Talk:Criticism of Mormonism/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Mediation May 2006

A mediation has been requested for a dispute between Storm Rider and A.J.A.. Please can I request that the flow of this thread not be interrupted by unrelated matters, ie I will continue to add all my responses here, and others can discuss the issue directly below (as per headings). That's just to avoid things becoming confusing. David L Rattigan 07:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Mediator comments

Greetings, all. There's quite a history of dispute on this page, but hopefully we can find a way forward. From looking at the history, I can see that you're all pretty intelligent, reasonable people, even if you've had some heated disagreements, so I don't see any reason why we can't resolve this.

A bit of background for me, just to give you some idea where my strengths (and weaknesses!) lie: I am a liberal Anglican, theologically trained, and have studied Mormonism and LDS theology in the past.

Initial impressions

One thing that struck me when looking through the article and history of disagreements is that the statement of LDS views and statements of LDS criticisms are mixed together. Seems to me the clearest way of presenting the information unambiguously would be:

  1. Clearly state the LDS view
  2. Clearly state the criticism
  3. Clearly state the LDS response to the criticism

So, for example (this isn't necessarily meant to be accurate, but an example of the structure):

The Church teaches that man may ascend to godhood. By faithfulness to God's commandments, Mormon males may receive "exaltation" in the future life. Some LDS theologians have written that God himself was once a man who was exalted to godhood.
Critics believe this doctrine is a heresy that compromises monotheism and contradicts the Bible, which says that man is "dust", and that man "shall have no other gods before me".
In response, LDS proponents have likened the doctrine to the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of Theosis, and argued that it is simply an extension of biblical promise of a future inheritance as sons of God.

Whether the LDS view is entitled to the counter-response is up for debate.

Anyway, that's my first suggestion - Clearly separate the LDS views from the criticism. My thinking is that if we can establish a few ground rules, we can start to work through each section together and reach a consensus. Any thoughts?

My first thought is that your POV is colored by your theological background. Your phraseology, ". . .contradicts the Bible, which says . . " shows that you are not neutral on the issue. That you question whether "the LDS view" is entitled to counter-respond is reprehensible. The whole issue is regarding criticism of a religion and its beliefs, yet you automatically assume that the right to defense is a privilege, to be granted or withdrawn at the whim of others.
I believe that the only effective moderation will be by a small, select committee composed of both Latter-day Saints and Gentiles, which will be able to work together to neutralize POV and eliminate confusion. I cannot be properly moderated by non-Mormons alone, due to their ignorance of the subject, nor could Mormons alone do it, due to their ignorance of the critics' positions. Critic-at-Arms 01:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

LDS/Mormon

There was also an issue with who we are talking about when we refer to "Mormons" and "LDS". It would be good to discuss that issue and clarify things. My perception is that the article is intended to be addressing the official teachings and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Perhaps others can weigh in with their views.

The primary Mormon church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is the primary target of criticism of Mormonism. There are other churches which are "Mormon" to one extent or another, including one which is called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Note the difference in punctuation and capitalization. Critic-at-Arms 01:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Editing/edit war

Can I suggest that everyone hold off making major edits or reverts for the time being? Continuing to revert each other's edits is fruitless, and we've a much better chance of getting somewhere if we all agree to discuss the article and thrash out the main points of contention here on the talk page (without personal attacks). Agreed? David L Rattigan 23:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion/responses to mediation

All other discussion will go here.

I look forward to moving ahead. The proposal to separate Mormon statements of belief and then the criticisim is acceptable and should be a clear way to avoid conflict. I have a degree of ambivalence regarding not having a response from Mormon perspective. Articles of this sort are an exception on WIKI rather than the rule. It may be helpful to have a response. Many editors have a limited understanding of Mormonism or they are misinformed about its theology. Having an opportunity to respond may allow for concise responses that clarify proper Mormon perspective or correct misunderstandings.
Most critiques are directed at the LDS church and its theology; however, if things progress on this article I am certain that comments will be more appropriately be directed towards the other groups found within Mormonism.
I have always felt that this article was needed on WIKI because the purpose of the article, as I understood it, was to address Mormonism from the scholarly historian's perspective and not "my church believes this and so you are wrong" perspective. We have Mormonism and Christianity, Anti-Mormonism, Exmormonism (and this article) that come immediately to mind. All of them address perceived falsehoods, errors, lies, etc. of Mormonism. I am not sure that they are all needed. What is the difference now between Mormonism and Christianity and this article? If this article is going to continue to be about doctrinal differences it has lost its purpose and is only a reflection of either M&C and/or Anti-Mormonism. If so, I would then recommend that it be deleted for redundancy. Storm Rider (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I also look forward to moving ahead. I also think the above outline would help clarify the issues, and the LDS counter-response would be helpful to do this. Personally, I think Anti-Mormonism addresses more emotionally-charged differences, while this article addresses more scholarly differences. I am less clear about the difference between this and Mormonism and Christianity, but that is probably because I haven't been following that article as closely. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 16:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Archive January - May 2006

