goose is saying "I'm really a duck" to the other wildfowl and on the other hand "you're not really a duck" to the ducks. Which is exactly what is going on. The LDS are actually the most adamant of all the people in this discussion that their beliefs are right. If you don't believe this, ask any LDS member a simple question. If I believe in the Trinity, that God is eternal and that Jesus never appeared to a civilisation in America, can I become an LDS member? I think we all know what the answer would be. DJ Clayworth 17:24, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Ed, you seem to be suggesting that religious pluralism be normative. Does it matter whether God is a created being or uncreated? Does the nature of God matter? Does it matter who we worship? Did it matter which God the Jews of old chose to worship, when they were faced with many choices? Judaism, Christianity and Islam have always claimed that it does matter. And evidently, the LDS cares enough to want to be classified as a Christian denomination, perhaps so it can persuade people to convert without realizing that they're converting (leaving one religion to join another).

Yes; yes; yes; yes; and oh my gosh I didn't know that! --Uncle Ed 18:26, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

DJ, the only way the LDS could accept the Nicene creed would be to radically redefine most of its key words and phrases. See the discussion of the meaning "eternal" earlier on this page for an example. Wesley 17:20, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)


That's what I thought. The Nicene creed has been used as a touchstone of Chrstianity for centuries, with Filioque being the only dispute. Wikipedia is not a place to argue about what a classification should be, it's about what that classification actually is. What we should record is:

  • The LDS calls itself Christian;
  • mainstream Christian denominations do not agree with this;
  • list the theological points of difference
  • maybe some history, such as why the LDS split from mainstream Christianity

Most of this could actually be handled in the LDS article. DJ Clayworth 17:33, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

But seriously, the reason I'm concerned is that I myself am a member of church that "calls itself Christian" and even feels it has a God-given mission to bring about "the Unification of World Christianity" (that's the second half of our official name: HSA-UWC).

As Wesley noted, I'm big on pluralism. I'm a uniter, not a divider.

On the other hand, I do realize that denominational differences are important to some people, and that splits and splinters do come about. There's a fissure about to erupt in the Anglican Communion over the gay bishop thing right now.

I guess we have a duty to write about how and why such splits have come about, and how people on each side of the split view it. Perhaps LDS still think they are Christian, even if a substantial portion of the mainstream have "disowned" this particular tributary. --Uncle Ed 18:35, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)


I am about to add the following:

'''Arguments that Christians are not LDS''' Although keen to procliam that the LDS church is Christian, the view of the LDS is that all of the mainstream Christian churches are in fact apostate (i.e. have fallen away from the true faith). Their view would be therefore that ONLY the LDS church is Christian, in the way that they define it.

Not being up to date with LDS viewpoints, I welcome comments. DJ Clayworth 21:18, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, here is a page with 3 LDS responses to a recent book trashing their church. They complain, albeitly mildly and with good-natured restraint, that the author has made several serious mistakes and doesn't really understand the church all that well. Moreover, as one LDS member points out, the author has an anti-religious perspective to start with. --Uncle Ed 22:06, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Uncle Ed: A brief study of these pages reveals nothing about the LDS attitude to other faiths. Can you summarize? Do LDS consider other churches as apostate, and therefore not true Christians? DJ Clayworth 22:17, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, DJ, I kind of went on a tangent there. I spent a half hour looking for any evidence of LDS calling all other churches "apostates" but failed. Leaving LDS is considered apostasy, though, if that helps.
In my own encounters with Mormons (okay, I used the word - but we're on a talk page), over 30 years, I have found no hint of an attitude that other churches are "entirely wrong" or "not really religious" or anything like that. Only that their faith is "better" and why don't I join them? In that, their missionary zeal is no different from any other evangelistic faith: almost everyone thinks their approach is best: even people writing Wikipedia articles! :-)
But maybe we could find something related to Joseph Smith's motivation for starting a new church: some dissatisfaction with all the existing 19th century churches, each of which claimed to be right although each seriously contradicted all the others...

--Uncle Ed 22:51, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You might want to see what some LDS members are writing in the Great Apostasy article regarding the LDS stance towards others who call themselves Christian, especially those who identify with the Church that wrote, confessed and confesses the Nicene Creed. Wesley 03:52, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

