Talk:Mormonism and Christianity/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives for Mormonism and Christianity (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 > 19 >>
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

Intro

Mkmcconn, why did you expand the introduction again? I really feel like the introduction is bloated again at this point. Could you explain the necessity of those edits? It really seems like the introduction is filled with redundant information that is covered already later in the article. I really don't see the point of filling out the introduction with information about the Great Apostasy and Restorationism when those are covered in the main body of the article. Also, some of the edits are inaccurate, such as "Christian denominations have contradicting claims regarding the authority of their institutions to speak for the whole Christian church." This implies that the churches are in competition as the "proper spokesman", but some churches reject that any temporal church has authority to speak for the whole of Christendom. I'm going to hack this back down to size, but before I do, I wanted to know what you felt was wrong with the introduction as it stood before your spurt of editing on it. What edits did you make that you feel are important? What did you feel were the shortcomings of the intro as it stood before your editing? Vassyana 17:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's quite simple, really. It is an insufficient introduction to the topic to simply say that theological tensions exist. Every group has theological conflict with those who don't belong to their group. It is a trivial and insipid statement, far short of descriptive, to say that they "have conflicted on theological grounds".
The difference here is not like that between Calvinism and Arminianism, or Catholics and Protestants, or Romans and Greeks. What predominates between Mormons and Calvinists, is the same as that between Mormons and Arminians, Mormons and other Protestants, Mormons and Catholics, and Mormons and Greeks. There is a familial character to those other "tensions" which is, by the Mormon's own insistence, absent. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
"There is a familial character..." Yes, there is. The churches mentioned are all Nicene Christians, except LDS who are not Nicene Christians. Therefore, these other churches are all united in that one thing, they can trace their doctrines back to the Nicene Council. 74s181 01:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
So anyway, what I thought was wrong with the introduction as it stood before is that it really was nothing more than the world according to the LDS. The "other Christians" supposedly are all wondering which is the true Church, arguing with one another saying "I alone", "no, I alone". Into this chaos, there appears one who makes completely new claims for "I alone". None of this is really the way that "other Christians" see things; and it's bothersome to stand by and observe such a puppet-play. So, instead of letting LDS words and mindset be put into the mouth of their opponent, what I've given you is something much closer to the world as the rest of us see it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the 3rd and probably the 4th paragraphs are redundant, rather than truly introductory; but they do serve a summary role. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Mark, there is a common disagreement between Mormons and most other Christian churches and it revolves around the concept of the Trinity and the nature of God. However, after moving beyond the conflicts vary depending upon the group. As I mentioned earlier, the Catholic concept of grace and works is virtually identical to that held by LDS. These two groups conflict with Evangelicals and those who believe solely in works. The concept of authority is very easy to discuss with Catholics because they understand the concept of authority or priesthood whereas Prostestants as a whole have a very different beliefs system in this area. I do find it interesting that the groups that assail against the LDS church for being a cult are the some of the most vocal critics of Catholicism for also being a cult. Although I have an easier time understanding their position against Mormons, I am always flabbergasted with their position against Catholicism.
I guess I would say we agree in part, but I would still say that there is not a monolithic church group known as Christianity where a unity of the Faith exists; I am aware that some say it, but just as soon as you move beyond Trinity it is a wide open field rife with conflicts.
Familial relaitions exist with all those who believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, Savior and Redemeer of mankind, that through his atoning sacrifice we are saved. When I am with someone who acknowledges Him as their Lord, I know that I have found a brother or sister in Christ. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. It was not an hollow promise but is a reaility. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I sincerely appreciate the conciliatory intention, and I put hope in it that eventually it will grow into a complete discrediting of the audacious Mormon claims that pretend to divide us as though we were not only of different minds, but on different planets.
Otherwise, when you boil down what we have in common (over against you), to the Trinity (as though that were a single item on the shelf) and, to the nature of God (as though that were a back-room or ivory-tower discussion), you mis-estimate the meaning of our divisions, greatly. But this article can't possibly explain such things. It is far beyond the scope of this article, or the ability of any of the editors here. It is enough to say that, the divisions of Christians from one another, are to the great advantage of the LDS claim for itself. This is not controversial, or speculative. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I've made another very significant edit to the introduction. I'm done for a while. I'll back off and see what's made of the damage changes I've wrought. Thank you both, for your interaction. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark, do you think you pull back from the claim that Christians do not feel Mormon beliefs are supported by the Bible or scripture; it is a little redundant. All beliefs come from interpretation of scripture. Latter-day Saints would say the exact same thing about Trinitarian doctrine in particular and their beliefs are fully supported by their interpretation of the Bible. The statemen is obvious and only achieves a rancorous tone. I greatly enjoy working with you; thanks. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it redundant and obvious? It doesn't strike me that way, does it really seem that way to you? Let me use an alien example, to illustrate better:
The Koran over-writes the Bible, while claiming to honor it, indeed, more than Jews and Christians. The Christian reaction is comparable here. It's not just to say Islam can't be "supported by the Bible"; the real nature of the controversy is that you cannot accept the Bible, and accept Islam's over-writing of it, because - Muslim claims to the contrary - they are incompatible. This is not an issue of "tone"; it is the nature of the facts, with regard to what separates Muslims and Christians. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue is this: Catholics say their beliefs are based upon the Bible. Mormons say their beliefs are based upon the Bible. Who is correct? One book, but two doctrines. If we say in the article Christians do not believe Mormons base their religion on the Bible, we then have to say Mormons don't believe Christians base their religion on the Bible, but rather on the doctrines of men created by the councils of men. We don't really accomplish much by saying neither believes in the other. To me it is just obvious they don't believe in each other's interpretation of scripture. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
As gently as possible, I plead that this is fog, and not an explanation of how other Christian traditions regard Mormonism. The Mormon claim is that this is "the restored church of Jesus Christ with the same authority and structure" (and restored teaching) as the church of the New Testament. What I am asking for is not an evaluation of how coherent or compelling the rebuttal is, but only an accurate representation of the response to the Mormon claim. You would not think it redundant if they had responded "Mormonism is consistent with the Bible, but we reject their later revelations". Neither is it redundant or obvious if they respond, "Their teaching, authority and structure derived from their claims of later revelation produces an interpretation and a religion that is not compatible with the Bible, and instead flatly contradicts it". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark, regarding your statement about the Koran and the Bible, Muhammad taught that Jesus was not Divine, was not the Son of God, was not crucified and resurrected on the third day. Therefore, Christians reject Muhammad as a prophet and the Koran as scripture. Joseph Smith taught and LDS believe that Jesus Christ is Divine, is the Son of God, was crucified and resurrected on the third day, and that he is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no man cometh to the Father but by Him. This is Biblical doctrine and LDS believe it. What other definition of Christian can there be? Ok, how about the one that Jesus gave in John 13:34-35

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Did Jesus Christ give any other definition of a disciple, or Christian? I don't think so. So, it's in the Bible, it's clear, Jesus said it himself, why would anyone want to add to this? Yes, maybe Baptists baptize one way and Catholics another, I'm not saying they are both Jesus Christ's true Church, I am only saying members of either could be Christians, as could LDS.

Mark, you also said "...is not compatible with the Bible and instead flatly contradicts it". Was this meant as an example of an inflammatory statement that could have been used in the introduction, or do you really believe this? 74s181 01:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologistic tone, scriptural difference

The problem with the current version is that it tries to replace a plain statement 'Mormons believe in the Bible and the Book of Mormon ' with a couple theological concepts.

"The central reason for this uneasy relationship is the fact that some Mormon beliefs are unique at the present time, which they account for in two ways. First, they believe that the authority and authenticity of the original church of the Apostles was lost after a Great Apostasy.[2], which left the remaining churches in a fallen state or having less than the fullness of the truth. [3] Second, they believe in on-going revelation. [4] [5]

I read Storm Rider's view that featuring the Book of Mormon is "redundant" but I dont buy it. The theological differences are rooted in the BM are they not? To say no would mean to suggest that Mormonism would remain Mormonism without the BM, which contradicts the notion that beliefs are (generally) deferential to their scriptures ! What Mormon theology existed before the BM that cant simply be expressed as views propagated by Smith, influenced somewhat by Adventist/Methodist Protestantism? More to the point, why deprecate the Book of Mormon and elevate the theology? -Ste|vertigo 07:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "at present time" gives away the pov of the author. The phrase "which they account for in two ways" makes it plain that the "account" we are given is a Mormon account (of the differences between mainstream Christians and Mormons). If it said "which Mormon's account", it would make it clear that it was a pov section, no? -Ste|vertigo 08:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The intention was to give the "Mormon's account", not the author's (who is not sympathetic with Mormonism). Also, these differences are not accounted for only by the Book of Mormon, but also other canonical writings of the first "founder and prophet" and the living guidance of their "Apostles". These should be mentioned as well; as the Book of Mormon alone is not sufficient to account for the unique doctrines. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting thoughts. Virtually all of LDS beliefs is supported by Biblical scripture. Could Mormonism exist without the Book of Mormon and would doing so deprecate the Book of Mormon. Yes, the validity of the Church is not dependant upon the Book of Mormon. No, it does not deprecate its importance and value. As stated in the introduction, "The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains, as does the Bible, the fulness of the everlasting gospel." Its importance is the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. It stands as a witness, along with the Bible, of the truthfulness of the gospel of Christ.
Not featuring the Book of Mormon? Please show me where I said it was not important? What I have been trying to get across is the stupidity of stating the obvious. Mormons believe other Christians do not understand the scriptures. Guess what, other Christians do not believe that Mormons understand the scriptures. Stating so in the introduction is a DUH moment. If everyone interpreted the scritpures the same there would be one church, there would never have been a reformation, nor the oringinal Schism. Stating the obvious is not good writing; it is facile.
Unique at the present time is not language that I like and I don't understand its objective. It will be changed in due time, but I think we are still tyring to get others worked out. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
"...Yes, the validity of the Church is not dependant upon the Book of Mormon..." I'm sorry, Storm Rider, I have to disagree. Joseph Smith said, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book” How could there be "Mormonism" without a "Book of Mormon"?74s181 00:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes I'll second that. The Book of Mormon is central to our worship, theology and beliefs in general. There is a lot riding on it actually. If it is a true work of scripture, then all of the other pieces and claims by the Prophet are remarkably fortified. If not, well then everything falls appart (as I side note, I find too much light, truth and goodness in it's pages for it to be anything other than scripture and it has truly brought me nearer to God as Joseph said ~ some of you may not be interested in this parenthetical but I thought I'd throw it in there anyway, because I can't help but testify :-). Yet it is remarkably orthodox in it's teaching and theology by other Christian standards as well (even Hank Hannegraff recently conceeded that on one of his broadcasts ~ not that I'd recommend him). I also agree with Stevertigo that with regard to the issue of differences doctrinally with other faiths, there is much in the way of important doctrinal statements in the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. And one cannot truly understand the nature of the Godhead in LDS theology without taking statements from both of these works (especially Doctrine and Covenants which is just full of information about the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Ghost) into account.Mpschmitt1 00:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Did you mean to agree with me, rather than with Stevertigo's removal of reference to "other canonical writings, and the guidance of present day Apostles", as additional sources of illumination on the meaning of the Bible, in addition to the Book of Mormon? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, quite right. I meant to agree with Mark there. Mpschmitt1 00:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It is hard for me to understand why this point is so difficult to agree to. It is not "facile", "obvious" and "redundant" to say that Mormon confidence in their interpretation of the Bible arises from their faith in the credibility of later revelations. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **
Again, I don't want to annoy you with the comparison to Islam - don't misunderstand me to be saying that their claims are equivalent or the same; but the Christian reaction is the same. Don't Muslims say that it's perfectly obvious to anyone who looks honestly at the Bible, that Muhammad is spoken of, and Islam is clearly vindicated? What accounts for such quack interpretations seeming so clear and reasonable to them, if not that, they believe the Koran? Their understanding is pressed into its mold, making them Muslims rather than Christians, fully accounting for the conversion of their understanding of the whole world, including the Bible and the people of which the Bible speaks. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **
The issue between us is only secondarily what the Bible means, and focuses instead on claims of unique authority that can sweep aside all conventional appeals to tradition, history, geology, rules of language or grammar, or anything else. In encountering Mormonism, we do not confront just another interpretation of the Bible, but what amounts to an alternative world in which the Bible is quite simply a different book than it would otherwise seem to be. I'm not asking you to believe that this is the actual state of affairs; but only to acknowledge that this is how other Christian traditions respond to Mormon claims. I don't understand what's at stake in acknowledging something that is so evident in the entire conflict that the article attempts to describe, that the issue is Mormonism's claims, not their unique twist on texts. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. I think it best for you to edit the article to state what you believe Christians think of LDS. Then LDS will edit the article to state how Mormons view other Christians. The result may work, but the opportunity for significant conflict may also result. One way to avoid this is by sticking to referenced quotes. None of my comments should be interpreted to say that what is said is not correct or accurate, but that some statements are just so obvious that I think it is best left unsaid...nothing is gained by stating it. Let's move on. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It is tiresome, yes. But the same thing is "gained" by stating that other traditions do not accept Mormon claims of authority. What could be more obvious than that? What could be more redundant, after it's said, than to explain that other traditions do not accept this teaching, that teaching, or another teaching all of which are based on Mormon claims. And yet, if such a tiresome and redundant thesis is in the constant state of being written, and has even gained some credibility as a good article, then evidently someone thinks that it's informative to say it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
"...the Christian reaction is the same..." Is this true? Do most Nicene Christians really view LDS as non-Christians in the same way they view Muslims as non-Christians? This is incredible if true. Or, maybe it is only a small group of extremist Nicene Christians? This is why this article is so important, there is a fundamental misunderstanding that needs light. 74s181 02:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say this, of course. What I said is that the reaction to the LDS claim of special authority is the same. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What is this so-called Christianity that says I am not a Christian? Which of these "mainstream" churches can trace their doctrines back to the church Jesus Christ established? John listed seven churches in the Book of Revelations, which of these churches is the ancestor of "mainstream" Christianity? According to the word of The Lord as recorded by John, all seven were already falling into apostasy at that time. Much of the Book of Acts and the Epistles are a call to repentance to early Christian churches that were straying from true doctrine. Did they all suddenly straighten themselves out when the Apostles died? I think most Protestant churches agree that an apostasy occured, the main point of contention with the LDS is whether it occured before or after the Council of Nicea. 74s181 02:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many "points of contention", but they are not necessarily symmetrical. What is considered important to decide, is not the same on the two sides. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I should have said, the contention relating to the apostasy is when, not if. I'll expand it further to include all Christian churches. Protestants pointed to corruption in the Catholic church and started the reformation. Catholics point to the reformation. Eastern Orthodox point to the schism. All Nicene Christians unitedly point to Joseph Smith and shout "Apostasy!". LDS point at the first Nicene Council and say that the apostasy had already occured by then.
I agree the differences are not symmetrical. I think I know what LDS believe is the main difference, it is the divine calling of Joseph Smith as a prophet. LDS say "these doctrines are true because a prophet of God says they are true". Nicene Christians seem to want to come at it from a different direction and say "Joseph Smith could not be a prophet because what he taught wasn't true". I'm trying to understand what Nicene Christians believes is the main difference. And BTW, Mark, you didn't answer my question. 74s181 11:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought I've answered everything that it seemed in the interest of the project to answer. Which question are you thinking of? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Which question? Well, I'm afraid I was on a bit of a rant, I thought you were saying Mormons are not Christians for the same reason that Muslims are not. But the question is valid, we need a definition of this Christianity that Mormonism is supposedly not a part of. So, what is your definition of Christianity that includes all the Nicene or Trinitarian faiths without using the words 'Nicene' or 'Trinitarian', but excludes Mormonism? In other words, the qualified label 'Nicene Christian' has been rejected, , so what is the label, and if it is 'Christian' without any qualification then what is the definition behind it? 74s181 01:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Monotheism vs polytheism