For purely practical reasons (it was huge), I archived the previous few months discussion to Archive 2. This may be a helpful link for the mediation discussion, as a few of the issues have already been discussed there. David L Rattigan 07:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Storm Rider is essentially upset that the article isn't biased in favor of Mormonism. A.J.A. 16:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

AJA, you are hardly coming across as NPOV. Please try to rein it in a little. Remember, Wikipedia is about discussing different points of view, not supressing them. See Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:WikiLove DavidBailey 22:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
You don't understand NPOV. (Which was already obvious by your reversion.) A.J.A. 22:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
It was useful information related to the discussion. Please read Help:Reverting, especially the "move to talk" section. Because you disagree with something doesn't make it irrelevant. What you consider to be POV, may in fact be NPOV if you have strong feelings on the subject. See "Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete" in NPOV article. The paragraphs contained valid information, even if you disagree with them. DavidBailey 23:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Ultimately, we need to restructure the article as suggested by the moderator; separating statements of belief from the criticism. DavidBailey 23:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Theosis, Again

Since my conclusive demonstration that the Mormon version (may as well call it what it is) is inaccurate has been buried in the archives, I'm going to repeat it.

Man Does Not Become a God What Theosis is Not

Get that? The Eastern Orthodox define theosis in such a way as to exclude exaltation -- "heresy of the very first order". (I expect some Mormon to insist that since that's their POV and Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV the only choice is to directly assert that exaltation is a form of theosis.)

The Orthodox are Trinitarians. They believe that neither the Father nor the Son had any need of exaltation but have always been God. Mormons aren't. Now use a little logic: if the doctrine of God is totally different, the doctrine of becoming God is necessarily different.

There are other ways my version is superior:

  1. Prose style.
  2. Clarity. If the reader doesn't already know what exaltation is, the Mormon version doesn't tell him.
  3. Marriage in Heaven: off topic, badly written.

Yes, I'm reverting again. And I intend to revert any number of times, because WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR are explicitly said to overrule other policies (which would include the 3RR), and the part about theosis violates all three, as well as the version violating WP:NOT as soapboxing. A.J.A. 23:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've requested that you edit and correct, rather than strip out content you disagree with. Or even move it to the discussion page to talk about it. You obviously have strong opinions, I believe it's compromising your NPOV, and you're not following the recommendations of the Moderator either. Rather than stripping out content you disagree with, please discuss it first. DavidBailey 02:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