We need to be careful both in this article and on the Great Apostasy article not to overstate the Mormon doctrine on Apostasy notwithstanding what may be implied or explicit in those articles so far. In Mormonism, the Great Apostasy generally refers to a time period and not to institutions or groups, and apostasy usually refers to individuals. It is a stretch, for example, to suggest that according to Mormonism the Catholic Church or the Episcopalians are apostate. To be apostate, a person must first have a certain amount of truth and then reject it. According to Mormonism, maybe this could be said of some influential persons shortly after Christ's resurrection and in the formative stages of the Catholic Church, but it becomes problematic to categorize the modern Catholic Church or its mainstream sibings as apostate. In Mormonism, mainstream Christian denominations would be more fairly categorized as corrupted remnants of Christianity. B 04:15, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
I personally don't understand the point of this part of the discussion - it is irrelevant to the article (no personal attack meant). By using some of the logic above, are you saying that anyone who does not believe in Nicene Creed is not a Christian? If that is the case, then you must mean that all Orthodox sects and nearly all Protestants are not Christian - as they don't accept the first part of the Nicene Creed - "We believe in one Holy Catholic Church...)." I know that meant universal - but from my research into the council it very much meant the Church as directed from Rome. In the case of most Orthodox sects, they reject the creed flat out and have their own, albeit similar creed. With your logic, only Roman Catholics can be considered Christians.
If you include all of the Nicene council teachings in your statements, then there is an even a bigger problem, as later councils, including the recent Vatican II council changed some of the decisions in Nicea as to who is Catholic, who can baptize and which church's baptisms they accept. Therefore, any modern Catholic is not really a Christian either and the church’s current policies do not coincide with all Nicene council decisions. Plus as the Nicene council didn't take place until 300+ years after Christ, that would mean Christ and his Apostles were not Christian, as they didn't necessarily accept the creed.
Yes, Mormons believe that other churches have apostatized from the true doctrines of the gospel of Jesus Christ. So do every other Protestant church out there - or there would only be one Catholic Church. Should we have articles about protestant churches and Christianity? The difference is that we beleive that we a restored church - not a protestant church. Mormons believe that the first principle of the gospel is faith in Jesus Christ. Anyone who has faith in him and his atonement has some bit of truth of the gospel, but Mormons believe that there is more one must do to be saved. One must witness that they have faith by repenting and follow His example. I believe the dictionary definition of a Christian is one who believes in or follows Jesus Christ’s example. Most Mormons and non-Mormons accept that. Maybe I'm missing your point....
One other problem I'd like to discuss - the naming of this and other articles/parts of articles about Mormonism that have recently been changed, diregards much effort and previous discussion on why it was named the way it was. Mormonism refers to many more sects than just the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are other churches out there that accept similar teachings, but differ from the doctrines of the LDS Church slightly. All of this came into play during the naming of the artilces. Please discuss before so hastily renaming them. - Visorstuff
Regarding the Orthodox and Catholic churches and the Nicene Creed, you have it backwards. The Orthodox churches continue to affirm the Nicene Creed as it was spelled out in 325 in Nicaea and amended in 381 in Constantinople. The Roman Catholic Church uses a variation that adds the Filioque Clause which it adapted unilaterally; its adaption and the way it was done is one of the most obvious causes of the Great Schism between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. But that's just one word's difference; most Protestants affirm one version or the other of the Nicene Creed, and neither Catholics nor Orthodox have dumped it or wholly rewritten it.
Your suggested definition of a Christian as "one who believes in or follows Jesus Christ's example" is sufficiently broad to include most Muslims, who consider him a prophet, and many Hindus who think Jesus was an Avatar of Brahman, like Krishna, and probably a number of atheists who think Jesus was a good man with some neat ideas about loving everybody. Suddenly Christianity is not just the single most popular religion on the planet, but can claim a majority of the world's population as its adherents. If we make it that broad, then sure, the LDS is Christian too. The Nicene Creed is, among other things, Christianity's way to be a bit more specific, in a short, concise form that lay people could hopefully remember and understand (especially after being taught what the Creed meant). In Orthodoxy it's often called the "symbol of faith".
I'm not insisting that the Nicene Creed per se be the litmus test of Christianity for purposes of this article though; someone else brought it up. It is worth documenting that a lot Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christians think Mormonism falls well outside the boundaries of Christianity, even though they may not all agree on exactly where those boundaries are. Wesley 17:08, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Wesley, Thanks for the clarification - you are correct. In my rush, my facts got switched around. However, I still think this is an irrelevant discussion - see Frecklefoot's comments below. Visorstuff

Visorstuff, you clearly do not understand the level of disagreement between different Christian churches. Most churches still consider other denominations 'Christian', even if they think they are wrong about many things. Catholics and Orthodox all acknowledge that most other churches are Christian. Most Protestant denominations acknowledge most other denominations as Christian (some would exclude Catholics).

If the view of the Mormons is that to be a Christian "One must witness that they have faith by repenting and follow His example", and nothing else, why do they spend so much time and effort trying to convert those of other denominations? DJ Clayworth 17:11, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

DJ, you don't have the whole point. Most Mormons consider other religions "Christian," but do not beleieve they have "the whole truth." The LDS beleive only they have the whole truth, even though many other religions could be considered Christian. It extends beyong simple belief, however, and involves "authority." I could go off on a tangent here, but I won't.
The LDS do not believe "'One must witness that they have faith by repenting and follow His example', and nothing else." For a rundown of what the LDS beleive (in a nutshell) this is a list of the Articles of Faith of the LDS Church (http://scriptures.lds.org/a_of_f/1).
Personally, I never really understood or embraced the arguments from other religions about why the LDS aren't Christian. I've always thought (and I think most other LDS would agree with me here) that "we believe in Jesus Christ as the Lord and Redeemer of mankind and that salvation comes by and through Him and by no other means" would settle it. But then other Christian religions start bringing up things like the Trinity and other things which the LDS think is totally irrelevant. Yes, the LDS beleive that differences in the beleif in the Trinity is a major difference, but they don't beleive that that difference should exclude them from being considered Christian.
Anyway, I hope I haven't strayed too much here. Hope my comments helped clear up some things. —Frecklefoot 18:06, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
DJ you've missed my point. Having bothy studied and taught world religions in depth in a univerity setting and at the college-level, I do understand the differences between various Christian religions. I was using the mindset to the arguments given to push back on the irrelevancy of that section of the talk page. Needless to say, Christianity is defined in MY mind as one who accepts the atonement of Jesus Christ, and that one can only be saved by Jesus' grace.
Mormons believe there is truth out there had by all religions, but there is more to the fullness of the gospel and that the proper authority is found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints. Visorstuff 19:34, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Cut Text

This text was cut without explanation: They believe that their God is god of this earth, but was created a man by some other god on some other earth or planet. They are indefinite about the ultimate or first Creator, or how many gods of various planets there may be.