We've danced all around this, I think it is time to get it out in the open.

Where in the Bible does it say that there is only one God? It says "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." It says that God is supreme over all, has no equal. The plural is used in many places in the Bible. Still, the Jews considered themselves monotheists in order to distinguish themselves from the various polytheistic pagan religions surrounding them.

Jesus Christ said that He and the Father were 'one' or united but never said that He and The Father were the same being. Jesus is recorded as speaking of and praying to The Father as if He were a separate being on several occasions.

A major purpose of the various ecumenical councils was to define the Trinity in a monotheistic way, twisting the various Biblical references to The Father, The Son, and The Holy Ghost to fit the monotheistic view inherited from Judaism.

Latter Day Saints believe that Joseph Smith learned the truth when he was fourteen years old. This, I think, is the real crux of the biscuit. Joseph Smith taught that The Father and The Son were both God, separate beings, but united in perfection and purpose. So, strictly speaking, Latter Day Saints are polytheists, even though they believe in the absolute supremacy of God the Father.

"Mainstream" Christian tradition, based on the various ecumenical creeds and not on the Bible teaches that Christians are monotheists, and therefore, Mormons can't be Christians.

Does that pretty much cover it? 74s181 02:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If we reference montheism vs. polytheism, we should probably include quotes from Jewish critics of Christianity, who call the trinity polytheistic. It is all about semantics. Bytebear 04:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it is as clear cut as you present it.
The Jews distinguished themselves from other groups by worshiping YHWH. Although most other groups were polytheistic, at least one Egyptian dynasty was monotheistic. (There is some debate about this, but that is besides the point.) The main thing was that the Jews believed that they worshiped the one true God, and that was what set them apart from the others - they were God's chosen people.
The Hebrew word Elohim is translated "God", even though the word is plural in form, it was always considered referring to one God, not many gods. I don't think you will find too many references to "gods", and never implying the existence of more than one (true) God.
I believe that you are correct saying that the Nicene Creed was an attempt to define God in a monotheistic manner. IMHO this was necessary because of the Greek philosophy that began to creep into Christianity. The Jews didn't see any conflict, but the Greeks did. (I can't substantiate that viewpoint, but I think it was from the east-vs-west merging of the Greeks and Hebrews.)
I don't believe that Mormons are polytheists because of their view of the Trinity. I think most Mormons consider the term "God" to be a collective noun, like family. There are three persons in the Godhead, making one God, just as there might be three people in one family.
Because of Eternal Progression, Mormons believe in other Gods, but they really don't have any effect on this universe - only our God.
Traditional Christianity believes that Jesus and Heavenly Father are different manifestations of one God (along with the Holy Ghost). The two main analogies I've heard is the argument over the same substance or the same essence. The same substance is illustrated by the shamrock - three petals but one shamrock. The same essence is illustrated by ice, water, and steam - three forms of the same thing. (The beauty of the Nicene Creed is that each group signed a slightly different creed, thinking that everyone else had agreed with them.)
Traditional Christians believe that the various creeds are merely summaries of what is taught in the Bible. They don't trump the Bible, merely clarify it.
The real differences (IMHO) between Mormons and Christians are based on how they interpret the Bible. They can both point to the same scripture and claim it supports their view. (John 17 is an excellent example of this.)
The above opinion is based on a combination of what I was taught when I was Catholic, what I have studied about Christianity, and what I have heard from other Christians when debating why Mormons are/aren't Christians. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 04:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, but I also think that traditional Christians do use the Creeds or at least the doctrines they define to be the point of contention. If you are to define the trinity as you do with the clover, for example, it follows Mormonism just as well as with trinitarians. The three in one thing is so confusing to trinitarians that they call it a mystery and you ask a typical believer what it means, and you get a lot of explanation without a lot of understanding. Mormons define God in non-mystery terms. Father and Son have separate physical bodies, and the Holy Ghost is separate but in spirit form. No mystery. This seems to be a bit too much of a definition to traditionalists who have been unable to define God in such concrete terms for millenia. Of course, as you stated, the Bible itself is not monotheistic in it's reading, and I think the creeds attempt to reconcile literally, three in one. Bytebear 05:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

From the perspective of this LDS, the greatest difference is the belief in the divine calling of Joseph Smith as a prophet, authorized to speak directly for God. Every other difference comes from that.

What I'm trying to understand is the main sticking point for Nicene Christians, is it their view that Christianity = monotheism, and since LDS believe that The Father and The Son are separate beings, therefore Mormonism = polytheism, therefore, Mormonism <> Christianity.

Yes, LDS believe that The Father and The Son are physically separate beings, so technically LDS believe in multiple "gods". LDS interpretation of certain Biblical and other scriptures point to more "gods" than these two. Is this the main point? Or is the difference in canon the main point? Or is something else the main point? Or is it the sum of all these things, that is, any one diffference would be tolerable, but all of them together is just too much?

Actually that is not quite correct. LDS believe that there is one God, which is made up of three beings. They belive Eloheim is plural "Gods" but also can be used singularly. I guess it can be as confusing as the trinity. They also point out to the Genesis account which has God speaking as "us" and "we", presumably the Father speaking with the Son, and/or Holy Ghost. Bytebear 05:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Multiple gods (little g), one God (God the Father). Not confusing. 74s181 11:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We won't get far under any program to prove that Mormonism is either right, or wrong. We won't get far trying to prove that Christians believe what they do because of, as opposed to in agreement with, Nicea. We already know that Mormonism is not subscribed by those who are not Mormons: including Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, anti-catholic Protestants, and others who couldn't care less what was decided in Ecumenical councils. Our task is not to find a label that crystallizes contempt, with just the right blend of cynicism and triumph. The only job we have here, is to describe the controversy in a verifiably informative way. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support Mark in this. The purpose of the article is comparative analysis in a manner devoid of evalution i.e. which is true and which if false hsa nothing to do with the topic. Focus on stating what each believes; what is in common and what differs. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, and I apologize for getting off track. The question I should have asked is, which is first among the many reasons that "mainstream" Christians give for saying that Mormons are not Christians? In this particular section I'm asking about polytheism vs monotheism. In the "Apologistic tone" section above, Mark suggested that "...the reaction to the LDS claim of special authority..." is a big issue. Is this the biggest issue? 74s181 01:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A different direction

What I'm going to do first, is un-mix the two questions; I'll answer only the second one. A quick survey of what has now become a massive literature, will show you where the reaction to the LDS focuses. Obviously, Mormon beliefs are the subject of more reaction, than are Mormon claims: "did you know that they believe X!! and Y!!, and they still call themselves Christians?" Although these exclamations invite your most concentrated attention, they are provocative by intent, and they cannot help us in building a credible article.
My answer is a prediction, or maybe even a promise. We should focus on the ostensibly calm, the scholarly, the official and the documented. When we must refer to books that are involved in the topic, we will prefer "The New Mormon Challenge" which at least attempts to engage those it critiques, and consign books like "The God-Makers" to a footnote, or ignore it, because it does not. We will survey the history of interactions between Mormons and other traditions - but from the perspective of the recent, rather than controversies in the Mormon past. We will not limit our interest to "Nicene Christians", but will take into consideration the whole breadth of Christian response. We will not reduce the relationship to a theological debate - although it is always in the background - we will look at the interaction of peoples and populations. We will not be distracted by the most provocative, and we will look instead at the most pervasive. If we do that, then I predict that it will become obvious to everyone working on this project, that what is at issue far and away above other matters, are issues of power, prestige, credibility, authenticity, influence, and beneath it all, two questions: who was Joseph Smith and where did he get this stuff, and what is the LDS and what are the implications for Christianity, of its growth in light of its distinctive claims of authority? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like an interesting premise and should yield an improved article. However, it would not surprise me that a new article is the byproduct. The topic of this article is Mormonism and Christianity. The questions you pose I believe would be just as applicable for early church fathers; Athanasius of Alexandria comes immediately to mind as does many other church fathers from Paul forward. In fact, this sounds like a the wonderful beginnings of a book. Regardless, your recommendtions for editing are excellent and should create parameters for edits to the article that all of us should follow.
Have you got some recommendations on how we might address the interactions of populations and people? Are we addressing those interactions around the church today? This sounds very interesting. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
An Orthodox parent is told that their daughter has been invited to the stake for a dance on Wednesday, or a movie on Thursday, or campfire jamboree on Tuesday, or ... which night are you free? A Mormon marries a Catholic ... now what? A Mormon student becomes a Baptist, and joins Saints Alive! ... oh my. A Presbyterian teenager declares himself a convert to Mormonism - a talk with his P elders changes his mind - the M elders won't stop calling him. An evangelical church plans an "evangelistic picket" in front of the Temple, they end up in the paper, with their pastor on the front page in front of a red-letter sign that says "Satan's brother?" Two Jehovah's Witnesses in the same Hall convert to Mormonism; the families are devastated, the converts are shunned. A new Temple is erected; shall we go to the open house? A Mormon announces candidacy for President, shall Christians vote for him? Yes, we are addressing those interactions today. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I'm honestly trying to understand what you're proposing and how it will be different. You said you would "...answer only the second one", it sounds like you are saying that the claim of exclusive authority is the biggest issue, have I got that right? If so I think we are close to agreement on this point. I have always maintained that the doctrinal differences are a by-product of LDS acceptance of Joseph Smith as a real prophet, authorized to speak for The Lord and declare His word like Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, etc. I think this is what LDS missionaries teach, whenever questions of "why do LDS believe X?" come up, scriptural references are given but the final answer is "The Prophet (Joseph Smith or successor) taught X".

I'm all in favor of discussing "...Joseph Smith and where did he get this stuff..." without getting into "...controversies in the Mormon past..." but I think there are many "Christians" out there who won't let us. Joseph Smith isn't around for "Christians" to tar and feather anymore (a few other "Christians" in Carthage took care of that), but they still "...seem to prefer chewing on old bones in the outer courtyard instead of coming inside to the resplendent, revelatory banquet..." (Neal A. Maxwell, “How Choice a Seer!,” Ensign, Nov 2003, 99)

But we can try to limit this discussion. After stating that LDS believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, and that most Christians reject this claim, we can state that the article will focus on the "controversial" doctrines that Joseph Smith and his successors taught and LDS believe today, and what the Bible says for or against these doctrines. We can then state that there are controversies around the life of Joseph Smith and redirect any "chewing on old bones" to the Joseph Smith, Jr. or History of the Latter Day Saint movement pages.

It also sounds like you are suggesting that we minimize the theological discussion and focus on the social issues. Again, the biggest social issues are in the past, "...the M elders won't stop calling him..." sort of pales in comparison to the LDS past experience of having their houses burned (by "Christians"), or being shot (by "Christians"), or raped (by "Christians"), or tarred and feathered (by "Christians"), or having to bury their children in the frozen prairie during yet another exodus because of their beliefs (forced by "Christians"). Once upon a time this article devoted a lot of space to these historical conflicts, thankfully that material has all been removed to various other LDS pages.