I merged the two versions. As it stands now, it talks about a form of theosis, and does not relate it to Orthodox Christianity. Hopefully this is closer to something we can agree upon. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 02:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
First, I'm not "stripping out" content. If you refuse even to descibe the edits accurately discussion will be very difficult.
Second, the "compromise version" still contains cringe-making prose. I'm not claming to be Nabokov or anything, but my version is reasonably servicable. What reason could anyone possibly have for replacing "believe" with "postulate other concepts or principles"?
Finally, Mormons do not believe in any form of theosis. This article cannot say they do. Period. A.J.A. 02:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
A.J.A. rather than insisting this is the point, have you considered that you might be mistaken? Why don't we discuss it rather than have you destroy all of the efforts of so many others that are trying to find a compromise? DavidBailey 02:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You don't seem to have assimilated that I've got sources. Don't give me relativistic piffle that I "might be mistaken". I might be a brain in a jar hallucinating all this. Speculation aside, you don't get to assert your disputed opinion as fact. It's unsourced. WP:V says unsourced material "may be removed by any editor." Even if it were sourced it could only be described as somebody's opinion, not fact. That policy also says: "The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." A.J.A. 03:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, I must have missed all of the sourcing for your statements. It would then be helpful to identify everything that needs to be sourced that is not. I will do that.
Further, in keeping with the guidelines set up by David Rattigan, the mediator, lets begin by taking one point at a time and stating the Mormon viewpoint, then the criticism, and a response if necessary. Let's leave all editing now to the discussion page, rather than make edits in keeping with Rattigan's recent request to stop the editing. Bailey, Pringle I request you support this. All that is left immediately is to gain A.J.A.'s consent, which is also lacking from agreeing to mediation. Does everyone agree? Storm Rider (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I am in full agreement with anything at this point which will limit A.J.A. bull-in-a-china-closet constant reverts. All one has to do is read the theosis article to see that there are more viewpoints than his. DavidBailey 04:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The issue isn't whether there are more viewpoints than mine, it's whether there are more viewpoints than yours. There are, therefore you don't get to state your opinion as fact.
That's not up for negotiation or mediation of any kind. A.J.A. 04:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
AJA, you cannot revert the perspectives of others who are working to improve the article. While I was trying to add references, you reverted me. There are plenty of scholarly articles out there that compare LDS exaltation to Eastern Orthodox theosis including one that discredits your source.[1][2] Exaltation and theosis are not antonyms of each other. Also, your snide comments and insults are not conducive to the group-effort that Wikipedia must be. You do not own this article. Your POV does not qualify as NPOV because you say so. You also cannot revert other sources because you don't agree with them. To be balanced, both views must be represented, not yours only. DavidBailey 04:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You are badly confused.
First, you can find sources to say just about anything. That's not a reason to state it as fact in the article. Sources like FARMS are only reliable sources for their own views.
Second, I did not include a direct statement in the article that exaltation is not a form of theosis, even though I believe that to be demonstrably true, because that would violate WP:NPOV. You did add a direct statement that it is a form of theosis, even though you know that's disputed and Wikipedia does not takes sides in religious disputes. That's unacceptable. Adding POV presented as fact, and removing it, are not equivalent actions. A.J.A. 04:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, he didn't state that exaltation was a form of theosis. I did. On the one hand, you state that wikipedia doesn't take sides in religious disputes, and then you edit the article to remove any statements contrary to your interpretation of the facts. I would appreciate your comments on the search results I posted on theosis. Perhaps we can reach some common point of reference. The only fair way (IMHO) to not take sides is to present all views and then let the reader draw their own conclusions. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 05:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
He reverted it, which is the same.
Again, removing POV stated as fact is not equivalent to adding it.
The way to present all views is "Guy A says X, Guy B says Y". Saying "X" and then defending it in terms of presenting all views is... well, if I said it somebody would accuse me of not assuming good faith. A.J.A. 05:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The only person controling viewpoints at the moment is A.J.A. You revert everyone that edits your comments. In particular you revert edits that state correct LDS doctrine; please inform us of your creditials to know Mormonism so much better than the rest of us.

More importantly, do both of you agree to mediation and the methods outlined by Rattigan? Btw, I have begun to added needed references to some of the statements made in the article. It is only a beginning and needs to be further expanded. I do not think this is a major edit, but it will only help us seek out support for them, which I think all of us can easily find. As we begin to edit the article itself, we will find greater support by supporting as much as possible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Storm_Rider (talk • contribs) 5/22/06.

If you mean my viewpoint that articles should conform to the fundamental policies, you got me.
If you believe anything in the article is inaccurate, explain on the Talk page what's wrong with it and provide sources. A.J.A. 04:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


Furthmore, we should remember that just because you can find a web site that makes a statement, that doesn't mean it is accurate. There are plenty of POV sites out there, and some of them contain distortions and/or outright errors. There was a time when I thought I knew things, but the more I learn, the more I realize how many different ways there are to interpret the same text. Consider all the different interpretations of what certain biblical texts mean. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


