Talk:Mormonism and Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on September 1, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.


Article Created 7 Aug 2004. As of 16 Apr 2006, there have been 136 Contributers, 60 are IP addresses, 76 are registered Users

Total 7 Aug 2004 to 16 Apr 2006, 924 Edits
Stats from (VChapman 16 APR 2006)

Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Contents

[edit] Jesus

The Mormon doctrine that Jesus is Jehovah (and not God the Father) has a special significance in relation to the Jews and their covenant with Yahweh (or Jesus?). Jonathan Tweet 02:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The Jesus section needs some work; the info is basically fine, but the current text has quite a combative tone. In particular, the lead-in characterizes it as a fallacy that Jews think about Jesus at all. This is non-neutral and somewhat silly. It's true that Jesus does not have a central or large role in Judaism, and perhaps that was all that was meant. But of course Judaism has teachings about Jesus, as the article goes on to describe. I'm reworking it a bit now, feel free to comment on my changes. --Reuben 22:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
"of course Judaism has teachings about Jesus"?! By all means, share them with us. FiveRings 00:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
My pleasure. There's a Wikipedia article on that subject: Jewish view of Jesus. See also Yeshu, who appears in the Talmud and has traditionally be understood by Jews and Christians as referring to Jesus. Maimonides wrote about him. There are books on the subject [1], articles [2], an FAQ [3], etc., just as there are Christian view of Mohammad or a Muslim view of Buddha. One simple example of a Jewish teaching about Jesus is that Jesus was not the Messiah. I would be happy with a different wording than my version, but I think your edit still comes across as somewhat combative. It's not necessary to repeat the qualification "if such a person even existed," when the very next sentence already makes it clear that many Jews do not believe this. Also, the comment about a "trinity, even of divine beings" does not reflect trinitarian Christian belief. See for example Trinity. --Reuben 00:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks much better, thanks. I'm changing "trinity of divine beings" to "trinity of divine persons," because a trinitarian Christian would not describe the trinity as consisting of three separate beings. For the same reason, "any deity but God" still isn't quite right, because trinitarian Christians don't believe that Jesus is an additional deity. I think there's probably a better way to put this, but I haven't thought of it yet... --Reuben 01:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not just Jesus as an additional diety that's the issue though, it's also the duality between Father and Holy Spirit. Many xtians seem to believe that Jews believe in a trinity without Jesus. That unity thing should be re-emphasized. Perhaps a link to the sh'ma? FiveRings 01:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
That would be good in the "nature of God" section, just before "Jesus." --Reuben 01:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Friendship" and mormons afforded special privilidges in Israel.

The following paragraph (now reverted) was added to the intro:

"Despite the great theological gaps that exist between the two peoples, since the beginning of modern Jewish history in Israel, close friendships have existed between Israeli leaders and Mormon leaders, and Israel has afforded the Mormon people many benefits in Israel that other denominations have been denied (i.e. the BYU Jerusalem Center)."

this memo from the jerusalem center for public affairs explains what actually happened: http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles2/mormon.htm

Mormons aren't considered differently from any other xtian denomination. FiveRings 01:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think an acceptable question to answer is there any evidence that other Christian groups been denied benefits granted the Mormon people? The article cited does not address the final point made that there is not difference. Currently, that can only be assumed an opinion and not a fact.
Who was the editor that made the claim and what evidence do they have for such a statement? Storm Rider (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The memo cited specifically references Israel's policy of freedom of religion, and the need to treat all xtian denominations equally: "The establishment of a Mormon presence on the proposed scale will present a challenge to other Christian groups to whom Israel will then be unable to deny equal access as their right. If the Mormons do build, some guarantee against missionizing will have to be made part of the charter agreement if constant battle is to be avoided (although such a guarantee would not necessarily deflect the opposition of groups opposing a substantial Christian presence in Jerusalem as a threat to Jewish survival)."
The editor wasn't named, just an IP address. FiveRings 05:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, even if true, that is original research by that IP unless there is a reference. --Trödel 15:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the structure was already built; it is the BYU Jerusalem Center. I don't see how its construction is a favor; I suspect the editor was being overly optimistic or just naieve. I know the LDS church and the Mormon people are highly favorable towards Israel and its people, but I am not aware of any mutual relationship beyond that. Storm Rider (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
In fact, many religions have centers near or in Jerusalem (I visited the Bahai temple when I was there). If you read the entire referenced memo, you'll note that one of the concerns was Jews *attacking* the Mormon construction. FiveRings 01:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing - Wikipedia not a reliable source

The AFD discussion currently underway contains the statement "I added a lot of the Jewish information, and it was taken from other Wikipedia articles and other disparate sources." This is a reminder that per our guideline on reliable sources, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The material sourced from Wikipedia articles should be resourced to reliable sources. GRBerry 02:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could have said "as I was taught in Hebrew school", but that's harder to cite. What is considered common knowledge in the jewish community isn't common knowledge at all in the mormon community, and isn't necessarily common knowledge (or thought of at all) in the general community. So at what point is a citation needed? (The sign on the wall at the Mikveh says "take off all makeup and jewelery". I suppose I could take a photo). FiveRings 03:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LDS Baptism

Would someone check into LDS baptism and confirmation. It is listed incorrectly here. Baptism is only for the the washing away of sins. Baptism does not make one a church member. Afterwards priesthood holders confirm the candidate as a member of the church and give them the Gift of the Holy Ghost. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.165.101.30 (talk • contribs).