I don't mean to totally discount the interactions you mentioned, they are relevant, one of them is a page right out of my life (...now what?) and 30 years later it is still painful. Although I don't agree with minimizing the theological discussion I do agree that these present day social issues need to be discussed, I'm just trying to figure out where they would fit. Maybe you could propose an outline? I have to agree with Storm Rider, this could turn into an article of its own. 74s181 13:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is that "Mormonism and Christianity" would not seem to promise yet another explanation of why Mormonism makes sense to Mormons - but this is what the article provides. What I'm suggesting is not exciting. On the contrary, I'm asking people to shut off their enthusiasm for witnessing, and provide an article on "Mormonism and Christianity" that is not itself immersed in either POV. I'm asking for an anatomy of the relationship - not an autopsy (it is a living relationship), and not a vivisection (no attempt to interfere with or alter it). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be POV to only talk about why many people think that LDS are not Christians. The LDS response to such statements must also be presented, as should LDS statements of what LDS think being a Christian means, and the non-LDS rebuttal to such statements. I think that for the most part that is how the individual parts of the article are currently structured, maybe some parts are not as balanced as you or I would like.
I'm not sure what you mean by "no attempt to interfere with or alter it", but I otherwise agree with what you are saying. The article should not be a tract for Mormonism, and it shouldn't be yet another anti-mormon diatribe. When you say "not an autopsy", I assume you mean no digging around amongst the old bones on either side. That's fair, I think we can restrict it in that way if it is made clear in the introduction where such material can be found. 74s181 17:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The LDS church is not shy about distinguishing themselves from "traditional" Christianity. I would recommend starting with the LDS view, and pretty much ignore critics who define what the LDS believe, but rather look at the REaction of them to LDS thought. It is a subtle distinction, but I think an important one. An example: Mormons see Joseph Smith as a prophet. Reaction: Traditional Christians reject this claim. POV: Mainstream Christians call Smith a fraud and a crook, and is a false prophet because of XY and Z. If we go the POV route, we will end up with a debate board. Because this is about Mormons as a specific goup, and Christians as a larege diverse generalized group, the Mormons probably have the upper hand in debate simply because not all on the other side can agree on every point. Bytebear 18:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Then 74s181 and Bytebear, we're almost on the same page. But you still do not yet fully appreciate that Mormonism is not the norm for anyone but Mormons.
  • To most of the Christian world, Mormonism is those people who live in Utah and Idaho, a busy meeting hall in the neighborhood, a neighbor with nine kids (I have nine - "are you a Mormon?"), an enormous spired white building next to the freeway, a couple of blond strangers with name tags on bikes, a couple of popular centrist senators and a Presidential candidate, a sect that so-and-so grew up in.
  • With a little more information, Mormonism is an integral part of the history of the Western US, a busy participant in the Boy Scout program, a powerful economic force, a socially engaged and enthusiastically welcoming community run by people who apparently don't drink coffee or cola.
  • For the really interested, Mormonism is a debunked prophet, debunked history, debunked geology/anthropology, debunked theology, debunked biography, a spin-off from the religious fanaticism and folk religion that pervaded the nineteenth century, and a fascinating sub-culture that is for the most part, in recent times, a powerful force for the good welfare of their communities but a focal point for some intense religious controversy.
  • For the really, really interested, it is a mission field, for the conquest of which there is a never-ending stream of polemical books, tracts, and advice from the internet; some part of which can only be fairly described as sensationalist hate-literature.
Naturally, this is a situation into which Mormons want to inject some clarity, and particularly they would like to answer those who think of Mormonism as a mission field. Because, it is they, more than any others, who have held up the defamatory portrait that sometimes seems to overwhelm everything else. It is from them that they feel wounded, and it is toward them, if they allow themselves, that they are more likely to express bitterness, defensiveness and even undisguised hatred. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a matter of perspective. If you were to have an article Christianity and Atheism, then for the "really interested", Christians follow debunked prophets, debunked history, debunked fold religion that pervaded the 4th century, etc. I really think the best NPOV approach is to write the article assuming the reader is Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, Hindu, or whatever. But not Christian (Mormon or no) Bytebear 19:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
How can you write an article in an NPOV way, by making assumptions? But, you're getting closer to the point. You want the article to provide a level playing field. How else can your doctrines and claims be made clear? But the fact is that, in the real world, the playing field is not level, and you are in an uphill battle to push your flag to the top against strong resistance. So, you have a choice to make; do you want to make this article yet another a place for promoting your claims and answering critics, or do you want to describe the real world? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what world you live in, but in my world, the majority of the people in it are not Christian, and see Mormons as just another drop in the religious bucket. In their eyes, it is an even playing field, and whether you believe in the trinity or the Godhead is of little or no consequence to them. They are our audience, and the article should be written to them. The critics are irrelevant, but the differences in belief as they exist are relevant. A group having a specific policy, like re baptizing Mormons is relevant. A criticism if infant baptism is not relevant, but that Mormons do not baptize infants is relevant. Bytebear 22:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
What's happening here, Bytebear? Have you forgotten the parameters of the topic, that we are talking about "Mormonism and Christianity", not "Mormonism and Religion"? Shall we adopt the point of view of people who are ignorant of the topic, who don't understand or care about it except in the most general way, and write for their POV? In that case, replace the article with a redirect to an article that adopts the agnostic POV, like Religion, and that would be enough. Come to think of it, Mormonism's supposed ecclecticism is something that should be discussed, in this context. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Mormonism and Christianity, not Christianity and how Mormonism is wrong. There is no right and wrong, just different. Criticisms need to be addressed that way. Bytebear 00:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Eclecticism is an approach to a problem which selects or compares particular elements from a variety of other approaches, systems and sources. There should be no debate that Mormonism is eclectic. But alas, there is debate. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV in intro

Why link scripture to Latter Day Saint? Scripture is a general term and should link to the general article. Also, I feel the use of "critics" at the end of the introduction, in terms of "incompatibility" with the Bible and tradition is appropriate. Not all Christians are antagonistic to Mormonism and the previous language implied that is so. We should be clear that the critics of Mormonism hold that opinion. Using language that makes the claim seem absolute and makes it seem like this view is universal to Christianity outside of the LDS is distinctly not NPOV. We should take care to ensure we present a fair picture, not leaning the article towards either the Mormon or anti-Mormon POV. Vassyana 18:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The link was supposed to be to Latter Day Saint texts. Apparently I didn't check it as closely as I thought.
You seem to be avoiding the fact that outside of the LDS, Christians do not accept Joseph Smith as a prophet, and do not follow LDS teachings. It's like saying, "among non-calvinists, there are some critics of Calvinism who do not subscribe to the Calvinist interpretation". Now, wouldn't that sound like a funny and defensive thing to say, in the name of "fairness"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
That is an inappropriate comparison. The introduction was not simply saying they disagreed. The introduction was claiming that other Christians view them as heretics ("corrupted" Christianity) and incompatible with the Bible and history. Not all non-Calvinists would say that about Calvinism, even if they disagree with the theological position. Just the same, disagreeing with the Mormon position does not mean that the LDS position is automatically regarded as heretical and completely disjointed from Christian tradition and history. Vassyana 19:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
But you would never call calvanists non-Christian or "corrupting" Christianity. At least not in today's world. You would at the time of Calvin. Bytebear 19:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not denying that critical position exists. I've not edited out the claim. I'm simply saying that criticism is not universal. For that matter, it is not universally applicable to the LDS movement either, as some branches are involved in ecumenicism. I simply disagree with any language in the article implying that it is a universal POV among Christians. Vassyana 20:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes,just as Mormons claim Joseph Smith was a prophet, others must be presented as claiming he was not. You cannot say 'Mormonism is a fraud', you have to say 'some say Mormonisms is a fraud' and give reference. The issue is, what is a good reference and what isn't. I think we are all on the same page here. Bytebear 20:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
The sentence did not say "mormonism is a fraud" (to use your paraphrase); it said "other traditions reject Mormon claims". It tells you whose opinion it is. It states what would seem to be something that hardly needs to be said - although evidently, it does need to be said. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't you see that you're both missing the point? You are muzzling all but your own POV - do you really not see that? On the one hand editors want to narrow the scope of the article to deal only with "mainstream Christianity", those who self-consciously embrace the Nicene creed. On the other hand they do not want the implications of that creed expressed.
Furthermore, they ignore the fact that unless you are a Mormon, Mormonism is not Christianity in its fullness, it is Christianity in corruption. It is a "heresy" (if they have that word), a "cult" (if they don't), an error (if they only mean to distance themselves), an apostasy (if they focus on the rejection of the church), a sect (if the are referring to its history out of protestantism), an alternative version (if they're being coy), a distinctive interpretation (if they're hopeless post-moderns - and thus, not a "tradition"). What tradition are you thinking of? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I did paraphrase only because I didn't have the text available in the edit field. The term used was "debunked". But, debunked by who? Of course non-LDS are going to think it's all popycock, or they would be LDS. The question isn't that they disagree. The question is more why, and if why, do the Mormons have a reasonable counter-argument? The Nicean creed defines the nature of God. The Bible is open to interpretation, so it must be noted that Mormon claims on doctrine are Biblical, if not Creed-ish. But being un-creed-ish, is not being un-Christian. Bytebear 20:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Bytebear, this does not answer my question, unless you really mean to agree with me. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess the issue I have is who are the Mormons contending with? Christianity has just as many flavors, and even if we categorize them we still have Apostolic traditions, Reformationists, Traditionalists, Evangelicals, Restorationists, etc. I think this article may be better suited to contend with each Christian group separately, rather than at a point to point debate. Bytebear 21:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I will elaborate. Although Catholics reject Smith as a prophet, they certainly understand apostolic authority, to which reformationists may or may not depending on how much reformation they think was required, and evangelicals reject human authority altogether. These points should be distinguished. Bytebear 21:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I really have a very hard time understanding why I continue to be answered with dogmatic epistemological agnosticism, as though rejection of Mormonism leaves others only with the opinion that they might have an opinion. There are many reasons among various Christian denominations and traditions, for not being Mormon. But all of them are alike in rejecting Mormonism's claims. There is no reason to cover this with fog.

Mormons believe that the authority and authenticity of the original church of the Apostles was lost ... The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be the restored church". Is the reaction reciprocal, or not? Do any other traditions accept that they are apostates? Do any other traditions accept the LDS doctrines as compatible with the Bible, supportable by history or tradition? Are there any other traditions that believe that Jesus came to America, and left behind "another testament"? Do any other traditions believe that Joseph Smith is the prophet of a restoration promised in Acts 3? Do any other Christian traditions believe that the creator of this cosmos is an exalted man born on another world, that Jesus and not the Father is the God of the Old Testament, that the LDS has the same structure and authority as the New Testament church? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

But on other issues, infant baptism, for instance, some agree with the LDS position on that specific issue, whereas others do not. Obviously not every Christian is Mormon, but not every Christian is Catholic, Methodist, or Lutheran either. I don't understand your point? Should this be an article for Christians to learn why thy shouldn't believe in Mormonism? Bytebear 23:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
There are issues of general agreement and disagreement. These are differentiated from specific agreement and disagreement. Clarity consists of discerning them from one another. There are also areas of nominal agreement, which is a category particularly apropos to the theological controversy, here: confusion arises from equivocation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
So my approach would be to state the differences, acknowledge the similarities, and avoid the arguing. This will give us a fact filled article, with no POV. Then we can add some opinions where appropriate. Bytebear 23:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not what you have been arguing for, if you've been supporting Vassyana's edit - you do realize that, don't you? Actually I can't tell, because I don't see how or where you've addressed that issue - am I talking past you?
But, it is clear to me that you've been asking that a particular LDS view would be stated, and the particular rebuttal stated. These are two POVs "arguing". As I've said, it's dictated by the topic that we must document differences and similarities of beliefs. But this will be very hard to do, if we cannot find any point outside of the debate from which to overlook the argument.
What is this vantage point? It is not a mystery. Here are two fundamentally different postures toward the foundational claims of Mormonism: one accepting them, the other rejecting them. How could we possibly proceed in a non-argumentative way, if it's insisted that the statement should read "Mormons accept them, some of the others reject them"? This kind of weaselly qualification obscures an uncontestable fact, and sets up the fantastic assumption that only the Mormon POV has any definite shape at all. Handy for Mormon apologetics, not so helpful for an encyclopedia article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The only issue I have with this approach is to say, for example, "Mormons don't believe in the Trinity and other Biblical traditions". The trinity is not biblical, and every theological point can be supported in one way or another on both sides by the Bible. Traditional Christianity have no claim on correct biblical interpretation. As for the use of "some", I am ok with that, but I would rather see each Christian subset represented, and not just Traditional Christianity. It is a very different animal than Apostolic Christianity and Evangelical Christianity, and then if we throw in Restorationists, New Age Christians, etc., we have an even bigger mess. Also, are we talking LDS specifically, or the Latter Day Saint movement in general. That also opens up a whole bag of worms, particularly with the Community of Christ, which accepts much of the traditional stance, but still recognizes Smith as a prophet and the Book of Mormon as scripture which opens the door to the allowance of the word "some". Bytebear 00:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm wrestling with jello. I would suffocate if I continue to engage this blob of relativism and epistemological despair. I have to take a break until that feeling goes away. It might be a while. Thank you for your efforts, though. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Just let yourself sink into the jello, it's much easier than fighting it. I am enjoying this discussion, and I don't think we are that far off. I think we need to define a broader context, or rather, include differing contexts, whereas you have a definite context in mind already. Your approach works within that context, and for most other contexts, but there are exceptions, and we should find a way to logically deal with them. Bytebear 01:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
As long as it is GREEN jello, eh? 74s181 13:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, all that typing and then, EDIT CONFLICT! And now, Mark says he is leaving! Oh well, I'll post my comments anyway.

Ok, Mark, let's try your argument on the Catholic Church. I think you've included them in your list of Christian churches.

"Roman Catholics believe that the authority and authenticity of the original church of the Apostles exists only in the Roman Catholic Church. Is the reaction reciprocal, or not? Do any other traditions accept that they are apostates? Do any other traditions accept all of the Catholic doctrines as compatible with the Bible? Are there any other traditions that believe that it is appropriate to pray to Mary and the various other "Saints"? Do any other traditions believe that the wafer and the wine of communion physically transform into the body and blood of Christ? Do any other traditions believe that Benedict XVI is God's exclusive official spokesman? Do any other Christian traditions believe that the Catholic Church has the same structure and authority as the New Testament church?"