Here are the first few search results on google for theosis:
The Wikipedia article states:
"In Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic theology, theosis, meaning divinization (or deification or, to become god), is the call to man to become holy and seek union with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in the resurrection. Theosis comprehends salvation from sin, is premised upon apostolic and early Christian understanding of the life of faith, and is conceptually foundational in both the East and the West."
http://church-of-the-east.org/theology/theosis.htm
"The term theosis is from the earliest (2nd century) Church fathers and refers to the Christian goal and purpose of life. The word theosis became popular in Greek writings from the 2nd century onward but echoes the concept expressed in the word yoga in this sense because yoga, from the Sanskit, means to be yoked to God, to have the divine energies as one's yoke-fellow. The fundamental vocation and goal of each and every person is to share in the energies of God. The descent of the energies of God in the person of Yesu Christ has made possible the human ascent to God through the work of the Holy Spirit our Father and Holy Wisdom our Mother. Eastern Christianity believes that each devotee is involved in a movement toward God which is known as theosis or deification."
http://www.bethel.edu/~rakrob/files/THEOSIS2.html
"In one of his letters, Athanasius, the fourth-century defender of the faith, made his famous statement that the Son of God became man "that he might deify us in himself."{1} In his great work, On the Incarnation, he wrote similarly that Christ "was made man that we might be made God."{2} This is the doctrine of theosis, also known as deification, divinization, or, as some prefer, participation in God."
http://www.frimmin.com/faith/theosis.html
"Theosis, (also called divinization, deification, or transforming union) was one of the most important of early Christian doctrines, but it has become such a well-kept secret, that is nearly unknown to most contemporary laymen. It means participating in, and partaking of, God's Divinity. It is likely to sound so alien to our ears that we might quickly dismiss it as some heresy, rather than realize this is the heart of the Christian calling."
http://www.angelfire.com/wi/theosis/theosis.html
(not english)
http://www.answers.com/topic/theosis
"In Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic theology, theosis, meaning divinization (or deification or, to become god), is the call to man to become holy and seek union with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in the resurrection. Theosis comprehends salvation from sin, is premised upon apostolic and early Christian understanding of the life of faith, and is conceptually foundational in both the East and the West."
http://www.monachos.net/patristics/clement_intro.shtml
"With respect to the notion of theosis (commonly translated ‘deification’ or ‘divinisation’), Clement’s affinity for philosophical expression, coupled with an energetic and devoted embrace of the teachings of the Church, led him to the formulation of two distinct modes of approach and understanding: The first, most clearly presented in book VII of the Stromata (the ‘miscellanies’), might be termed his ‘philosophical’ or ‘platonic’ model; while the second, found in chapter six of Paedagogus (‘The Teacher’) book I, might roughly be termed the ‘sacramental’. The two are not exclusive. Indeed, Clement seems to have regarded them as two sides to the same coin, working in harmony as joint explanations of the divine economy of salvation. Yet they are distinct in form and character, each worthy of examination in its own light."
http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis
"Theosis, meaning deification or divinization, is the process of man becoming holy and being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in the resurrection. Theosis is the content of salvation from sin, is premised upon apostolic and early Christian understanding of the life of faith, and is conceptually foundational in both the east and the west."
Perhaps we can use these comments to determine the variations of the meaning of the term.
wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know I cited a POV site. POV sources are reliable sources for their own views. WP:NPOV requires reporting disputed POVs as just that, not facts.
This is not ambiguous.
Gathering your own samples and determining how you personally think the user meant the word is original research. A.J.A. 05:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Already in the article

"Belief in exaltation has been defended by reference to passages such as 2 Peter 1:4, as well as many statements by early Christians about humans being divinized (a doctrine known to the Eastern Orthodox as theosis).[5] Christian apologists reply that there is only superficial similarity, noting the crucial distinction made between the Divine energies which creatures may participate in, and the Divine essence, which is uncreated and therefore entirely different from whatever is created.[6]"

You can suggest improvements. Note that improving is not a synonym for "making more Mormon". A.J.A. 05:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

First Project for Cooperative Editing

I have taken a section, edited it, and propose that this be the first that we work on together. It is also one that has caused a high degree of conflict; I hope that this will not be our undoing. NOTE: This is a statement of Mormon beliefs. As such, this is the way Mormons would state these prinicples, teach each other, or anyone else.

Mormons are nontrinitarian and believe that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate beings, which form one Godhead. They are one in thought and one in purpose. In addition, they believe that both the Father and the Son have physical bodies. By contrast, Trinitarian theology teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God in Three Persons, all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal "persons" or "hypostases", share a single Divine essence, being, or nature. Orthodoxy also teaches that only the Son has a physical body and the Father has only a body of spirit.
Although not "doctrinal" and not found in Mormon canonical scripture, many Mormons believe in a process of deification or theosis. They find biblical support for such beliefs.[3]
This passage is a direct contradiction. The Bible is "Mormon canonical scripture" and always has been. Critic-at-Arms 01:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a literal interpretation of scripture that humans are promised to become co-inheritors with Christ, to inherit all that Christ will inherit. There is no limitation put on that inheritance. This is literally interpreted to include becoming like fully like Christ because we are all sons/daughters of God.[4][5][6] This process of theosis was taught by many early Christians, one was St. Athanasius of Alexandria who wrote, "The Son of God became man, that we might become God."
Lorenzo Snow summarized another belief that is not found anywhere in Mormon canonical scripture, but is supported by belief. It is formed as a couplet: "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may become."[1] Joseph Smith taught a similar concept in a funeral talk known as the King Follett Discourse. Most Mormons believe this concept as it is stated. Others believe that it teaches the concept of eternal progression; that the purpose of God's creation is so that we become like him. These would believe that there is no first and no last god; that God the Father and His Son are first and last.