There are two different baptisms of water. Baptism for remission of sins and baptism as an entrance into the kingdom of God (or the Church). In the church today, we rarely practice the first independent of the second. In the early days of the church, members were baptised when they joined the church, before going to the temple for the first time, before recieving the priesthood, before entering into a new plural marriage, etc. In fact, Oliver Cowdery and Brigham Young both were baptized at least six times each, if not more. Later prophets clarified that the ordinance of the sacrament was adequate for renewing the covenants of baptism and that baptism solely for the remission of sins was not essential after one had already been baptized as a church member. In otherwords, people only needed to be baptized once in their life unless they lost their church membership. Whenever we participate in a new ordinance, according to Wilford Woodruff, their former covenants associated with previous ordinacnes are renewed as if they were participating in the original ordinances for the first time. For example, when you go to the temple to be married, your baptismal coventant is renewed and you are again washed clean of your sins. Same when you partake of the lords supper.
Baptism is the introductory ordinance to church membership. While it is true that Baptism is for the remission of sins - ie to demonstrate that one has partook of the atonement (blood) unto the remission of sins, not merely for the washing away of sins (water) or the sanctification and justification required (spirit) to keep one clean. Baptism does make one a church member. That membership is "confirmed" at the time of confirmation or when a member is given the gift of the holy ghost. See for example: D&C 20: 37, 41, 68, 72-73 ("truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins, shall be received by baptism into his church"; "And to confirm those who are baptized into the church"; "The duty of the members after they are received by baptism.") also, Mosiah 25: 17-18 (Therefore, Alma did go forth into the water and did baptize them; yea, he did baptize them after the manner he did his brethren in the waters of Mormon; yea, and as many as he did baptize did belong to the church of God; and this because of their belief on the words of Alma.
Bottom line? Baptism by water is for church membership and to signify a remission of sins, which comes from accepting the atonement or "received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins," and precedes the baptism by fire (or spirit). Baptism signifies a remission of sins, not neccessarily "washes them away." Baptism is a symbol of the death, burial and ressurection of christ and that we are volunarily laying down and burying our old sin-filled life and lifting up a new life as a disciple of Christ. John the beloved gives an interesting discourse in 1 John 5 on these three baptisms (blood water and spirit). hope this helps. -Visorstuff 21:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split?

Anyone else think this rather long article would work better as two separate ones? "Mormonism and Judaism" would be a comparative religion article (cf. Judaism and Christianity), currently all of section 7 and subsections, and "Mormon views of Judaism" (a similar idea to Judaism's view of Jesus) would include the current introduction and following sections up to 7. Kaisershatner 16:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

An even better template is Relations between Catholicism and Judaism. I'm going to make the split if no-one comments. I'm going to solicit comments from major editors here and maybe the Mormonism project?  :) Kaisershatner 17:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to the split. In any case the article could usefully be rewritten and significantly shortened. In particular, many of the sections read as simply a statement of Mormon belief, followed (or preceded) by a statement of Jewish belief. It would be better to combine sections into a running text that just touches on the most significant points, since there are already very thorough articles on the two religions individually. If you would like to reorganize the article, and a split would help you do it, it sounds fine to me. --Reuben 17:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Not sure I agree with the split. The point-by-point format was the end product of a lot of editing and arm wrestling - integrating the two texts never worked out (in my opinion, because the Mormon editors kept trying to find analogies that didn't exist). FiveRings 22:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a tough decision, but I am mildly against at this point. There is no relationship from the perspective of Judaism. The relationship is one way, from Latter-day Saints to the House of Israel. I do agree that the article may be improved. Let's mull this over a bit longer. Storm Rider (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Community of Christ, number of members??

Either 275,000 or 245,000 or (more probably) some other number. Not both numbers of members. (OK if they have 275,000 members they for certain have at least 245,000 members, but such sloppy logic won't be accepted by common encyclopedia readers!! :) Rursus 12:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a refernce for the current membership - I believe the current number comes from adherents.com. --Trödel 14:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Places of worship

Can we get a reference for "Latter-day Saint places of worship are frequently offered to Jews for their use in religious observances or celebrations."? Cdwiegand 22:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/r/Talk%7EMormonism_and_Judaism_17c2.html"