My point here is not to offend Catholic editors, but to point out that there are churches in the Christian list with doctrines that many Christians would consider odd, wrong, or even blasphemous, just like they would consider LDS doctrines to be odd, wrong, or even blasphemous. So why do LDS get such a bad rap? Never mind, I already know the answer.

Mark, previously it seemed as though you were saying that a clear, succinct definition of what is a Christian was not "... in the interest of the project to answer...", so I let it go by. But you've resurfaced the issue so I'll ask you again, What is this so-called Christianity that says I am not a Christian? Give me a definition that includes you and whoever else you want to include, but excludes LDS. Does your definition include or exclude those "Christians" who so severely persecuted the early LDS Church? How about the various "Christian" ministers who encouraged and applauded the efforts of these persecutors?

Mark, you previously said "...Mormon confidence in their interpretation of the Bible arises from their faith in the credibility of later revelations..." Earlier in this discussion I provided a biblical definition of what makes someone a Christian or not, someone else provided a different one. Neither had anything to do with the Trinity doctrine. I don't think these definitions arise from any later 'Mormon' revelation, or because my "understanding is pressed into its mold...". Yet, you didn't comment on either definition. Why? 74s181 01:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Mark, I beg you to please stop removing the conditional language from the introduction. Your blanket assertion for all non-LDS Christians is simply false. You ignore a broad swath of theologically tolerant Christians. Liberal Christians, Christian anarchists and members of the emerging church movement provide many to disagree with your insistance that Mormonism is condemned by all the rest of Christianity, for example. You may not like those points of view, but they are part of Christianity at large. In particular, liberal Christianity and the emerging church movement have strong visible presences in mainline denominations. Vassyana 04:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like Mark wants to say that all (the Christian churches rejected by Mormonism) reject Mormonism. This could very well be a true statement. I can only see two possible interpretations of Mark's position:

1. Those who LDS say are not Christians also say LDS are not Christians. I agree with this, because LDS reject far fewer "as Christians" than most do.
2. LDS don't consider anyone a member of Jesus Christ's one true church unless that person has been properly baptized by an authorized LDS priesthood holder. This could be interpreted as rejection of everyone who is not LDS, but anyone familiar with the New Testament can find examples of the Apostles similarly rebaptising those whose previous baptism was done incorrectly or without proper authority.

Perhaps Mark means something else, I don't know.

For some reason, Mark will not define "Christian". I have repeatedly asked him to do this, he says my question is irrelevant. Or maybe he means a different question is irrelevant. I don't want to ask him here, because he recently posted the following on my talk page:

"I wish that you could see that your question is irrelevant to me, and I believe, only peripherally relevant to the article. I'll compare it to two men with maps. One of them by following his map ends up in Moscow, Idaho. The other ends up in Moscow, Russia. "Who are these crazy people", says the first man, "who say that I am not in Moscow?". "Who are these people", says the second man, "who say that Moscow is in Idaho?". But I'm afraid that you'll take me too literally, even in this. So, I need a break. As a courtesy, please don't ask me questions on the talk page of the article, because they won't be answered. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)" Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74s181"

So I won't be directing any more questions to Mark on this page. That doesn't mean I won't ask questions. But I will say in response to Mark's comment, if the two men above are using the same map (the Bible) and end up in such wildly different places, then either one or both of the men has a real problem reading maps (Mark's position) or the map has been copied so many times that it is distorted and difficult to read (LDS position). The problem is, some of us point to a particular spot on the map and say, "this looks like it says Moscow, Idaho to me, what does it look like to you, Mark?" and Mark either doesn't respond or says the question is irrelevant because in Mark's universe, everyone knows that the map leads to Moscow, Russia (Trinity) even though the word "Russia" appears nowhere on the map. Someone is certainly lost in the fog. 74s181 12:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to share what I did with Mark, so it's on the talk page to explain my use of "weasel words". I would agree with him that WP:AWW is an important guideline, but I disagree that it is applicable to this specific instance. WP:AWW offers the following exception:

When the belief or opinion is actually the topic of discussion. For example, "In the Middle Ages, most people believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth."

I believe that since the very topic of the article is the conflict of belief and there are notable sections of the Christian community who would not take, or at least avoid, the condemning position reflected in the introduction that this exception applies. Do other editors here agree, or disagree? Regardless, I am going to note in the introduction which groups would disagree with the rejection of LDS as Christians. Vassyana 14:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Article name

According to the Naming conventions of Wikipedia this article should be Latter Day Saints and Christianity, The Latter Day Saint movement and Christianity or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Christianity. Comments? Bytebear 02:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Latter Day Saints and Christianity or The Latter Day Saint movement and Christianity would be most appropriate, I think. Vassyana 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Given the changes in the Community of Christ, formerly RLDS, I have at times felt that they have evolved into something that looks very similar to the typcial Protestant church. There are a number of very small sects of the Latter Day Saint movement and though we might address that they exist and some of the major differences, I really think they are a very minor issue. Much of the conflict today is focused upon the LDS church.
I think the last proposal above is probably the most accurate, I would support the shortest title, Latter-day Saints and Christianity. I most appropriately addresses where the major conflict is and we would still be able to address the other groups, but only briefly. My intent is not to minimize their importance, but rather focus the article. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree that this article should focus on the LDS Church, but I think the very long name is more appropriate, and given that Wikipedia supports redirects, I have no problem with other similar titles redirection to the very long title. (Don't you wish sometimes they just stuck with Church of Christ?) In dealing with the Community of Christ, this article should have a section on changes in that church that moved them closer to protestantism and further from LDS. Bytebear 20:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I would disagree that they made changes putting them more in line with Protestant churches. They have been fairly stable in that resemblence since their inception. From their beginning, they have rejected the mainstream LDS temple practices and similar doctrines. Remember that the mainstream LDS largely took its current form under the leadership of Brigham Young, though this is not universally true. The main notable changes within the RLDS/CoC have been mostly in-line with liberal theology, such as ordaining women. However, LDS distinctive features such as a Prophet-President, the Book of Mormon, belief in continuing revelation and so on, which they had at their formation, have been preserved. So while they have changed, the assertion that the changes involved moderation of their LDS-distinctive traits for ecumenical purposes is a distorted perception. Vassyana 22:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
So do you propose including Community of Christ on the Christian or the Latter Day Saint side of the debate? Or are they somewhere in the middle? I believe they have conceded to a belief in the trinity, but I could be wrong. Bytebear 00:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
They didn't "concede" anything. It's a piece of doctrine that has been stable in the RLDS since their inception. I will reiterate that "the assertion that the changes involved moderation of their LDS-distinctive traits for ecumenical purposes is a distorted perception". Again, while they have moved in the direction of non-creedal liberal Christianity, like many mainline church have, they at the same time have remained steadfast in the LDS distinctive doctrine they've retained since their inception. Remember that much of the mainstream LDS as we know it was established during the time of Brigham Young (though often based on teachings, sermons and revelations of J Smith Jr that were not officially made doctrine, or "upheld", during his lifetime). This is why the CoC lacks the LDS temple practices, holds to a more traditional interpretation of the Godhead, rejects the assertion the Word of Wisdom is a commandment and so on. That all being said, the CoC is clearly LDS and it should just be noted when they differ from the mainstream LDS. Vassyana 06:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Vassyana, I felt their ordination of women to the priesthood and their flexible view of Homosexuality and the priesthood is not within keeping of the church founded by Joseph Smith; maybe Protestant is not the proper term, but they have become more liberal. The temple cermonies were first performed in the red store house by Joseph Smith and that the CofC continues to own. The fact that the RLDS chruch ceased to practice them has always been an interesting absence that was more a feeling that Joseph had "fallen" as a prophet, no? Baptism for the Dead was certainly practiced and taught openly by the Church during Joseph's time.
I have relatives that are CofC and they continue to be comfortable with the term Mormon; when we speak that talk as if we were one group (it is we, never you). However, in speaking with other members I received the distinct impression that Mormon was not a favored term. I dont' think anyone is saying don't talk about any of the other groups, however, what do we do with the title. DO you have a preference? --Storm Rider (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet Another Intro Proposal

I think that no matter how we try, this article is going to take the form of a debate. After all, the subject of the article is the relationship, and in the real world the relationship seems to consist of one side fanatically sniping away, while the other side in a calm, Christian manner attempts to correct the errors of the snipers. Which side are the fanatics and which are the Christians varies depending upon a persons point of view.

I think the best we can hope for is to keep the debate civil on both sides, and insist that statements be made in true wikipedia fashion, stating things as "X claim Y because of Z (citation). Q disagree and claim R, because of S (citation)."

Anyway, I said this was a proposal for an introduction. I don't have this fully fleshed out, but it came to me as I was listening to General Conf (I spend about two hours per day in my car and have an MP3 CD changer with Conference talks). What I have is an idea for an approach.

Part of the problem with the article has been scope creep. So we need to clearly define up front what the article is about, that way as people try to add things to the article that don't fit the defined scope we can gently redirect them to a more appropriate place.

Another problem has been the lack of a clear definition of positions. I had an interesting idea about this. Anyway, here is the proposed intro.

Mormonism, or the Latter Day Saint Movement, has been in conflict with traditional Christianity since Joseph Smith, Jr. claimed to have been told by Jesus Christ in a vision that he should join none of the churches on the earth at that time because all of their creeds were an abomination to God (citation here, pointing to http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/17-22#17).
Members of the Latter Day Saint movement (some of whom are commonly called 'Mormons') believe that they are part of the greater Christian family, but recognize that there are many who reject this claim. President Boyd K. Packer, a senior Apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints illustrated this issue by relating the following experience.
"Years ago, I was at a symposium at a college in Oregon. Present were a Catholic bishop, a rabbi, an Episcopalian minister, an Evangelical minister, a Unitarian clergyman, and myself.
The president of the school, Dr. Bennett, hosted a breakfast. One of them asked which wife I had brought. I told them I had a choice of one. For a second, I thought that I was being singled out for embarrassment. Then someone asked the Catholic bishop if he had brought his wife.
The next question came from Dr. Bennett to me: “Is it true that Mormons have horns?”
I smiled and said, “I comb my hair so that they can’t be seen.”
Dr. Bennett, who was completely bald, put both hands on the top of his head and said, “Oh! You can never make a Mormon out of me!”
Strangest of all, otherwise intelligent people claim we are not Christian. This shows that they know little or nothing about us. It is a true principle that you cannot lift yourself by putting others down." (Boyd K. Packer, “A Defense and a Refuge,” Ensign, Nov 2006, 85–88)
Many, if not most traditional Christians (those who accept the Nicene Creed or similar definition of the Trinity --- or replace this with whatever definition the traditional Christians prefer but not a link to the Christianity wikipedia page) believe that the problem is not so simple. So and so, an recognized authority on thus and such, illustrated the issue in this way.
(a quote of similar length from someone recognized and acknowledged by the traditional Christians as being expert or otherwise authoritative to speak on this issue)
There have been many conflicts between these groups in the past, sometimes escalating to violence. These historical conflicts are covered in detail elsewhere (see History of the Latter Day Saint movement) and are not covered here. Instead, this article focuses on current doctrinal and social conflicts between members of the Latter Day Saint movement and traditional Christians.
Some of these differences in contemporary belief or practice are too lengthy for a single article. These topics are summarized here and covered in more detail elsewhere.

The above intro would then be followed by the current topics.

Ok, that's it. I think this accomplishes the following:

1. Who are the mormons?
2. Who are the traditional Christians who say mormons are not Christians?
3. A capsule summary of the LDS position
4. A capsule summary of the traditional Christian position
5. A clear statement and limitation of scope
6. An explanation of why everything ever said by every pro- or anti- mormon who ever lived isn't mentioned in this article
7. A list of beliefs or practices of one side that the other side believe to be odd, wrong, or heretical, why one side thinks these beliefs or practices are wrong and why the other side thinks these beliefs or practices are ok.
8. If any particular topic gets to be too long we can spin it off to a separate article.

What do you think? 74s181 14:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the current introduction covers nearly all of these points. We could easily polish and cite more with the current intro. Your proposal seems (to me) sprawling and oversized. The extensive blockquotes in particular seem out of place in an introduction. Just my opinion. Vassyana 14:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a lot of problems with this article, but I'm not really sure how best to fix it.
One problem I have with the article and the above proposal is that it treats "Christianity" as though there is a single group.
An example is the statement that Christians accept only the Bible. Actually, Christians accept one of several versions of the Bible, and some accept additional writings and traditions to have the same weight as the Bible. Mormons are closer to some groups in some areas, and then closer to other groups in other areas.
I would like to see the article reflect the variety of beliefs among the entire group rather than "all Christians believe X" and "All Mormons believe Y". I don't think debate is necessary or even helpful for this article. IMHO, it should allow the reader to compare the different beliefs, customs, etc. between various Mormons and Christian groups.
I recommend that we identify the following major groups for the purpose of this article:
  • Mormons (LDS, Church of Christ, etc.)
  • Roman Catholic
  • Orthodox Catholic (Greek, Russian, etc.)
  • Traditional Protestants (e.g., Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.)
  • Evangelical Christian (e.g., "Born Again")
  • Ecumenical (e.g., Unitarian)
And then, when discussing topics, identify what the various groups believe and what their customs are. Is it just me, or does this make sense to others? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 17:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I would agree. Each major heading should contrast with a separate group. Even the Community of Christ compared to the LDS Church deserves attention. Bytebear 22:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I really think that the distinction between the LDS and CoC would be a seperate article. For the purposes of this article, they generally fall under most of the same criticisms as the mainstream LDS (open canon, continuing revelation, Book of Mormon, current Prophet, et cetera). It would probably be useful to mention in some sections they are excluded from criticism due to their differances from the mainstream LDS (no Temple as in mainstream LDS, standard non-creedal (Unitarian tolerant) Trinitarian views). However, the CoC is just as vulnerable on most of the main points of criticism as the mainstream LDS. Vassyana 23:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I like this general idea. It is probably a good direction to go in and would help give some form and direction to the article, as well as mitigate some of the edit conflicts. Thinking on it, I think the groupings should be:
  • Mormons (as above)
  • Catholic/Orthodox (the differances between them are inconsequential for this article)
  • Mainline (or Mainstream) Protestants (as Traditional above; avoid "Traditional" simply because "Traditionalism" is generally associated with Conservative Christianity)
  • Conservative Christians (Evangelicals are a subset of the broader Fundamentalist and conservative branches of Christianity; also heading off an objection, because some Evangelicals adhere to liberal theology)
  • Liberal Christians (Ecumenical will probably be a contraversial choice of words, as it tend to apply more to the moderate and mainline churches)
Just my thoughts. Vassyana 23:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I proposed the idea of a quote, and chose the specific quote because I think it paints a picture of how LDS 'feel' about this issue. I agree that it is probably is too long for the top level intro, but might still be useful in a secondary intro below the TOC. Obviously if we can't find a similar quote that sums of the feeling of most of those on the traditional Christian side of the argument then this doesn't work.