It took out the sentence that dealt with Exaltation/eternal marriage. I agree with A.J.A. that it would be best to handle that later.

I did not include the criticism section. I think it best that after we complete our review and approval of this section, we allow A.J.A. or anyone else who feels comfortable to write/edit that section and propose it for review as I have done. If this works, we can then proceed with the balance of the article. Of course, we can go back to the introduction, but I started here becuase it was causing the most problems. David Rattigan, are you supportive of this process and do you feel it an acceptable starting point? Any other counsel? Storm Rider (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't it say canonical, stead of conical? Bo-Lingua 18:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL, you could have just corrected the spelling. I nearly fell out of my chair reading your correction. Excellent way to lighten the day! It is not retangular scripture, but conical. Thank you. Storm Rider (talk) 18:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

First task: Nature of God

This seems like a good starting point. My first suggestion is that we (and the article) deal with the nature of God (the Trinity) and Exaltation separately, unless there's some reason you think they belong together.
So, first task is to agree on a statement of Mormon beliefs about the nature of God and the Trinity. Here's Storm Rider's proposed statement:
Mormons are nontrinitarian and believe that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate beings, which form one Godhead. They are one in thought and one in purpose. In addition, they believe that both the Father and the Son have physical bodies. By contrast, Trinitarian theology teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God in Three Persons, all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal "persons" or "hypostases", share a single Divine essence, being, or nature. Orthodoxy also teaches that only the Son has a physical body and the Father has only a body of spirit.
A.J.A., could you identify (with reasons) your main problems with this? It would be helpful if both sides could give their views and provide some sources for this now.
I'll express a few of my thoughts about this, if that's all right. In my understanding of LDS theology, only God the Father is "truly" God, and the Son is called God only by virtue of his relationship to the Father. The above doesn't really make the distinction in essence clear.
Second, is the mention of Christ's physical body necessary or does it just cloud the issue? The main point of contention with orthodox Christianity is the Father's corporeal existence. "Body of spirit" is also out-of-place, as I don't think any orthodox theologian would describe spirit as God's "body". David L Rattigan 07:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