I put that in based in part on what was said on this page by people I presumed to be LDS members. In what respects is the statement false or misleading? For what other reason was it cut? I think the article still says in an earlier paragraph that Christians think the LDS is polytheistic; it's worth explaining what has given rise to that perception. Wesley 17:14, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No offense intended. It just didn't make sense and was duplicative. This has been discussed before. Too many Mormons, and the LDS church would disagree with the statement. There is no information available from Mormon theology on the following points:
  • God was "a man by some other god on some other earth or planet." This is speculative. Mormons believe he is an exalted man. We do not claim to know or teach what that means. Mormons definately do not claim to know how God became a God, just as other Christians don't. Many Mormons speculate and think they know what this means, but it is not taught anywhere in Correlated Materials (see above discussion) to my knowledge.
  • The statement "their God" in not NPOV. Mormons believe God is God. That is all. Of course he is the God of the earth, how does that differ from mainstream Christianity? He is the God of the Universe.
  • The statement "they are indefinate about the ultimate or first creator" has no point, as mainstream christianity is indefinate about the orgin of God as well. We believe that he has always exsited. What that means noone, Mormons or otherwise has stated.
  • "...how many gods of various planets there may be" - same as above. God is the God of millions or billions of planets. He is the God of the Universe. I fail to see the point of this statement. It is speculative.
It is already stated that we beleive he is an exalted man, and that some believe them to be polytheistic so the beliefs you are trying to encapsulate in the statement is already duplicated.
I agree that the perception of others that Mormons are polytheistic should be discussed. That is a great suggestion that could clarify our bickering about these statements.Visorstuff 18:20, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Visorstuff, what you just wrote makes no sense. I would understand the statement that God is an 'exalted man' to mean he once was a man. If he was a man then he clearly had a beginning. If it doesn't mean that, what does it mean?

It is also my understanding that Mormons believe that we men can go on to become Gods by the same process that God became a God. True or false? DJ Clayworth 18:28, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

We beleive that God is an exalted mortal, but we don't beleive that he had a beginning. To clarify, the LDS beleive that all mortals began as "intelligences" before they became mortal. As I understand it, intelligences cannot be created or destroyed. But through God we received bodies and became mortal. Now we are here to prove our worthiness to dwell with God after our mortality.
We also beleive that we can go on to exaltation, i.e. become omnipotent also, but never more or as powerful as God (as I understand it). We don't claim that this is the same process God went through—we just don't know. This whole discussion we're having is based upon one quote (I don't remember who said it): "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." It really isn't something we dwell on or talk at length about in the Church. —Frecklefoot 18:40, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Agreed. according to LDS theology, Christ was a God before he was born. Mormons don't know how he became a God, as it obviously was a different set of rules than what we've been asked to do. Yet Christ is an exalted man. Mormons simply don't know the exact process of how God became a God. Now hopefully you see why there is so much speculation on the subject. Visorstuff 19:34, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
So, you believe that God doesn't have a beginning, in the same sense that every other person doesn't have a beginning. But you also believe that God was once an "intelligence" who at some point in time became mortal, and at some subsequent point in time became immortal. Is this a fair summary? Incidentally, it strikes me as quite irrelevant whether this is something you talk about at length in the Church. The bulk of Christianity doesn't spend a lot of time talking about God's eternity at length, but it is taught and mostly assumed after that.
Wesley, that is a fair summary. It is not explicity stated in any authoritative source that God the Father was merely an intelligence at some point. But it is generally presumed that all of mankind (including God) is co-eternal; mankind is without beginning nor end. Given other doctrine, it is fair to imply that God may have started out as intelligence, became mortal and later immortal, but that is somewhat speculative. What intelligence and eternal means in Mormonism is also not perfectly clear. Latter-day Saints anticipate further revelation on unanswered matters in Mormonism will be given to those who are prepared for it and for whom it is necessary to know. But doctrine that is not considered essential for salvation (such as repentance and baptism) may be deemed as distracting in Mormonism. B 02:58, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
If God the Father and Christ are both God, are they two separate gods? This alone would put the total count at two, qualifying for polytheism. Classical Christianity narrowly ducks this through the Trinity, and many non-Christians think even that is insufficient and that we're really tritheistic. How do Latter-Day Saints reconcile the Father and Son Gods with monotheism? Wesley 17:12, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Mormons don't spend time talking about it (the orgin or God, etc.) that much either - that is why this is a controversial subject. As I stated earlier, many Mormons speculate on the subject, but it is not dwelt upon as many percieve it is. There are not a lot of doctrinal statments made on the subject by LDS Church leaders. Mormons spend most of the time talking about how to build faith in Christ, live better lives, improve the family, etc. - just like most protestant Churches I've attened.
Mormons also believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are "One God" (see Book of Mormon preface, testimony of three witnesses for one citing). However we also believe that they are three distinct personages. I know this is confusing to some, but so is the doctrine of the trinity to some (Even the shamrock explanation attributed to St. Patrick was confusing to many). Call it polytheism or henotheistic if you want -- Mormons don't think that the belief is really that different from some protestantism sects. If you do call it something besides monotheism, then classify the rest that believe in those three (Father Son and Holy Ghost) as a "Godhead," as Paul stated it, by the same classification as well. Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism and Mormonism have more in common than they have differences. Visorstuff 01:05, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Prepare to be Blasted