I think it is better to not try to treat all that think LDS are not Christians into a monolithic 'them'. I also like the idea of finding common ground whenever possible, showing how various LDS 'odd' beliefs are shared by otherwise 'traditional' Christians. How about the format: "X claim Y because of Z (citation). N have similar beliefs (citation), differing only in O. Q, R, S disagree and claim T, because of U (citation)."

I don't think all the Protestants can be lumped together, there are variations in belief even within the same major groups, i.e., different Baptist groups, different Lutheran groups, etc. 74s181 03:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Entropy, or back to the future

Looking over my last posting I see that this could easily turn into an encylopedia of its own, "What do all Christians believe?". I still think it is productive to find common ground where possible, but I suspect that as soon as you say some other church has something in common with LDS, some member of that church will take offense at being connected with LDS in any way and start taking the article off topic.

Speaking of topic, my discussion with Mark continued a bit on his home page. He insists that the purpose of the article is not to define what a Christian is. I wondered if the direction I have been trying to go is really what the article is about, so I checked the original posting of the article. Here is the original intro:

"The question of whether Mormonism belongs under the broad umbrella of Christianity is a bit of a loaded question, with strong feelings held on the topic by many. With that in mind, this page attempts to catalogue not only positions from both sides of the argument, but historical context and relationship between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the broader Christian community."

Clearly we are following the original intent of the article. The only thing different about the current approach may be the elimination of "historical context", but only if "historical context" means conflicts between the early LDS movement and "Christians". If it means how the current "Christian" community differs from the primitive Christian community then we are still on track.

It is interesting to see how this intro evolved. I really like the phrase "...belongs under the broad umbrella of Christianity...", unfortunately it was removed in the very first edit by BoNoMoJo, who simultaneously added a very useful reference to Stephen E. Robinson's "Are Mormons Christians?". This reference contained the following statement:

"Generally, LDS-dectractors deny that Mormons are Christians by using the term Christianity in a (usually implicit) historical, traditional, canonical, doctrinal or sectarian sense to exclude Mormonism. However, using Christianity in such a way is merely a way of saying that it is only a particular history, tradition, canon, doctrine or sect that is justified when such justifications are debatable. "

Shortly after, this phrase was added:

"...in some uses such specialized definitions could fairly exclude the primitive church and Jesus Christ himself."

That hits the nail right on the head for me. What happened to this reference? It was moved into the body of the article, then was totally removed in Feb 2004 as "...redundant POV material...".

Another observation, then I'll shut up for a while. Mark / Mkmcconn has been active in editing this article since early 2004. I haven't looked at all of his edits, but I checked a few. He has added a lot of useful information on 'traditional' Christian thought. However, he deleted some material in Feb 2004, describing his edit as "remove the attempts to narrow to two those issues found objectionable". What was removed?

"Two main reasons are proposed by those arguing to exclude Mormonism as a branch of Christianity: (1) that the Jesus Christ conceptualized by Mormonism is not within the range of permissible Christian conceptions of Jesus Christ, and (2) that the practices of Mormonism are not within the range of permissible Christian practices."

Maybe he thought there were more than two isses. Did he try to correct the focus by adding more issues? No. Someone had previously tried to focus the discussion, to clear the fog, and Mark deleted it.

I said I was going to shut up. So, here are my conclusions, then I'm shutting up.

As we're discussing future structure of the article it would be useful to spend some time reviewing previous versions.
I have to ask, is this even possible? Or is it the nature of Wikipedia that any controversial article is going to be completely re-written every three months?

I'm still a newbie on wikipedia. Two years ago I read thru all the archived talk pages and had a grandiose plan to work out a complete restructuring of this article, but fortunately for wikipedia things got busy at work and kept me from accomplishing anything. A few months ago I started coming back here and there. Today it seems like I spend a lot of time trying to fix some small piece of something without offending the old timers, then even more time 'watching' it to make sure someone else doesn't unfix it. Eventually my attention wanders to something else and POOF!.

I'm not saying that my edits are 'golden' and should be left alone, I'm sure some people consider my contributions to be the cause of chaos rather than the cure. What I am asking is:

1. What is the point of building a careful consensus on structure / organization of a controversial article like this one if two months later it is going to disintegrate back into chaos?
2. What is the point of carefully crafting a cited, NPOV contribution if six months later someone is going to flush it down the bit bucket?
3. Maybe I shouldn't worry about what Mark or anyone else thinks, and just edit until I get locked out?

Ok, I'm shutting up now. 74s181 13:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the structure of an article can only return to chaos if those monitoring the article allow it to do so. I have found that recently I've been doing more monitoring than contributing original content. If an edit departs from the previous consensus, you can revert it with an explanation.
IMHO, the reason you care about what others think in Wikipedia is because that is the only way Wikipedia will work. If an article is really NPOV, then nobody is happy with it, but they can't point to any section where they can make a good argument that it should be changed. ;^)
You can always restore older edits. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you should be bold. If something is really an issue, then someone else will undo it. I believe you should avoid things people have clearly objected to, unless you can provide a good reference. Edit conflicts can usually be worked out on talk pages, rephrasing language and compromise. Just avoid edit and revert wars. If the page really gets stuck in a conflict, mediation and page protection can always be requested to help get over that contention. Dive in! Just my thoughts. Vassyana 15:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Those lost quotes are excellent. It is exactly what this article needs. We should be focusing on two things: doctrinal differences and how those differences affect the relationship of the LDS Church with other Christian churches. Sure, some say LDS are not Christian, but that is just the most superficial and obvious issue. What about when dealing with interfaith political issue like abortion, gay rights, ERA, gambling, etc. What about social programs like soup kitchens, humanitarian aide, etc. Catholics may re-baptize Mormon converts, but they are perfectly willing to cooperate in humanitarian endeavors. What about the reactions to Mitt Romney? I think that is going to heat things up in the next several months. Bytebear 00:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Boldly going where many have gone before

Ok, I'm doing it. I've added a new opening, combining the very first original opening for the article with a couple of scope limiting statements. The previous opening was turned into an Introduction below the TOC. But I'm not stopping there, I'll be pulling some other quotes out of the bit bucket and redoing the introduction, which is now a section. I'll post and check back here as I work on it this evening. 74s181 01:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph seems redundant so I removed it. The info is covered elsewhere in the article in more detail.

While the majority of Christians accept the Bible as the only sacred text, Latter-Day Saints also adhere to the Book of Mormon, which LDS Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. claimed to translate from ancient inscribed plates. He claimed they were written by a New World prophet and delivered to him by an angel. In addition to the Bible and the Book of Mormon, the LDS also believe that revelation is on-going. This is reflected in their belief in the guidance of present-day Apostles with prophetic authority and modern scripture such as the Doctrine and Covenants.[1][2]

This info is also redundant, I took the reference and added it to the appropriate section where this material is covered in more detail.

Mormons believe that the authority and authenticity of the original church of the Apostles was lost after a Great Apostasy, leaving the remaining churches in a fallen state, having less than the fullness of the Gospel.[3][4] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be the restored church of Jesus with the same authority and structure of the ancient church. Reciprocally, many other Christian traditions consider Mormonism to be a corrupted form of Christianity, or Christian in only a nominal or cultural sense. Their apologists consider LDS claims to be incompatible with the Bible and unsupportable from either tradition or history. This view is common among traditionalists and mainline churches, but rare among modernists.

I think that what this is saying is that Mormons believe most of the same things about members of the Godhead as mainstream Christians believe about members of the Trinity, it's also kind of preachy / witnessing. "See, we believe the same things about Jesus Christ as you do". Much of this is stated in the Godhead (Latter Day Saints) article, and if not, it should be.

God the Father serves in a presiding role in the Godhead and is the Father of spirits [5], including the spirit of Jesus Christ. Christ, as the mediator between mortals and the Father, is worshipped as Lord and Savior, and is also referred to throughout the LDS canon of scripture as God[6] He (Jesus) was the God of the Old Testament and during the Old Testament times was known as Jehovah. Under the direction of the Father, Jehovah (Jesus) created the Earth and all things on it. [7] He was born of the Virgin Mary and is the Only Begotten of the Father because of his Divine paternity. Latter-Day Saints believe that it is only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ and obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel that a person may be saved and return to the Kingdom of God. For Latter-Day Saints Jesus Christ was and is the Word of God (see John chapter 1). He heads the Church and is the first person voice dictating the revelations Joseph Smith recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants. The Holy Ghost, as third member of the Godhead, is sought after and given veneration as well. He is also referred to as God.[8]. He is a "personage of Spirit", and as such, unlike the Father and Son, does not have a body of flesh and bones, but rather a spiritual body in the likeness of a physical body. The role of the Holy Ghost is to testify of the Father and Son and teach the truthfulness of all things. Latter-Day Saints believe that the witness of the Holy Ghost concerning the truthfulness of the Gospel is essential to true conversion [9].

Ok, I think that's enough for now. 74s181 04:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


“ Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. — Albert Einstein ”
— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it isn't pink but...

I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. -- Thomas Edison

74s181 04:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. I still have a lot of problems with the section "Traditional LDS attitudes toward those of other faiths". It seems to ramble and try to justify LDS attitudes rather than report on them.
As for Einstein's quote, I think he was talking about science. I read the scriptures over and over again, and never get the same results. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 17:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The Introduction