I think it is important to mention both "substance" and "essence", since that was the main contention that caused the Western / Eastern Orthodox split over the nature of the trinity. I believe it is still an important issue since, when hearing a lecture from an Eastern Orthodox, that was the main point brought up about the disagreement of Eastern Orthodox with Western Christianity.
I think the mention of Christ's body is not necessary, and agree that the corporeal nature of the Father is the main point of disagreement there.
I think the concept of Heavenly Father as being the only "true" God isn't correct LDS theology. While during his earthly life, Jesus deferred to Heavenly Father, after his resurrection, he claimed perfection, suggesting that he had become "truly" God at that point. Also, the "godly" status of the Holy Ghost isn't clear (to me, anyway). It is true that Mormons believe that the Trinity is the only Godhead that matter for our salvation. Perhaps that is what you are trying to say?
From a counter point in the LDS version of the Trinity, it should be pointed out that the concept of the Trinity did not originate with the Apostles, but arose from the belief among Greek scholarly converts that it would have been impossible for three distinct beings to always be in complete agreement. I don't have a reference for that claim, and don't remember where I first read that, but I'm pretty sure it was in a non-LDS book about the Council of Nice. Since LDS believe they have restored from the original Apostolic Church (Melchezidek Priesthood via Peter, James, and John, as well as revelations from Jesus), not being in agreement with later christian beliefs is not an issue for them. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 10:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The concept of Jesus Christ as God is a mystery in Mormonism, as it is within much of Christianity. Within Mormonism he is viewed as Jehovah, the God fo the Old Testament. Though he did everything at the direction of the Father, he was obviously empowered with much that we equate with God the Father. However, he was only spirit at this time; he did not possess a tangible, perfected body, which was possessed by the Father. Though they are separate beings, they are inseprable in all other ways and form one Godhead.
I reject the label of henotheistic because there is no known pantheon of Gods, which must exist to appropriately fit the title. Tritheistic is not right, to me, because there is only One Godhead. Pantheistic is often used, but is also incorrect. Though Mormonism accepts the possibility of other gods in the universe, they are not known, not named, and have nothing to do with this world or the universe we with which we are familiar. There is only One God for LDS and Mormons to worship. I have rambled, let me get back on track.
Let me digress a little; the resurrection has a purpose that I have not heard discussed by other Christian denominations. We believe the purpose of a tangible, physical body is necessary for further progression...to become like Christ fully. The fact that the Father already had this type of body is significant. An aside, David (Rattigan), is there any teaching within Anglicanism that teaches why man would be given a physical body through the resuurection if the ideal state would be as the Father, a spirit as believed by most of Christianity? If so, this might be helpful to include in the article. If you provide references I could do the research and cover those areas in order for you to maintain your status as mediator.
I think the mention of Christ's tangible body is important for the purpose mentioned above. For Mormons it is one of the purposes of creation. Our understanding of Christ's tangible body is held more important than in other parts of Christianity. Thoughts? Storm Rider (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I withdraw my comment about not needing to mention Jesus' body. We should mention his body, and probably mention that it is a perfected body like Heavenly Father's. I also agree that it would be good to discuss the possibility of multiple Godheads and why they don't matter to most LDS members. A problem that I often run into when discussing this kind of thing with my brother (who is anti-mormon) is his interpretation of what certain doctrines mean. It is important to convey not just the words, but the meaning as LDS members interpret them. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I would be very careful mentioning other "Godheads". Doing so gets into supposition and logic, but no doctrine or guidance. Are there other gods? Maybe, but we do not recognize them, we do not worship them, and they having nothing to do with us and the universe we know. Even with L. Snow's couplet and Joseph's teaching at the funeral, for LDS there is but one God that had no beginning and no end. There are no other gods beside him. If these points are crystal clear and the main thrust, then possibly it could be brought up and presented well. Anti-Mormons always go to this end and they forget about Mormon's primary beliefs of the Godhead.
At times, LDSs discuss these issues so nonchalantly that in doing so it seems like common knowledge and that it is doctrine. In reality, when doing so we are far out in the mysteries and there is no real guidance. We create more questions than provide answers. My counsel is focus heavily on the main points and then bring up the mysteries.
Agreed, but since antis discuss it so frequently, I think it would be good to include it in the article, since otherwise it will get added anyways. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 11:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
No doubt it should be added (regardless of the babbling I did above), but it should be added in context of Mormon belief; not what others say we believe. Would you take a stab at adding it to the above paragraph? 16:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I started to write up something about additional Godheads, but then noticed that David wanted to keep the nature of God and exaltation separate, and it seems to me that we should address the possibiliy of additional Godheads in conjunction with exaltation rather than here.
I think the opening paragraph quoted by David is fine, with one exception. I think the next to last sentence should end "share a single Divine substance, essence, being, or nature" (adding substance). Can we agree on this paragraph and go onto the next? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you additional add. I am a bit stumped. A.J.A. never did consent to mediation and he should be back from his block, but he has yet to participate or comment on this paragraph. I know this is important to him and I would prefer to wait for his participation. Comments? Storm Rider (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I support that text. DavidBailey 21:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for my limited interaction here as of late (demands of a new job). To add the opinions of a non-Mormon: I agree with Storm Rider's suggestion to shift the focus to a different area of the article, and this seems as good as any. I agree with his proposed text. I also agree with the mediator's wise suggestion of splitting the articles into three main sections.
As for A.J.A., he is generally good about responding to notes left on his talk page asking for his opinion — he may be a little unfamiliar with the mediation process. Tijuana BrassE@ 17:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Short and clear: LDS see our Heavenly Father as OUR Heavenly Father, yours and mine, the only one we have, first last and always. I have an Earthly father, you have an Earthly father, but they are not the same father. Therefore, your dad is a dad, but not MY dad, and vice versa. My dad is my ONLY dad, the only dad that I have, first last and always. Even though there are other dads for other people, they are not mine. It is the same with other gods, they are not ours . . .so whether they exist or not is not anything that we need to worry about. Critic-at-Arms 01:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree not to make major edits during the discussion?

Hi, all. Can we agree not to make major edits or reversions during this mediation discussion? It's pretty pointless and we'll just end up going round in circles.