Okay, I just made changes to the article. Most changes were minor, but I just tried to make the points clear and removed information I thought, as LDS, was incorrect. Some points claimed to be disputed on this talk page, but I didn't find any discussion, so I changed to the LDS view (look at the changes to see what I'm talking about). Anyway, I don't think many people will object to most of my changes. If you do, please raise the issues here. Peace. —Frecklefoot 19:38, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Okay, this is in response not to my own edit, but to the last edit by RK. First off, being LDS, I think my perspectives on the LDS is a little more accurate than his (BoNoMoJo and Visorstuff, feel free to back me up on this :-). Refer to the changes he made with his last edit to see what specifically I am referring to:
  1. I dispute the change of many to most, since I really don't think it's true. But I don't care enough about this point to change it. If we all can come to an agreement, I'd prefer to change it back to many since I think it is more NPOV.
  2. The first bullet he added is inaccurate and I changed it to make it more accurate, though I don't think it is really necessary, as it is covered in the third bullet. If we can all agree on this, I think it should just be removed.
  3. Second bullet: Mormons (and it is Mormons not Morkons (typo or reference to "Mork from Ork?")) do not beleive they will become gods of their own planet—we beleive we may become a god of our own universe, just as God is the god of our universe. But further, we do not beleive that all Mormons will become exaulted (become gods). Only the most righteous of the righteous will attain this honor. Just as their are good Catholics and bad Catholics, there are good Mormons and bad Mormons. I changed this bullet to accurately describe our beleifs.
  4. We beleive God is the god of our universe, not just Earth. We beleive He created this universe—"worlds without number"—and everything in it. Everything we can see, hear or touch was created by Him (The Book of Mormon specifically states this). So please stop stating that we beleive He is just the god of this planet. We do not beleive this. We give Him much more credit than this.
  5. I dispute the removal of the bullet: "God... passed though a similar mortality to mankind" and moving it up and making more POV. I think the original bullet was much more NPOV and accurate. If we can come to an agreement, I think it should be put back in and the first (current) bullet removed.
Can we come to an agreement on some of these issues? Please comment. —Frecklefoot 15:34, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Overall, I don't have a major problem either with RK's edits or with your (initial?) revisions to them. On the first point, I think that Mormonism has less in common with Christianity than you seem to think it does; I probably won't quibble that hard about which way it goes. As far as the planet vs. universe distinction, I think it amounts to the same thing. My guess is that older Mormon literature talked more about planets when planets seemed much more remote, before the advent of space travel. Now with talk of a mission to Mars someday, it seems easier to talk about different universes than planets to maintain the same idea of remoteness. So substitute universe for planet all you want, it amounts to the same idea theologically as far as I can tell. As far as only some Mormons being exalted, I'll take your word for that; it's a fair point. Regarding your last point about the bullet items, I'm not entirely sure what change you're referring to. Could you paste the two versions in here so we can all see and compare, and maybe come to an agreement as you suggest? Thanks, Wesley 17:23, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

RK's version of the bullet:
  • They believe that their God is god of this earth, but was created a man by some other god on some other earth or planet. They are indefinite about the ultimate or first Creator, or how many gods of various planets there may be.
The original version:
  • They do not believe that God the Father was always a God, but that he is an exalted mortal, who passed though a similar mortality to mankind.
Actually, now that I think about it, I think I'd prefer:
  • They do not believe that God the Father was always a God, but that he is an exalted mortal. Their belief on this subject is summed up in Lorenzo Snow's statement, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may be."
As for planet vs. universe, I think it is a very big distinction. The Book of Mormon points out that God created all the planets and the order in which they operate. —Frecklefoot 19:00, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Clarifications

Before I look at RK's edits and the response(s), I want to reply to these bulleted questions, copied here from earlier in the discussion for clarity.

  • God was "a man by some other god on some other earth or planet." This is speculative. Mormons believe he is an exalted man. We do not claim to know or teach what that means. Mormons definately do not claim to know how God became a God, just as other Christians don't. Many Mormons speculate and think they know what this means, but it is not taught anywhere in Correlated Materials (see above discussion) to my knowledge.
  • The statement "their God" in not NPOV. Mormons believe God is God. That is all. Of course he is the God of the earth, how does that differ from mainstream Christianity? He is the God of the Universe.
  • The statement "they are indefinate about the ultimate or first creator" has no point, as mainstream christianity is indefinate about the orgin of God as well. We believe that he has always exsited. What that means noone, Mormons or otherwise has stated.
  • "...how many gods of various planets there may be" - same as above. God is the God of millions or billions of planets. He is the God of the Universe. I fail to see the point of this statement. It is speculative.

It is already stated that we beleive he is an exalted man, and that some believe them to be polytheistic so the beliefs you are trying to encapsulate in the statement is already duplicated.