I am going to restore the introduction as it stood at around my last edit, with some modification from the current introduction. I don't see what is gained by the "new" introduction. I especially disagree with the need for two introductions (the lede and a seperate introduction sentance). The purpose of a lead is to provide an introduction. The editorial comments are inappropriate. (Example: "The question of whether Mormonism belongs under the broad umbrella of Christianity is a bit of a loaded question, with strong feelings held on the topic by many.") Also, I disagree with what I see as a breezy and sometimes apologetic tone. If there are problems with the introduction after my edit, please take the time to explain what is wrong with it. I am sure we can find an agreeable solution. Vassyana 19:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a highly controversial article, so controversial that we can't even seem to agree on what the article is about. I think the normal practice of including a summary of the key points or controversies in the lead needs to be abandoned here because any mention of any controversy is going to have a tendency to bloat. Maybe a list of the key controversies in a single sentence, this was in the lead at one point but has since been removed.
My goal is to get to a lead that doesn't get tweaked every 20 minutes, and accomplishes several purposes:
1. Clearly define what the article is about. The first paragraph was from the original posting of the article, I thought it was a clear statement of purpose that wasn't contaminated with arguments from either side. Grammar might be improved, but I don't see what is editorial about it. Maybe replace "...is a loaded question..." with "...is controversial..."?
"The question of whether Mormonism belongs under the broad umbrella of Christianity is controversial, with strong feelings held on the topic by many. With that in mind, this page attempts to catalogue not only positions from both sides of the argument, but historical context and relationship between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the broader Christian community."
2. Carefully limit the scope of the article to keep it on track and exclude irrelevent material.
"There have been many conflicts between these groups in the past, sometimes escalating to violence. These historical conflicts are covered in detail elsewhere (see History of the Latter Day Saint movement) and are not covered here. Instead, this article focuses on current doctrinal and social conflicts between members of the Latter Day Saint movement and traditional Christians."
3. Deal with bloat. Everyone wants to see their position accurately and fully represented. Unfortunately, there isn't room in one article to fully explore the origin and current practice of every doctrine, what every other Christian thinks about it, why they are wrong, why the LDS are wrong, the CoC believes something different, etc. Many of the LDS doctrines are explained in detail in other articles, with history, current practice, etc., where these articles exist we should limit coverage in this article to the very highest, summary level, referring the reader to more detailed articles for more info.
"Some of these differences in contemporary belief or practice are too lengthy for a single article. These topics are summarized in this article and covered in more detail elsewhere."
I took the old lead and turned it into an introduction.
I changed "...have conflicted on theological grounds..." to "...have been in conflict..." because the conflicts have been and still are more than theological.
I also changed "...since the inception of the Latter Day Saint movement in 1830..." to "...since Joseph Smith's claim that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him in a vision in the early 1820's." Actually, I originally wrote it as 1920, someone corrected it to 1820. I see you have retained this change.
"Mormonism and most of mainstream Christianity[1] have been in conflict since Joseph Smith's claim that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him in a vision in the early 1820's. Latter Day Saints (LDS) proclaim a Christian faith, but are distinct in numerous ways considered controversial by many other Christian denominations."
Your old intro and the current intro then jump right into the controversies. This is redundant, these controversies are covered in more detail later in the article. The intro after I changed it explains at a high level what the controversy is, without getting into the details. Note that these quotes existed in the article very early on, but were removed. I brought them up here on the talk page (see above, "Entropy, or back to the future") and received positive feedback, Vassyana suggested I should be bold, Bytebear said that these quotes were excellent and were just what the article needed.
"Latter Day Saints (LDS) proclaim a Christian faith, but are distinct in numerous ways considered controversial by many other Christian denominations."
"Two main reasons are proposed by those arguing to exclude Mormonism as a branch of Christianity: (1) that the Jesus Christ conceptualized by Mormonism is not within the range of permissible Christian conceptions of Jesus Christ, and (2) that the doctrines and practice of Mormonism are not within the range of permissible Christian doctrines and practice."
The last paragraph of the new intro expands further on the controversy, describing how it is generally approached, but still in a very high level, non specific way that is not covered elsewhere in the article.
"Generally, LDS detractors deny that Mormons are Christians by using the term Christianity in a (usually implicit) historical, traditional, canonical, doctrinal or sectarian sense to exclude Mormonism. However, using Christianity in such a way is merely a way of saying that it is only a particular history, tradition, canon, doctrine or sect that is justified when such justifications are debatable; in some uses such specialized definitions could fairly exclude the primitive church and Jesus Christ himself."
I know that this is a little different from the normal structure of a Wikipedia article, but I really think that this article needs a stake driven into the ground, and I think it is best to do this right at the begining, so that anyone who happens upon the article will understand what it is and is not about, what should and should not be in it before they start editing. There may be those who don't agree with the original purpose of the article as stated by the person who created it and many if not most of those who are working on it today. Fine, let's discuss it, and if we can't reach a consensus then this is Wikipedia, they can go start a new article. There may also be those who don't want a stake in the ground, don't want any kind of clear statement of purpose, these people have a clear agenda and I will continue to try to improve this article in spite of their efforts.
So, now what? 74s181 04:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
You're quite right. I did, and still do, encourage you to be bold. It doesn't provide any promise that your contributions won't be mercilessly edited by me or another editor. However, I won't (and I hope other editors wouldn't) just discount what you are trying to add to the article. I'm going to answer your points first, so you know where I stand. After that, I'll explain why I made the changes I did. (Points numbered for ease of reference.)
  1. I don't think controversy and conflict should be the main focus of this article, nor should it be. While certainly it is an unavoidable topic that is integral to the comparison of the LDS movement and mainstream Christianity, there are already two articles with a focus on the controversy angle (such as Criticism of Mormonism). Really, anyone who is here to edit about the controversies should really focus on those article families, rather than focus their attention here. This article, as its name implies, should be focused on the comparison of the LDS and majority Christianity.
  2. I believe the lede that is in place has a strong potential to become stable. The lede you replaced it with harkens to a time when the lede was considerably controversial among editors. Going back in that direction will run counter to your goals of a stable article.
  3. I believe the current conflict is theological. The social conflict with other Christians is based on theological differances in the modern day. Long gone are the days of pioneer Illinois and the Utah War.
  4. On the article bloat/high level summary point, I would generally agree, though some points are not well covered in other articles. (If they start to get too large, new articles can always be forked.) However, we don't need to explicitly state such in the article as you added to the lede. We can handle it with main article links, as is done in some of the sections. This provides the reference for the reader and the obvious indication this is not a full detail treatment. Please look at other high-level summary style articles in Wikipedia for examples.
  5. On touching base with the controversies in the lede, I think I touch on the essential aspects. (See below for my explanation.)
  6. I believe the efforts to alter this article from the Wikipedia norm as part of the problem. We should make great efforts to keep the format and tone uniform with the standards of Wikipedia and generally consistant with Wikipedia. Diverging from that takes us into a dangerous territory of relativism. Content should conform to the encyclopedic format, not the other way around. And not to be offensive, but really the intent of the original creator of this article just doesn't matter. There is no article ownership in Wikipedia.

"The question of whether Mormonism belongs under the broad umbrella of Christianity is controversial, with strong feelings held on the topic by many. With that in mind, this page attempts to catalogue not only positions from both sides of the argument, but historical context and relationship between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the broader Christian community."

I believe this information is already included in the current version:

"Latter Day Saints (LDS) proclaim a Christian faith, but are distinct in numerous ways considered controversial by many other Christian denominations. This article focuses on the current distinctions and conflicts."

Notice the differance in tone and language, even though they convey approximately the same information.

"There have been many conflicts between these groups in the past, sometimes escalating to violence. These historical conflicts are covered in detail elsewhere (see History of the Latter Day Saint movement) and are not covered here. Instead, this article focuses on current doctrinal and social conflicts between members of the Latter Day Saint movement and traditional Christians."

This is covered in the current version with a short sentance and footnote. (Last sentance, first paragraph. Footnote #2.)

"Two main reasons are proposed by those arguing to exclude Mormonism as a branch of Christianity: (1) that the Jesus Christ conceptualized by Mormonism is not within the range of permissible Christian conceptions of Jesus Christ, and (2) that the doctrines and practice of Mormonism are not within the range of permissible Christian doctrines and practice."

I think (1) is redundant (Christology is a doctrine) and gives undue weight to the criticisms of the evangelical anti-Mormon community. (2) includes (1) and the information is in the current lede.

"Generally, LDS detractors deny that Mormons are Christians by using the term Christianity in a (usually implicit) historical, traditional, canonical, doctrinal or sectarian sense to exclude Mormonism. However, using Christianity in such a way is merely a way of saying that it is only a particular history, tradition, canon, doctrine or sect that is justified when such justifications are debatable; in some uses such specialized definitions could fairly exclude the primitive church and Jesus Christ himself."

I think this is very wordy. I also think the second sentance (at best) borders on apologetics. Also, as with the previous quote, the gist is in the current lede.
While we are look at differant approaches, I do not think we are too far off from each other. As you can see, the essential information you want included is included in the current introduction. If you think something else is missing, or disagree with me, please by all means explain what and/or why. I can be flexible and I know we all have same goal here: to present the topic fairly and make a good article. G-d bless! Vassyana 07:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I removed the explicit reference to "theological grounds" to accomodate your concerns and it is admittedly a wordy sort of phrase. Vassyana 07:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with being "mercilessly edited", just deleted with no explanation. You gave an explanation.
1. I think this article has a clear purpose that distinguishes it from the other articles you mentioned, it is "Why Mormons think they are Christians and why some Christians think Mormons are not Christians". It sounds like you agree.
2. Ok, I'll trust your judgement for now.
3. I agree, there are plenty of places for this stuff.
4. I only thought that an explanation right up front might prevent some bloat as well as make it easier to remove such material if/when it becomes necessary. I'll trust your experience.
5. The latest lead is an improvement. I think there could be a better statement than "Latter-Day Saints adhere to modern scripture.", and I think the third paragraph ought to be shortened, maybe the first and second sentence could be combined but I can't quite see how right now.
6. I'll trust your experience on "...the Wikipedia norm...". As far as article ownership, I hope you won't be offended by what I am saying, but the implication is that anyone with enough people on their side can reshape any article from its original purpose into whatever they want. Mark is threatening to submit this article for deletion "...If more experienced Mormon editors can't re-gain control of the page...", what is really going on here? 74s181 00:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
1. I think we're pretty close on this point. I would like to see a little more of a comparative religion focus than a conflict focus, or at the least have some of that kind of content in this article.
2. 4. and 6. If you have reservations, feel free to voice them. Just don't trust my "experience" or "knowledge" on the matter. If you are uncomfortable with any point I raise or edit I make, voice that concern!
5. Good points. I'll put some thought into that and see what I can come up with. I'll note it here if I make any edits towards that end.
6. Really, my own point was the view of any single editor does not reign supreme, even the creator of a given article. As far as any threat to list this page of AfD, I would not worry overmuch about it. I do not think that it would make it to deletion, and I would certainly oppose a deletion of this page. Don't worry too much about any perceived threats. Focus on improving the page. If someone makes some specific complaints, take them into mind and try to build consensus. G-d bless! Vassyana 06:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
1. "I think we're pretty close on this point." I don't think that this question should be that controversial, but it seems that conflict is inevitable on this topic. My experience talking to "other" Christians about this has been pretty consistent.
1a. Most "other" Christians start out certain that Mormons are not Christians, but they aren't positive why.
1b. As we discuss reasons why they think Mormons are not Christians, they will acknowledge that many of the things they thought were different are not that different at all, and are certainly not different enough to say that Mormons are not Christians...
1c. Until we get to the Trinity, or other Diety-related Mormon belief, or...
1d. Until we get to the "One True Church" question.
Clearly there needs to be a place to discuss why "other" Christians believe Mormons are not Christians, and why Mormons believe that they are. The nature of this discussion is that there will be conflict. It is easy to say that there is a page for controversy, but if discussing the question: "Are Mormons Christians" doesn't belong here, what does? The name of the page is not "Mormonism and Catholicism" or "Mormonism and Presbyterianism" or "Mormonism and Hinduism". The very title "Mormonism and Christianity" implies that the majority believe Mormons are not Christians, and that we're going to explore why. If not here, where?
I don't have a problem with identifying which "other" Christians agree or disagree with Mormons on each doctrinal difference, I think that is something you are looking for. But then we run back into the question of 'some', 'many', 'most' when we talk about doctrinal differences that are pretty much across the board, like the Trinity. 74s181 19:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree that the conflict is an essential part of the discussion. I just feel the focus should not be the conflict, but rather a comparison. Of course, a comparison will show the differances, but the conflict should not be the primary focus. I do not think the title necessarily indicates that the article has to be controversy/conflict-focused. (See Christianity and Buddhism, for example.) We do not need yet another article focused on criticism of the LDS. However, Wikipedia would be well-served by a comparative religion treatment of the topic. Vassyana 18:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
BTW, since this is the talk page I can express my POV, right? It seems that in the not so distant past, relationships between different mainstream Christian denominations (for example, Baptists and Catholics) were as strained as relations between Mormons and "other" Christians today. It seems that somewhere along the way, most of the "other" Christians entered into a mutual non-aggression pact, the essence of which is to acknowledge that there is no single "One True Church". Each of these "other" churches then promptly forgot that they at one time claimed to be that "One True Church", and now condition their members to respond with a knee-jerk reaction whenever someone suggests that Jesus taught that the gate was strait, not wide, and the way narrow, not broad, or that there is only "One Lord, one faith, one baptism", not many, and that these things matter to Him. 74s181 19:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I added a paragraph to the front of the Introduction. The previous version seemed to be more a statement of the LDS view than a comparison of the two views. I think this new paragraph sets up the contrast for the conflict between Mormonism and the rest of Christianity. Hopefully others will agree. As I mentioned before, I would like to see the article present a balanced comparison between the two viewpoints, and IMHO Joseph Smith is the most critical element in that comparison. I seem to recall some general authority stating that if Joseph had expressed his views without claiming to be a prophet, he might have been regarded as a respected religious philosopher. OTOH, after he claimed to be a prophet, it pretty much didn't matter what he said, others were going to object to it. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 09:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed that paragraph. I moved the text to the talk page and explain below. I do not understand why you feel the lede is a statement of LDS beliefs with no comparison. Could you please elaborate? To me, the contrast is clear. The first paragraph explicitly states they are distinct. The latter half of the second and third paragraphs explicitly show a contrast between the LDS and mainstream Christians. Vassyana 17:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

74s181 I took your suggestions for the lede and tried to implement them. I rephrased the statement about "modern scripture" and condensed the first two sentances of the last paragraph. Does that work for you? Vassyana 17:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Explaining the current lede

"Mormonism and most of mainstream Christianity[1] have conflicted since the inception of the Latter Day Saint movement in the 1820s in the United States. Latter Day Saints (LDS) proclaim a Christian faith, but are distinct in numerous ways considered controversial by many other Christian denominations. This article focuses on the current distinctions and conflicts.[2]"

Addresses the fact LDS and mainstream Christians have always conflicted, that LDS identify as Christian with some controversy and the article focus. "Mainstream" Christianity defined by both wikilink and footnote. Second footnote directs readers to the History of the Latter Day Saint movement article for more information about a historical perspective.

"Latter-Day Saints adhere to modern scripture. The LDS also believe that revelation is on-going and in the guidance of present-day Apostles with prophetic authority.[3][4] This contrasts with most Christians who believe that active revelation ceased with the end of the "Apostolic age" and hold to a closed canon."

Addresses what causes the divergence from mainstream Christianity and why this is a divergence. Wikilinks and footnotes confirm basic assertions.

"Mormons believe that the authority and authenticity of the original church of the Apostles was lost after a Great Apostasy, leaving the remaining churches in a fallen state, having less than the fullness of the Gospel.[5][6] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be the restored church of Jesus with the same authority and structure of the ancient church. Reciprocally, many other Christian traditions consider Mormonism to be a corrupted form of Christianity, or Christian in only a nominal or cultural sense.[7] Their apologists consider LDS claims to be incompatible with the Bible and unsupportable from either tradition or history.[8]"

Addresses why (what foundational reason) the LDS hold to the divergent beliefs noted above. Provides the counterpoint view. Footnotes provide references of fact, address the who of "many other Christian[s]" and refers the reader to the Criticism of Mormonism article for more info about the critical view.