Also, please keep the tone peacable. If we start giving each other attitude, making accusations and using inflammatory language, we just put each other on the defensive and the discussion stops being about content and gets taken over by people trying to defend their personalities. Let's just discuss the evidence sanely and reasonably. Agreed? David L Rattigan 07:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was tired last night. Usually, I'm quite a bit easier to get along with. I found A.J.A.'s continued, unrepentant insistence something new on Wikipedia for me. When he reverted an edit I worked on for around an hour trying to find middle ground, I was fairly upset. In any case, as a result he received a 24-hour block. The administrator made it clear that reversions based on content dispute are against policy, and that the 3RR can only be superceded for reasons of obvious vandalism, not disagreements. I think we all need to adopt a civil tone moving forward and avoid reverting except in cases of obvious vandalism. It really is quite inflamatory. DavidBailey 10:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You apparently see something offensive in your above post that I don't see. I think it is a great idea that we develop a consensus on each section the article first, and then update it. I believe this will make it easier to identify doctrine from POV. I'm guessing that we all have been convinced we know what is true at some point, and then found out we were wrong. I know I have, so I understand where A.J.A. might be coming from. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 12:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps not offensive, but more stern than necessary. DavidBailey 16:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My Contributions

It seems to me that there is a major problem with this article and I don't think a consensus is going to be reached. There simply needs to be a final edit on this article or it needs to be deleted, and made into a list of criticisms with articles of their own. I have read the article, and followed the talk page and the more I read the more irritated I become with how people think this article needs to get into details. I like the format of the article, Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This article should not be a criticism of Mormonism, but a list or a summary of the criticisms of Mormonism. If we simply stick with that we will be fine. But everyone wants to write a dissertation. They want this to be more than an encyclopedia article. It shouldn't be hard to write an article that conforms to NPOV, and that represents the criticisms of Mormonism without itself being a criticism of Mormonism. There are many websites, and many areas where people can get more information on these criticism. We should link to them, both pro and con, and let this article act like an introduction. Edward Lalone 02:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What I take issue with

  • The term anti-Mormon, which is often misused, refers to those whose criticism is motivated chiefly by a desire to antagonise.
I do not think it is appropriate to point out that the term "anti-Mormon" is often misused. That is a point of view. I think this sentence should read something like, "The term anti-Mormon, refers to those who criticism is motivated by a desire to antagonize or whose tactics are of a questionable nature."
Close, but no kewpie. How about this? "The term 'Anti-Mormon' refers to someone whose criticism is in the nature of active attack, intended to disrupt or antagonize, whose tactics are of a questionable nature or motivation, and/or who holds the belief that Mormons do not have the right to worship as they choose." Many people who disagree with Mormon doctrine are not anti-Mormons, any more than they are anti-Mexican because they don't eat enchiladas. Critic-at-Arms 01:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Christian theologians who address the topic usually teach that Mormonism is a form of pseudo-Christianity, which has departed from the teachings given in the Bible and now espouses beliefs fundamentally different.
You are again showing your POV by forcing the assumption that the only Christian theologians who address the topic are non-Mormon Christians. As a Mormon Christian theologian, I consider non-Mormon Christianity to be a form of pseudo-Christianity, which has departed from the teachings given in the Bible and now espouses beliefs fundamentally different. The fun part of this is that most non-Mormon Christians likewise consider most other non-Mormon Christian churches to be wrong to some degree or other. Critic-at-Arms 01:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
What beliefs, doctrines, practices, or policies of Mormonism are being criticized here? This article is not about what Christian theologians believe or teach but is about actual criticism made by those theologians or by others. The criticism it seems to me is, "that Mormonism has departed from the Bible."
I think that this sentence should read something like, "Some Christian theologians criticize the doctrines, beliefs and practices of Mormonism as being non-Biblical."
Well put, accurate and neutral. Critic-at-Arms 01:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Mormons believe that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three different beings and that the Father has a physical body. By contrast, Trinitarian theology teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one substance (or essence) and that the Father does not have a physical body.
I think that this statement needs citations and should read something like, "Mormons have been criticized for the belief that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate personages, and that God the Father and the Son have physical bodies, while the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (See Trinity)." I don't think it's appropriate to go into what those who criticize Mormons believe. Is this an article about the criticisms of Mormonism or an article about what critics of Mormonism believe?
Both, actually. It is necessary to provide some understanding of the differences between non-Mormon Christian doctrine and Mormon Christian doctrine. If this were a discussion of criticism of Calvinism, it would likewise be necessary to provide illumination of the points of contention.
  • Although not "doctrinal", most Mormons believe that the Father was once a man and became God at some point in the past (whose own God was similarly promoted even earlier, ad infinitum), and that Mormons may be given the same promotion, called "Exaltation". This concept was most famously summarized by Lorenzo Snow, who framed it as a couplet: "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be." Joseph Smith taught something similar in the King Follett Discourse. These doctrines have been heavily criticized on Biblical grounds, often citing Isaiah 43:10, in which God declares: "before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." They have also been criticized on logical grounds.
Logic and religion are difficult to mix. Mainstream Christianity is incredibly difficult to reconcile through logical interpretation, LDS doctrines are much easier to reconcile. Critic-at-Arms 01:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe this should read, "Mormons have also been criticized for their belief in exaltation. This concept was most famously summarized by Lorenzo Snow, who framed it as a couplet: "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be." Critics often cite Isaiah 43:10, "before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me" and the Shema Yisrael to support their argument that this belief is not biblical. Belief in exaltation has been defended by reference to the scriptures, including 2 Peter 1:4, "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."
I don't think that the King Follett Discourse should be mentioned unless the pertinent part is quoted. Many of the people who read this article won't even know what the King Follett Discourse is. This article needs to be general, not specific.