I agree that the perception of others that Mormons are polytheistic should be discussed. That is a great suggestion that could clarify our bickering about these statements.Visorstuff 18:20, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • " ... just as other Christians don't". "Other Christians" believe that God was always fully God, that he is completely without change, that He is uncreated, and that He is the absolute First Cause of all else that exists, in this or any other universe. This is different. Based on what you wrote, I think the original statement would still be fair with one minor change: "[LDS] apparently believe, or their beliefs imply, that God was created (or granted mortality to become) a man by some other god on some other planet or in some other universe."
  • When beliefs about the nature of God are this far apart, I think it's quite fair to say something like the God of Mormonism. Particularly when your beliefs imply He is one of many, or at best one of two, "God the Father" and Jesus Christ.
  • Mainstream Christianity is quite definite that God is without origin, and that "He is the Creator of all things, visible and invisible" to quote from the Nicene Creed. Mormonism implies that God was created or granted mortality, and later exalted by some other god, but are not clear or definite about the process or who that other god is, since he's not relevant to us humans. (Compare with henotheism.)
  • Ok, how many universes are there (rather than planets), created or managed by different gods? For Christianity, it's easy to give a definite answer: there is only one Creation, created by a single God.
I hope this at least serves to clarify how Mormon teaching is perceived. Incidentally, I'm a little surprised to learn that any pre-1960 publications aren't authoritative sources of Mormon doctrine. I was expecting to at least see listed the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrines and Covenants, while disclaiming perhaps some of Joseph Smith Jr.'s other letters or writings.
Wesley 17:12, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

To Wesley's second point "I think it's quite fair to say something like the God of Mormonism": I don't agree. We worship God just as any other Christian religion does. Yes, our interpretation of What and Who God is does differ, but so does it for other religions. If we say "The LDS God" here, we should say "The Muslim God" and "The Calvinist God" in other articles.

To his fourth point, no one knows how many universes there are, nor would any competant Mormon try to speculate. But the fact remains, it is not relevant to our salvation. —Frecklefoot 19:00, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wesley - I can deal with the words "their beliefs imply" in your first bullet. To me that would make it more accurate.
I agree with Frecklfoot's comments about the God of Mormonism. I actually differ a bit with Frecklefoot just slightly on his wording about becoming a god of your own universe. Although this is implied (and believed by many Mormons), it is not stated in the standard works or in correlated materials. We simply do not completely understand what it means to be a god. As far as God's orgins, Smith did teach that God had a Father and is an exalted man. I think that would be fine to include as well.
I can understand how others see some of these teachings as strange. Of course Mormon apologists use Bible as well as other modern scriptures to support these points (see earlier discussion about gods).
The scriptures that you mention (bible, book of mormon, doctrine and covenants, pearl of great price) are of course the standard of, and a good source of doctrines. Some of Smith's letters are good sources of doctrines as you stated. Some of them are included in the Doctrine and Covenants (sections 121, 122, 123, 124 and others) because they are doctrinally invaluable. Many earlier statements made by Presidents of the church as official statments or proclamations or official declarations are also binding, but the doctrine for most of them are found elsewhere as well, and it is usually obvious that they are. My point in sharing with you about the correlation program is so that you realize that many things out there may be common beliefs, or written in journals, but do not represent the official church stance on many subjects. The Church is very careful when it makes official statments or publishes something. And even that is not to say things are published that are not doctrinally perfect.
The conclusion you've drawn about "godhood" is the same many Mormons draw (and that is not to say it is or is not correct). Again, I think it's fine to say "imply" or "implies" or "suggests" when talking about the subject. Thanks for these discussions and your patience - I think this has been helpful for the outcome of the article.Visorstuff 01:30, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Adding to Visorstuff's comments' regarding authoritative sources, there are two sorts of authoritative sources. First, the scriptural canons of the Church. Second are the Church's publications like seminary/institue manuals, lesson books, Church magazines, etc. It is possible that a book like deceased-Mormon-Apostle Bruce McKonkie's Mormon Doctrine (a non-Church publication) may contain true principles of Mormonism that are not stated in Church publications, but just because it is authored by a ranking Church leader does not make it a Church publication.

In Mormonism, the ultimate source of scripture and revelation is the Holy Ghost. D&C 68:4 states: "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." But just because the Holy Ghost reveals the truth to an individual (including the Prophet), does not make that revelation canonical. The Church has procedures in place for adding scripture to its canon or filtering its official publications. B 03:38, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

One of the problems Latter-day Saints run into is when intransigent critics like RK overstate Church doctrine or members' beliefs. Critiques like that take off into specific statements that may be implied from an indeterminate Church doctrine, but not necessarily intended. RK likes to think he is plainly stating the doctrine or belief but more often presents ideas that are not explicitly stated by any authoritative Church source. When qualifying an idea as implied, unexplicit "doctrine", the usefulness of including too much speculative material detracts from the purpose of wikipedia. B 02:18, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Smoothing out the outline of the Article

My 2 cents on the overall article outline: I think Latter-day Saints would identify a Christian simply as someone who: believes that Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God in the flesh; believes Jesus is the sole savior; and seeks to live a Christian life. The article should state something like what I've detailed above; it should state what Latter-day Saints believe are only the core requirements of a Christian. Then it should state that most Christians reject Mormonism as a form of Christianity although they differ as to why. Then rather than "arguments for" or "against" it should list similarities and differences between Mormonism and other Christian sects. It kind of follows that outline already, but could do better in that direction. B 03:56, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

BoNoMoJo writes about me One of the problems Latter-day Saints run into is when intransigent critics like RK overstate Church doctrine or members' beliefs. Critiques like that take off into specific statements that may be implied from an indeterminate Church doctrine, but not necessarily intended. RK likes to think he is plainly stating the doctrine or belief but more often presents ideas that are not explicitly stated by any authoritative Church source.