I hope this helps clarify my position and the reasons for the current lede edits. Vassyana 07:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I appreciate your attempt to help me understand what you're doing, and your interest in my concerns. 74s181 00:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding I have the same goal in mind that you do: to make this a better article. I appreciate the good nature you are showing. I have no problem explaining my edits and my view. I'm not going to reject your concerns out of hand. I am only a single editor. I might have a particular idea for something I work on here, but part of working on Wikipedia is moderating such views and taking into account the views and critiques of other editors. I am sure working together in good faith we can really improve this article. Thank you again for your understanding and willingness to work together towards improvement. Vassyana 06:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The Introduction as of Feb 20

The intro seems to try to over to much ground making it a bit confusing. I would counsel succinct sentences without going into details. The differences are modern day revelation resulting in new scritpure, authority, and other doctrines. Later in the aricle I would explain these things in more depth, but initally trying to broach so much is not helpful. Would you mind cutting out a mority of it? I will wait on comments before editing. I know you guys have worked a lot on it, but I don't think it works well yet. --Storm Rider (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you think needs to be done with the introduction? What is particulaly troubling to you? Vassyana 17:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Introduction addition removed

I removed:

"Historically, the Roman Catholic church objects to anyone other than the Pope claiming to speak for God, whereas the Protestant churches object to anyone, including the Pope making such a claim without support from biblical passages. Not only did Joseph Smith (the founder of Mormonism) claim to speak for God, but produced a book that he claimed was scripture, but was more accurate than the Bible.[10] Smith went on to produce additional scriptures, and further claimed that God told him that all other Christian churches were corrupt.[11] Opposition to Smith and his claims was severe[12], and a number of claims were made that Smith was a fraud. (See Anti-Mormonism)."

The first sentance is problematic in several ways. The Roman Catholic church statement is grossly oversimplified and simply wrong. The RCC accepts other people may be inspired by the Holy Spirit with prophecy and other messages from G-d. This is clearly demonstrated in their treatment of canonized saints, many of whom claimed to have visions or other messages from G-d. The Protestant statement is similarly inaccurate. It discounts such groups as Pentecostals and Quakers. The remainder of the information is already in the article. The lede currently touches on these subjects in a general overview fashion and they are covered in greater detail within the article. Vassyana 17:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I will again state my problem with the intro, and that is that it presents the LDS version with minimal treatment of other forms of Christianity. An intro that doesn't mention the issue of Joseph Smith isn't (IMHO) an accurate introduction. I will leave it to the two of you to come up with the exact wording since you seem to be working well together. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
On the Joseph Smith point, I think we might just have to agree to disagree. While it would be necessary to mention him in core articles, I think it is not necessary and against the grain of Wikipedia precedent to mention him in all the secondary article ledes. Secondary articles about Quakers don't mention George Fox in their ledes. Secondary articles about Lutheranism don't mention Martin Luther in their ledes. Just a thought, but I will think on how to include JS Jr into the lede.
Again, I don't understand why you feel that there's undue weight in the lede to the LDS position. Your own second and third sentances talk about the LDS position, which is already covered in the initial part of the second paragraph of the current intro. Why add to this if you are concerned about undue weight to the LDS beliefs? The final sentance of your addition is already covered in the conclusion of the third paragraph of the current intro, so I do not understand why you felt this was lacking. The latter portion of the second and third paragraphs explicitly contrast the LDS against mainstream Christianity. Could you be more explicit in your concerns? What exactly is lacking to you? Vassyana 18:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
George Fox and Martin Luther did not claim to be prophets of God, in the same sense as Moses, Elijah, Isaiah. Joseph Smith, Jr. did, and it is central to LDS belief that he was such a prophet, you cannot be LDS and not believe this.
I agree that the paragraph that was added to the intro didn't fit, was too long, etc., but I also agree that Joseph Smith should be in there somewhere, but I don't want to bloat the lead. Maybe a slight modification / expansion of the phrase "...since the inception of the Latter Day Saint movement in the 1820s...":
"...since Joseph Smith, Jr. began the Latter Day Saint movement in the 1820's..." but this is slightly POV as it implies that JS did this on his own, rather than being commanded to do it as LDS believe.
"...since Joseph Smith, Jr. first claimed to be a prophet in the 1820's...", this gets to the heart of the matter without going into a lot of detail that is covered elsewhere. Of course, JS didn't claim to be a prophet when he was 14 years old, he just claimed to have seen and spoken to The Father and The Son.
"...since Joseph Smith, Jr's First Vision in the 1820's..." but this states the First Vision as fact which would be POV.
Anyway, I'm not exactly sure how to do it, that's why I haven't just done it. 74s181 14:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I was going think of how to include him into the lede. So far, I've been running into similar problems. Either the ways I think of are inaccurate or unfairly present a POV. I will continue to think on it. If you come up with something, by all means, be bold and do it! I will do the same if I can figure out how to do it fairly. Vassyana 14:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, Joseph Smith is the defining issue when comparing Mormonism and Christianity. Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet; other Christian religions don't. Most, if not all, of Mormons' beliefs are founded on the concept that Smith was a prophet and the Church was established by Jesus Christ. Talking about Godhead/Trinity, etc. is talking about the symptoms rather than the source. If I had more time, I would come up with a well-thought-out addition. My first attempt was to add a bad paragraph, hoping somebody would improve on it, but instead it go deleted. (That often works, but didn't this time. ;^) I'm not sure how to describe the differences without talking about Joseph Smith. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 16:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Wrp103 is correct, all the controversial doctrines of LDS trace back to revelations taught by Joseph Smith and his successors. I took a shot at it, I added Joseph Smith to the lead, rearranged it a bit to read better with the changes. I also modified the statement about modern scripture.

Wouldn’t you say that the principle involved is modern day revelation? Joseph Smith was the instrument through which LDS believe God spoke again formerly to humanity. LDS revere Joseph Smith and acknowledge that few have done more for mankind other than Jesus Christ. The revelations revealed through him are as valued as those received through the prophet today; not more or less.

Vassyana, Wrp103, 74s181 & all, would it be more acceptable to focus on the principle of the matter rather than the instrument? --Storm Rider (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that LDS belief in modern revelation needs to be made clear. It is discussed in various sections, maybe it needs a section of its own.
Regarding 'the instrument':
D&C 135:3 "Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it."
Other Christian faiths besides LDS believe in some form of modern revelation. LDS don't worship Joseph Smith, but acceptance of his pivotal role in the restoration, and for that matter, in Heavenly Father's eternal plan is a crucial part of LDS belief. The baptism and temple recommend interviews don't ask if you believe in the principle of modern revelation, they ask if you believe that Christ's church was restored thru the prophet Joseph Smith.
The LDS emphasis on Joseph Smith may be the single most offensive thing to other Christians, but we can't minimize his importance.
D&C 6:18 "Therefore be diligent; stand by my servant Joseph, faithfully, in whatsoever difficult circumstances he may be for the word’s sake." 74s181 04:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I am unaware of any other significant Christain group that believes in modern day revelation similar to Latter-day Saints. IMHO, it, along with authority, are the defining differences between the LDS Church and other Christian churches.
The only path to heaven is through Jesus Christ; that is Church doctrine. That doorway does not go through Joseph Smith. It never did and it never will. The belief in prophets (revelation) is what is different. Prophets include every latter day prophet including Joseph.
Joseph's significance is that he was the instrument through which the Church was restored to the earth. His work was done at the direction of Jesus Christ. I do not denigrate him personally or undermine his value, but I have never thought of him as more than just a man.
Consequently, none of the verses you quoted above conflict with anything I have said nor do I disagree with them. However, I believe the focus of the Church is Jesus Christ. It was Joseph that said, “Go in all meekness, in sobriety, and preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified; not to contend with others on account of their faith, or systems of religion, but pursue a steady course.” Anything that distracts from that single message is folly. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Quakers believe in continuous personal revelation, but not priesthood authority. Pentecostals believe in personal manifestations of the spirit that are rejected by many other Christians, but they don't let these experiences shape the doctrine or direction of their entire church. However, there have been other groups in recent times that have accepted an individual as a modern day prophet, authoritative to speak for God, in the same way as LDS accepted Joseph Smith and today accept President Hinckley. Groups such as the Branch Davidians, or the Unification Church. LDS are often categorized with these groups.
Jesus Christ is "...the way, the truth and the life...". It is "...thru his atonement, and by obedience to the principles of the gospel that mankind might be saved." It is in His name and by the authority of His priesthood that we are baptised, the keys of this authority come to us thru Joseph Smith.
Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of The Father. Joseph Smith was a man, but he was not "...just a man...", he was foreordained for the great work of the restoration.
The Lord speaks to all of his prophets, but he speaks to those who head a dispensation differently from their successors. See Numbers 12:5-8, "With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches..." I think this also applies to Joseph Smith and his successors, but I can't show that this is official LDS doctrine, so never mind.
Later note - see D&C 28:2, Joseph Smith receives revelations "...even as Moses". 74s181 14:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Elder Uchtdorf gave a talk in the 2006 fall conference where he outlined five essential elements of a testimony.
God Lives. He is our loving Father in Heaven and we are His children.
Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and the Savior of the world.
Joseph Smith is the prophet of God through whom the gospel of Jesus Christ was restored in the latter days.
The Book of Mormon is the word of God.
President Gordon B. Hinckley, his counselors, and the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles are the prophets, seers, and revelators of our day.
Other general authorities have given talks in the past on testimony, providing similar outlines. All include Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, and the current president of the church as essential elements of a testimony. Every testimony meeting I attend, many testimonies are shared that include these three elements. Clearly Joseph Smith has a unique position, distinct from the present church leadership.
Storm Rider, I just don't see how we can talk about modern revelation without talking about Joseph Smith. Maybe this would be easier if we discussed specific changes?
One thing I think is missing from the present article is a section on Jesus Christ. LDS are frequently accused of worshiping a 'different' Christ, a section that explains how LDS beliefs about The Savior are similar to and different from mainstream Christianity would be useful. A 'see also' link pointing to the Christology article would show that even mainstream Christians aren't completely united in their definition of Jesus Christ. For that matter, perhaps the LDS perspective on Christ needs to be represented in the Christology article, alongside the beliefs of other Christians. 74s181 12:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Reworked the lead a bit. Since Joseph Smith is mentioned in the second paragraph in connection with revelation and the Book of Mormon I removed the explicit reference to him in the first paragraph.

I also changed the second paragraph to refer to scripture rather than just the Book of Mormon. This makes it a bit higher level, less specific since the material is covered in detail later in the article. I also added a comparison to Moses to clarifiy just what kind of prophet the LDS think JS was.

I'm still not happy with the third paragraph, I think I want to turn it into "Another core difference..." and work in the claim of exclusive authority. I guess this kind of depends upon whether this article is about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Utah Mormons in general, or all branches of the LDS movement, as I don't think that all such branches claim to be The One True Church.

BTW, the first section of the article talks sort of indirectly about the doctrine of exclusive authority, but shouldn't this be discussed explicitly? It seems to be a key objection. 74s181 13:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Article lead - conflicted vs doctrinal disagreements

This used to say 'conflicted on theological grounds'. This was shortened to 'conflicted' because the although this article focuses on doctrinal conflicts, the conflicts past and present are more than just doctrinal.

Storm Rider just changed it to 'doctrinal disagreements' which is almost full circle back to 'conflicted on theological grounds'.

I think it should go back to 'conflicted', it is shorter and more correct. 74s181 05:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the persecution during the early years of the Church? Conflict is a strong term and it just doesn't sound right to me. There is no doubt that some Christians would describe it strongly (a la wonderful display by the heckler with Mitt Romney recently). However, that conflict is generally one sided; I don't see a response similar by Mormons.
What is it that you are trying to describe if it is not doctrinal disagreements? --Storm Rider (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Although we are specifically trying to keep it out of this article, the past conflicts are real. Currently, however, I think that mainstream Christians view the persistence of LDS missionaries in pursuing those who state that they are Christians and attend so and so church as a signficant conflict. My concern is that this is more than just a doctrinal disagreement, some mainstream Christians spend a lot of time and effort trying to defend against what they view as "Mormon aggression", others spend just as much time in aggressive efforts to extricate "lost sheep" from that horrible "mormon cult".
And, to be completely fair, the LDS church fields approximately 60,000 missionaries who think of themselves as "God's Army", fighting against Satan, armed with the sword of Truth and the shield of Faith.
BTW, the word "conflicted" doesn't necessarily imply violence. Wiktionary gives this example: "Your conference call conflicts with my conference call. You'll have to reschedule". But if you would prefer a different word, I'm fine with that, I just think that the present day issue is more than a disagreement over doctrine. 74s181 13:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
We agree on many points. Yes, LDS missionaries hear the analogy of fighting against the Evil One, but they also are taught to love the people and bear witness by the Spirit. That is the purpose of the analogy that comes from both the Old and New Testaments; to teach faith, love, and hope. Those are the tools used by all Christians to fight for our Father in Heaven.
I do not believe the persecution of Latter-day Saints by Christians of the past should be dismissed; it was real, it was vicious, and it was constant for more than twenty years. As the violence lessened the rumor mongering, deception and twisting of truth and history continued and is real today. However, I would submit that it is only a few individual groups that are responsible. I have had my fill of "The Bible Answer Man" and his ilk. Disinformation and misrepresentation is still lying. These are exceptions and not the rule.
Every disagreement, even conflict, can be brought back to the door of doctrinal disagreement. LDS fulfill the Great Commission as well, if not better, than most. Some might dislike the fact that our missionaries proselytize in Christian nations; however, if someone can show us how to knock only on the doors of people who are seeking Christ, we would be the first to follow such advice. This issue is baseless and is easily dismissed. In the US today it may be impossible to never have heard of Jesus Christ, but it is evident that many do not know the Savior.
Conversely, Evangelicals who show up with signs at General Conference do so out of their beliefs. They believe they are saved because they know Jesus Christ and they believe Mormons don't. They disagree with our doctrine; saved by grace alone not by works, etc.
I still think these are issues of doctrinal disagreement and misunderstanding, but I am willing to look at other ways of wording the article. Let's work on actual edits; I think this is mostly an issue of semantics. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the 'social conflicts' mostly stem from theological disagreements. I understand at-large door to door knocking, not knowing who is part of which church or religion, if any. However, it seems to me that this does not excuse the LDS from posthumously baptizing (by proxy) people who are deceased, but are on record as being members of another denomination or even another religion. I'm thinking in particular of the many baptisms of deceased Jews and deceased Orthodox Christians in Europe. There were no random or unknown elements in those cases, since records had to be consulted to even find their names as candidates for baptism. Wesley 18:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Even there I feel there is a doctrinal disagreement. LDS believe through the Apostacy the authority to baptize was lost. So all baptism done without proper authority may be well meaning, but are believed to have no eternal significance. LDS also believe that baptism is a required ordinance, or sacrament in the orthodox sense, to enter heaven. With that belief, LDS feel compelled to have this proxy work done on behalf of those who have passed on regardless of their religious affiliation.
The baptism, though done by proxy, does not "make" someone a Mormon, but the belief is that they are entitled to accept the proxy baptism or reject it. It would be as if the person accepted baptism in mortal life and thus allowing them to enter heaven. For Mormons it is a strictly a work of love and concern; charity in its purest form. This works takes hours for each individual. I would expect when you include the time it takes to do the genealogy reserach and the actual temple ordinances you are looking at over four hours minimum per person. That is an enourmous investment of time by LDS on behalf of ancestors long since dead.
This is a perplexing issue for LDS. For those who don't believe in the religion, why should it matter. It has all the validity of watering flowers. The people taking offense are alive; the dead are certainly not offended. A mass being said on behalf of someone who was not orthodox is done; who does it offend? A fellow asks a blessing from Shiva for a Catholic; who is offended and why? The rejection and concern over this ordinance has always said more about their person taking offense than the supposed offender. Regardless, the bad feelings are real and I still am perplexed by them. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I have performed baptisms for ancestors on my mother's side knowing full well that they were Roman Catholic (as was I when younger). The motivation for this work is to allow them the opportunity to live together throughout eternity. Remember that Mormons believe the family relationships continue forever, assuming they have been sealed in the temple. To not have the ordinances performed would be like having a family reunion, but only inviting certain people. Even if you are sure they won't/can't/don't want to come, you probably will still feel better about sending them an invitation. Having temple work done for an ancestor is the equivalent: "We would love to have to be with us, but we will understand if you don't come." wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 21:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