So I would have the paragraph read: "Some Christian theologians criticize the doctrines, beliefs and practices of Mormonism as being non-Biblical. In this respect, Mormons have been criticized for the belief that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate personages, and that God the Father and the Son have physical bodies, while the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (See Trinity). Mormons have also been criticized for their belief in exaltation. This concept was most famously summarized by Lorenzo Snow, who framed it as a couplet: "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be." Critics often cite Isaiah 43:10, "before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me" and the Shema Yisrael to support their argument that this belief is not biblical. Belief in exaltation has been defended by reference to the scriptures, including 2 Peter 1:4, "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust."

My edit (IN CAPS): "Some Christian theologians criticize the doctrines, beliefs and practices of Mormonism as being non-Biblical. In this respect, Mormons have been criticized for the belief that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate personages, and that God the Father and the Son have physical bodies, while the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (THE "GODHEAD"). (See Trinity). THE DOCTRINES OF MOST CHRISTIAN CHURCHES INCLUDE THE NICENE DOCTRINE, WHICH HOLDS THAT GOD THE FATHER, JESUS CHRIST AND THE HOLY GHOST ARE ONE SINGLE BEING. HOWEVER, MORMONS BELIEVE THAT NUMEROUS PASSAGES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT PROVE THAT THE GODHEAD IS THREE SEPARATE BEINGS WHO ARE ONE IN PURPOSE, NOT IN SELF."

Critic-at-Arms 01:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I really think that we need to stick to the basics by 1) providing a criticism, and 2) giving the basis for that criticism. It would be easy for someone reading this article as it now stands to discern a point of view. We need to avoid that. Edward Lalone 02:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Many good points. Question: the Bible is interpreted to say many things; often seemingly contradictory. It might help to state who is doing the criticizing and what interpretation is provided for such. The danger is getting a list of supporting scripture for each side. That may be necessary in this article, but it will come close to looking like a tract. In addition, I think it would be helpful to state what Mormons believe and not what others think Mormons believe. I also think it is imperative to state what is doctrine and what is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs)
I agree with most of what both of you say. I guess the first thing we should decide on is if the article should be deleted or not. If not, then how to clearly state each criticsm, whether or not it is based on fact (doctrine, custom, etc.), and the support for the belief. I agree that too much detail keeps creeping in. What I have seen happen is that somebody will add a statement, which someone wlse will qualify, and then somebody else will add supporting statements, etc. and before you know it, the article has too much detail again. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 23:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the article should be deleted and merged with Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A simple introductory summary in the merged article along with a list of the controversies each having their own article would allow readers to investigate and study the issues for themselves. Also, it would also make it far more unlikely that any single group of editors will affect the tone of the articles because the same group of editors will not be responsible for all of the articles and it would be much harder for people with a personal agenda to derail the article, and to insert POV. Edward Lalone 21:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
If we are starting a vote, I would vote to merge this article and several others into one article. I was not aware of the Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article. As noted above, there is already: Mormonism and Christianity, Anti-Mormonism, and I suspect a few more and all of them have the same types of conversations. I like the Mormonism and Christianity article and would suggest that be the main article. I have never heard of Muslims, Buddists, or any other world relgion religion that has a criticism of Mormonism; it really is a issue within Christianity.
Is it possible to merge several articles at once for the purpose of deleting redundancies? Seems like a big job, but I think we would have a better product. I also agree with Edward that it would help prevent any specific POV from taking over. However, getting everyone to cooperate would take some careful planning, a lengthy process of notification and debate, and then a successful move. What are others ideas and what is the next step?
I think we ultimately ought to shoot for a top-level article with links to sub-articles. DavidBailey 01:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)