This is incorrect. Nothing I have written is a criticism of your religion. I am not a Christian, and I could care less what anyone else believes. We live in a post-Enlightenment society in which every person is free to choose their own religion, and that's great. I just don't understand why Mormons demand to be called Christian, when they they reject almost everything Chrisitians believe in, and despite the fact that they developed many new beliefs that have no resemblance to Christianity. Also, I reject the charge that I mis-stating Mormon beliefs. I am trying to present them in plain English. Many websites written by current and former Mormons state the same things I am saying (e.g. Mormons will become the god of their own planet in this galaxy sometime after they die, if they are righteous.) I get the feeling that the problem is that some people are embarassed by publicly revealing previously secret beliefs. This is similar to what has happened in Scientology, when the faithful went to great pains to prevent the details of their outer space oriented belief system from becoming commonly known. RK 23:41, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
No one is saying that the majority of Mormons don't believe these things - just like the majority of Americans (who are mostly Christian) believe in aliens. What we are saying it that they are not an official Church doctrine nor taught as such. Yes it many think certain statements imply things, but anti-Christians think the statement "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" imply that Christians leave open the possibility for "other gods" or polytheism.
I am not embarrassed by these teachings, nor are most Mormons. I personally believe some of these things as well, 'however', I do make a distinction between my own beliefs and what the Church teaches.
Its funny because the anti-Mormon Websites all jumped all over President Hinckley's comments when he said that he didn't believe the church taught as doctrine that we would be gods over our own planets, but the same people also get mad at us for trying to set them straight. It's a catch-22 for us. What are we supposed to do? Visorstuff 00:13, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to watch this page. The above argument is puerile. It fails to take into account so many factors. Rather than defining what "Christian" is, it presupposes a set definition of Christianity, which may well be too narrow. It does the same for LDS theology, though, due to a belief in an unbroken chain of prophecy and divine revelation up until today (correct me if I am wrong, BoNoMoJo), LDS belief is hardly static either. As for rejecting almost everything Mormons believe in, hyperbole can cause problems. Do they believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God who came to Earth born of the flesh and died to atone for people's sins? This seems to be an essential belief. Anyways, I meant to watch the page, not protect it. Sorry. Danny 00:00, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


I'm replying here to discussions much higher in the page. In brief, after reflection I agree that using phrases like "the Mormon God" probably isn't the best practice in a Wikipedia article. Also, I'm fine with drawing a distinction between "official Mormon teaching says that...", "many Mormons believe or speculate that...", and "to outsiders, Mormon beliefs X and Y seem to imply (or presuppose?) belief Z, although Z is rarely if ever stated". These seem like reasonable distinctions, provided they're reasonably accurate.

Now, answering a question like "do they believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God who came to Earth born of the flesh and died to atone for people's sins?" does sound like a reasonable question at first. Unfortunately, I think a glib "yes" would ignore many questions that the question takes for granted. It makes no sense to talk about our agreement that Jesus is the son of God, until we agree on who God is, what the nature of Jesus' sonship is and whether/how it differs from other sonship: "eternally begotten" from the Nicene Creed carries special meaning to traditional Christians who assume that most people were created within time and are not eternal, but that God (existing in all three persons) is uniquely eternal. I could go on to other differences as well, that underly that simple question. In short, my personal perspective is that Mormonism attempts to trade on the name of Christianity while bearing little genuine resemblance to it. It also seems to me that many Mormons genuinely think their beliefs are not that different. Wesley 07:34, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wesley, I'm not sure I understand all of the paragraph above. The simple answer to your question, as you say, is yes.
However, to your supporting point, if Jesus was not created and has existed eternally, how could he have been "born?" Doesn't that imply creation? I'm not trying to argue, just trying to understand, as I've rarely heard that statement come up in my discussions with minister friends and it could impact this article. I personally agree that most non-Mormon Christians think that the nature of God is the biggest difference between the two groups. I've heard my minister friends say that God is Eternal and that his nature as a Trinity began at the ministry of Christ, or that the nature of the personalities within the trinity have always been eternal, but not the manifestations. I also know the argument that the Trinity has always existed (the term Elohim or Eloheim, ie., the Gods. But in the terms of "eternally created" I'm not sure I fully understand where you are coming from here. If you could clarify that would be great
I went to the Christianity entry and found that aside from the differences in the nature of the Trinity, most Mormons would believe the doctrinal statements there.
I also added a section about how Mormons view differences between mainstream christianity and Mormonism. Hope this answers some of the questions/disagreements above.
We need to archive again... any suggestions on the cutoff point?Visorstuff 15:47, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Last question first. My suggested cutoff point would be everything before the "Cut Text" heading, so the "Cut Text heading and below stays. but that's flexible.
To answer your question about Jesus being uncreated, I'll try to answer this from an Orthodox perspective; I make no claims about it being the same or different from Catholics or Protestants, I'm just trying to be clear and specific. Anyway, Orthodox Christian doctrine as I understand it is that God has always existed in three persons (Greek hypostases). The relationship between the three has always been the same: Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. These phrases are not meant to express or describe events that happened at any point in time, but the relationship among the three persons. They share a single divine nature, a single divine essence; they are both indivisible (no "parts" as Mkmconn recently clarified on Christianity) and unconfused, that is not mixed up. When Mary conceived Jesus in her womb, Jesus added or assumed human nature and human flesh, and a human will, without any change in his divine nature. One hymn to Mary says, "He whom the entire Universe could not contain, was contained within your womb." An ancient (6th century?) hymn to Jesus says, "without change you became Man". Orthodox theology of Christ's death and resurrection is that God was never separated, that all three persons of the Trinity descended into Hell, shattered Hell's gates, liberated the captives there and subsequently rose from the dead. Even while Christ hung on the Cross, in His divinity He continued to sustain the universe's existence. ("universe" here is understood to mean "everything that is created", same as "everything that is not God".) The Tome of Leo I, sent to the Council of Chalcedon in the fifth century, discusses this at great length. See also the Trinity article, and the articles linked from Christology. And to the argument that the Trinity has always existed, there are many Old Testament passages that Orthodox Christians see pointing to the Trinity, from "Let us make man in our image" and similar sayings of God, to the three strangers who told Abraham that Sarah would conceive, to the angel in the fiery furnace who "looked like a son of God" to King Nebuchadnezzar. My limited understanding of "Elohim" is that Hebrew sometimes uses plural forms to show greater honor or respect, and not always to show an actual plurality of number, so I don't think that particular argument is as strong.
Much of what I just wrote is probably shared by most of Protestantism, although some (many??) Protestants seem to have the idea that Jesus was thoroughly and completely separated from God the Father while he hung on the Life-giving Cross bearing our sins; part of the idea some have that God is "unable" to tolerate sin, like sin was some kind of Kryptonite. I think Roman Catholicism would agree with most of my summary; and more importantly to me personally, the historical documents that we have available to us say that this was always the belief of the Church; it was just spelled out in greater detail to defend it from errors as time went on. Again, just my personal experience is that Orthodox catechism was more comprehensive; however, this could be at least partly because I went through Orthodox catechism as an adult, and Lutheran catechism in my early teens, so my comprehension then would have been correspondingly less mature. Makes it hard to judge. ;-) Anyway, I hope this at least helps clarify the nature and extent of the differences. I also wonder if you've compared Mormon teaching about God the Father having a Father, to some of the Gnostic ideas that Irenaeus describes about Aeons descending from Aeons. That's probably the closest analogous teaching you'll find recorded in the first few centuries, but please correct me if I'm wrong on the history. Wesley 18:17, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I believe almost all protestants would agree with what you have written above. DJ Clayworth 20:43, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Wesley (and B, Visorstuff), I liked your statement that " 'eternally begotten' from the Nicene Creed carries special meaning to traditional Christians who assume that most people were created within time and are not eternal...." Would it work to say that "unlike most Christians, who assume that most people were created within time and are not eternal, Mormons believe that the spirit of man existed with God in eternity outside of time?" And of course Mormons also believe that God intends to make Gods of all the sons of God who will.

Russian Baptism of the Dead

News article regarding Mormon baptism for the dead in Russia: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1091318,00.html, to support my recent edit. Note the comparison with Satanist desecration of graves, and the Mormon persistence in spite of this perception. Wesley 06:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wesley, you miss the point of the LDS Baptisms for the Dead (and the intentions). The point Mormons make is that other Christian denominations have lost the authority to baptize, not that they are not christian. Mormons believe that faith in Christ is the first step. Then repentance and finally baptism by one holding authority. LDS simply believe that other denominations have lost that authority through apostasy. Your edits that the LDS don't think others are christian, unfortunately, goes against everything the LDS Church teaches. In addition, Baptism for the dead has not always been a "mormon" thing. Others have practiced it in the past. I feel bad you have this perception. Mormons do believe that others are Christian. Visorstuff 13:41, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
...despite the fact that other "Christian" religions don't consider the LDS to be Christian ;-). But why are we discussing it here instead of the Baptism for the dead article where the change was made? —Frecklefoot 15:26, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Look at the article history - Wesley added it in as a differentiator, which is appropriate, but his conclusions are percieved not actual, which was reflected in my change. Visorstuff 17:35, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Visorstuff, thanks for your clarification in the article. So, do Mormons view baptism as a rite of initiation, or in some other way? Does a person need to receive baptism, either while living or while dead, in order to have a chance to accept/receive the gospel and have eternal life, as I think the baptism for the dead article explains? From an Orthodox perspective, there could be very little difference between losing authority to baptize and ceasing to be Christian; I mention this only to explain the trouble I'm having understanding. Thanks. Wesley 18:31, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Wesley. In Mormonism it is important to distinguish between achieving salvation and being a Christian or disciple. Accepting Jesus as the Christ and trying to follow him is generally a sufficient enough condition for a Mormon to accept another person as being Christian. However, in Mormonism, to be saved, the requirements are far more stringent. So, in Mormonism, one could be a good Christian or a not so good Christian...AND that will also depend on the knowledge that each person has acquired. Mormons have no problem calling Orthodox folks Christian...Mormons should be reluctant to indentify Orthodox/Catholic/etc with apostates or apostate-Christians because in Mormonism, apostasy depends on how much a person really knows about Christ's doctrine. B 21:07, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

Ok... let me try to rephrase the question using your terms. In Mormonism, is Mormon baptism a prerequisite to salvation? If not, why the interest in baptism for dead non-Mormons? If so, what "advantage" (for lack of a better term) if any do non-Mormon Christians have compared to Jews or Buddhists? Wesley 17:43, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To answer your question simply, yes: you need to baptized into the LDS Church in order to acheive salvation. Unless you were baptized by someone else having authority, such as John the Baptist. The LDS beleive that one must hold the preisthood (the LDS priesthood) in order to perform a baptism which is valid. Most other Christian denominations have no concept as "authority" so accept some other baptisms as valid. The "advatantages" that non-LDS Christians have over non-Christian religous followers is debatable--most people are going to have their own opinions on this subject. Could you be more specific? —Frecklefoot 18:10, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Let me clarify further - baptism is not required for salvation, but is required for exaltation. In Mormonism, there is a difference, and the wording although more semantics than actuation. However, Mormons believe that there are steps that a disciple of Christ must take to return to him and gain exaltation (in your words salvation). The first is Faith in Jesus Christ (and His Atonement, diety, etc.) The second repentance, the third Baptism by one holding authority, the forth laying on of hands (by one holding authority) for the Gift of the Holy Ghost and finally enduring to the end (other ordinances, and overcoming the testing and trials that the Lord sees fit to put us through, etc.). One can be on any level or step and still recieve exaltation, if they are willing to continue down the path. However, the difference comes into play in that Mormons believe that the God will not send aborigional peoples or unbaptized children to Hell just because they've never heard of Jesus Christ and didn't have the chance to accept Christ and His gospel. That's where baptism for the dead ususally comes into play. However, since Authority is required for certain ordinances (in the Old Testament examples include the man steadying the ark, Saul peforming sacrifices without authority and losing the kingdom because of it; and in the new testament, Simony and rebaptisms of those who it was questionable if they were baptised correctly (for those who didn't hear of teh Holy Ghost, etc). In these cases, we believe that our Christian friends and relatives that didn't have the authority, made certain steps down the path, but still need the authority to "enter in at the gate." For us it is more than joining a church, but an ordinance of "salvation" (to be read exaltation). Even without a Mormon Baptism, one may still go to heaven, but that person will not receive exaltation. Since Mormons beleive they will eventually do Baptisms for the dead for pretty much every person who has ever lived, this is all a moot point. Belief and faith is what makes one a Christian, not ordinances or rites of initiation - at least that is what my evangelical born again friends tell me. Faith alone can save, which I agree with, but it cannot exalt until that belief bears fruit and the person lives as a follower and disciple of Jesus Christ. Visorstuff 19:47, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thank you both for your explanations. Visorstuff, I think I generally agree with your conclusion that belief needs to bear fruit, and I think that certain rites are important. I can also somewhat identify with your imagery of all of us being at different stages on a common journey. Orthodox Christians also don't think God will send people to Hell just because they've never heard of Jesus, etc. etc. God alone will judge, not any of us. However, if we are to identify outwardly visible milestones on our common journey, it seems that non-Mormon Christians and others, whether Jews, atheists, Hindus, etc., are all on the same side of one Mormonism's first milestones, that is an authentic baptism. Which at best puts the rest of us Christians in just about the same camp as the Jews: Mormons are descended from them historically and perhaps in some way spiritually, but only Mormons have stayed (or been restored to) the true path and the rest of us will eventually have to join up again. The Orthodox have a somewhat similar stance, except that we recognize baptisms from Protestants and Catholics provided they are trinitarian baptisms, and in that practical way acknowledge a shared faith. (I think Mormon baptisms would be considered non-trinitarian, though I haven't confirmed this.) Some Orthodox bishops will even go so far as to recognize Roman Catholic confirmations/chrismations, and even ordinations, as being valid, should a Roman Catholic wish to convert. Seen through these lenses, it appears that the Mormon practices don't really acknowledge non-Mormons as Christians; i.e., they don't practically see much difference between them and other non-Mormons; they all share the same needs, or are at very nearly the same stage in their spiritual journeys at least as far as outward signs indicate. (Let's assume that all things are equal in terms of living a morally upstanding life, etc. etc.) Wesley 18:13, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Still Mormons do distinguish between Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. the defining characteristic being that Christians accept Jesus as the Christ and Son of God, while other religionists do not. In Mormonism a person must be a Christian before s/he can be saved; a person cannot be a mere Jew, etc and be saved. To be exalted however, a person must be an excellent Mormon. If outward manifestation is the only thing that mattered in Mormonism, your suggestion could be taken a step further to show why this is problematic by asking who of the Mormons are not Christians? Mormons who...don't hometeach? break the word of wisdom? watch rated R movies? don't pay a full tithing? Baptism in Mormonism is pointless if you don't outwardly manifest the other requirements in Mormonism, but I wouldn't call my Mormon friend a non-Mormon because he doesn't pay his tithing. What makes him a Mormon is that he was baptized by a Mormon authority. What makes him a Christian is his acceptance of Jesus. B 19:20, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)
Hmm. Guess I need to go back and find the distinction between salvation and exaltation in Mormonism, to find the distinction between Christians and Muslims. This exercise is educational for me, at the very least. Hope it's leading to a more informed article. Wesley 18:28, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
In Mormonism, eventually everyone (whether they are a Mormon in this life or not) will be "saved" except for the handful of individuals who are cast into "outer darkness". LDS Church President Kimball stated that the parable of the ten virgins is about the LDS Church, the moral being that only about half of the LDS would merit "exaltation". It is not clear in Mormonism what percentage of individuals who never become Mormons in this life will merit exaltation. Those who are saved will be cleansed from sin and receive a perfected resurrected body into some "degree of glory" while those exalted will receive the highest degree of glory...think "godhood" or "angelhood". Wesley, your questions and clarifications have helped develop more informed articles for all the Mormonism articles. Thanks for your participation. B 18:59, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/r/Talk%7EMormonism_and_Christianity_Archive_1_9405.html"