If it's possible for someone deceased to accept or reject the proxy baptism, then it's also possible for them to be offended by it, is it not? If it's completely harmless in this regard, then it cannot be efficacious in any way either. But my main point is that Mormons do not respect the expressed wishes of those they attempt to 'help' through evangelism, etc. Wesley 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Possible, yes, but not likely (IMHO). If you are sincere and have good intentions, it is unlikely that they will be offended. For example, I have offered to give a non-Mormons blessings, and have never encountered a case where they were offended. They know that I care about them, and are offering them something that I believe would be of benefit to them. In most cases, they thank me for the offer, but politely decline. Even non-LDS people who do a lot of genealogy will tell you that it seems as though their ancestors want to be discovered. Books fall off shelves, opened to the correct page, etc. LDS, of course, believe that is because they are looking forward to temple ordinances, and many can tell of circumstances where they got a definite impression that the work was accepted by the deceased. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
If the LDS are right then few if any will reject, most will have already accepted the gospel and will be thrilled to finally be baptised. Hypothetically speaking, if it turned out that the LDS were wrong there would be no 'accept or reject', it would just be wasted effort, 'watering flowers' as Storm Rider said. Under those circumstances, I suspect that the deceased for whom we do temple work would be more amused than offended if they found out about it at all.
Fred: "Hey, Bob, guess what? I just heard that some Mormon wasted a whole Saturday doing that crazy endowment thing for me."
Bob: "Those silly Mormons, what a waste of time, it was such a beautiful day, he could have gone fishing or something!"
All day for one person? That is typical for LDS living outside the mountain west. I live in KCMO, so three hours driving to Omaha, Nebraska or four hours to St. Louis, MO, two hours for endowment session, then return home = at least eight hours for one person's endowment. Add in the time for the genealogical research, validation, baptism, confirmation, sealing, etc., and it could easily be more than a full day to do all the necessary work for one person. Still, a vast improvement over ten years ago when the nearest temple was Chicago (12 hours one way) or Dallas (10 hours one way). My kids got to go on overnight youth temple trips to Chicago, but we never had any youth temple trips when I was a teenager, the closest temple was Provo, Utah, 22 hours each way. The Church is growing, I don't know how long that 'mainstream Christian' classification is going to last...74s181 14:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to characterize the difference between 'doctrinal disagreement' and 'conflict'.

Bob and Joe are co-workers. Bob is mainstream Christian (insert denomination of your choice), Joe is LDS. Each has become aware of the religious affiliation of the other. Occasionally, Bob will hear or read something about LDS, and will ask Joe if he really believes it.

Disagreement. Joe will clarify what LDS really believe on the particlular issue, often providing biblical scripture references. Bob will accept that what he has heard about LDS belief may have been wrong, but will politely disagree with Joe's interpretation of the scripture. Joe may at this point bear testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Bob will thank Joe for his love and concern but will kindly say that he doesn't believe Joseph Smith is a prophet, and both will continue to be friendly co-workers.
Conflict. Joe will clarify what LDS really believe on the particular issue, often providing biblical scripture references. Bob will remain skeptical, and suggest that Joe is lying, twisting the scripture, or that his minister knows more about the issue than Joe does. Joe may at this point bear testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Bob will respond angrily, stating that Joseph Smith was the greatest con man who ever lived and he started his own church so he could have multiple wives and steal people's money. Later, Joe will overhear Bob telling other co-workers a distorted version of their conversation, or distributing anti-mormon literature.

And yes, before someone brings it up the roles are sometimes reversed, with Joe acting in an aggressive, unChristian manner, saying that Bob's minister is an agent of Satan, etc., while Bob acts as the true Christian. And occasionally both are rude and aggressive, neither acts as a true Christian.

The difference is that people can have doctrinal disagreements and remain friends. They just agree to disagree. People who conflict over religion today don't generally set each other's barns on fire, but they do go out of their way to attack and destroy what they consider to be the work of Satan, often behaving in a very unChristian manner. They usually do not remain friends with those on 'the other side'.

Although the most serious 'conflicts' are in the past, even today some mainstream Christian denominations have made it their policy to 'conflict' with LDS. Other mainstream Christian denominations are more Christian about it, but accuse LDS of taking a similarly aggressive stance and 'conflicting' against them. Individuals are individuals, some are more or less Christian than others on both sides.

So, there are really two questions here. Do we describe this as 'conflict' or 'disagreement', and is it strictly 'doctrinal' or does it also extend to 'practice'? I still think there is enough conflict to call it 'conflict' and it is more than just 'doctrinal'. 74s181 12:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Good analogy, but perhaps this should be addressed in either Anti-Mormonism or Criticism of Mormonism. IMHO, this article should simply present the differences.
Part of the problem is each have different validation criteria. For the LDS, if a prophet or Book of Mormon says something and they can't find any biblical conflict, they readily accept it as true. For mainstream Christianity, the doctrine has to be *provable* from the Bible, rather than simply not conflict with biblical passages. This also affects how each interpret a biblical scripture. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 16:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Er, for most Protestants, it has to appear to be provable from the Bible. For most Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians, it has to be consistent with what they believe their churches have taught to be true doctrine over the millenia, and of course not conflict with the Bible. In this respect the Mormons might be closer to the Catholic and Orthodox in that they appeal to the authority of tradition, subject to the Bible. Of course, they appeal to very different traditions, with LDS not trusting the Catholic/Orthodox tradition and vice versa. Wesley 17:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Although LDS reject many of the same Roman Catholic doctrines that Protestants do, I would agree that structurally, LDS are closer to the Catholic church than to the Protestant churches. Catholics expect the Pope to authoritatively interpret past scripture into the modern context, although the Pope is not considered to be infallible and LDS do consider the prophet to be infallible when speaking 'officially'. Also, Catholics and LDS both claim priesthood authority, although LDS don't have a professional clergy like the Catholics (or most mainstream Christian churches). BTW, Wesley, do mainstream Christians see the LDS lack of professional clergy as a significant doctrinal distinction? 74s181 14:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
In my experience I have always found far more in common with orthodoxy than with Protestant theology. The concept of Apostolic succession is understandable, viable. IMHO, Protestantism is the result of man's disagreement with the existing church and a construct of man. This should not be interpreted as disrespect of their theology because I also find much truth in their respective doctrines, but I believe it is undeniable not one of their founders claims to have founded their church by direction from God or by revelation. This is also the value of what LDS profess to be the restored gospel of Jesus Christ; it is the direct result of direction from God and revelation. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Comparisons like this only make any sense at all when they are kept superficial and therefore meaningless. Protestants reject the claim that the church was founded as an institution incapable of error. The perfection of the church is a process of sanctification and glorification. We do not claim to be "founded" upon any other foundation than that which the Catholic church is founded upon - their scriptures are our scriptures, their prophets our prophets, their apostles our apostles, their fathers our fathers. The LDS, in contrast, is a re-founded church. A new foundation, new apostles, new prophets, new fathers, a different history, a different people, a different creation, a different covenant, a different judgement, a different salvation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The attempt to define "mainstream Christianity" is not helping: " ... who believe that their doctrines are the same as those taught by Jesus Christ and his Apostles" ? This is like saying, "Drinkers of Coca Cola believe that it adds life". It casts a false impression, it invites an absurd misconstrual of the claim. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "mainstream Christianity" is subjective at best. In most cases, people consider "mainstream Christianity" to be those who believe the same way that they do. (Unless they are a critic of Christianity. ;^) We all tend to believe that our beliefs represent the norm.
I don't agree that Catholic and Protestant churches share the same scriptures. The Catholic church consider the Apocrypha to be scripture, and their Bible is based on the Vulgate, which is based on the Greek Septuagint, while most Protestant churches use the KJV translation, which is more based on the Masoretic Text. The two are similar in many places, but have considerable differences. Also, Protestant churches are based on the belief that the Catholic Church is wrong; there are many significant theological differences between the two, and I would guess both consider that they are mainstream Christianity while the other group isn't. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 18:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It is true that more authority is given to the deutero-canon by the Catholics than the Protestants. However, there are no scriptures that the Protestants acknowledge that the Catholics do not.
It is true that infallibility is assumed by Catholics for the councils, where Protestants assume infallibility for Christ alone to whose image the church is gradually and more perfectly conformed through submission, faith and repentance. However, what the Protestants accept of Tradition is also accepted by the Catholics.
The Protestant schism was not caused by the traditional acceptance of additional books of the Old Testament, or the ordering of the Psalms in the Septuagint, or the Latin translation of the Bible, or other comparatively trivial differences. The Reformation came about on account of the perceived challenge to the authority of Scripture raised by the supposed infallibility of Tradition and implied in the papacy as "head of the church". The Protestant appeal is to Tradition as it carries forward the doctrine of Scripture, rejecting traditions carried forward on their own authority. Protestantism is not Restorationism; although there are Protestants who are Restorationists (rejecting the Protestant appeal to Christian history and tradition for substantiation of their appeal). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Mark, I find that an odd statement above. The same apostles and prophets believed in by Catholics and Protestants are the exact same believed in by LDS. It is not appropriate to state that LDS do not believe not believe in this same history. I think what you mean is that LDS have apostles and prophets today. For Protestants, in particular, and Catholics marginally, the Heavens are closed and prophets no longer exist. Where you correct is early church fathers, but this is also grey. LDS do not believe you can point to a specific point and say there was a spiritual cataclysmic event that resulted in the apostacy; rather, it is believed to have evolved. What LDS would say is that the Councils are the work of men creating the doctrines of men.
It is also not appropriate to state we are "new"; that is your POV. LDS are restorationists; the same church instituted by Jesus Christ restored to the earth. LDS believe they their church is older than any other church seen today because it is believed to be the actual church of Jesus Christ; the name is a dead give away to such belief. What is remarkable is that Joseph Smith could have much more easily just founded a church based upon his reading of the scriptures; it was done countless times numerous previous men. However, his story starts as a 14 year old boy and unfolded over his life time. One may say he was a fraud, but one must also say that his fraud started as a boy and continued throughout this life. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
While you accept the twelve apostles, you also have new apostles. Unless the authority of these new apostles is accepted, you cannot be a Mormon. You have a new priesthood, a new temple, a new baptism, a new revelation of Jesus, a new covenanted people. Your claim of "restoration" is only that, to anyone who is not a Mormon: a claim - for which non-Mormons have no evidence at all except the repetition of your claim, and your belief in the claim. While "mainstream Christianity" claims one foundation, on the prophets and the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ the cornerstone of that foundation, Mormonism claims a new apostle and a new prophet.
Mormonism's unique claim is not based on the antiquity and consensus of the Tradition, as the Pope's and councils' is. On the contrary, Mormonism's claims of the "antiquity" of its scriptures, its doctrines and its practices are nothing more than the claim of Mormon prophets and apostles, per se. There is no other access to this "antiquity" than through Mormonism itself: quite different from either Rome or Constantinople, which did not develop in secret. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the actual record would show that the "claim" of apostolic succession is just that, a claim. There is not proof per se. All faiths are based upon...faith. There is no secret developement of the LDS church? Joseph was not quiet about his visions and did not shirk from his calling regardless of the lifetime of persecution to himself, his family and those who came to believe in his message of the restoration. Secrecy is not an accurate term about the restoration or development of Mormonism; anything but. The scriptures of the LDS church exist for one purpose to proclaim the divinity of Jesus Christ to Jew and Gentile. There is very little doctrine contained therein that is not also found within the New Testament.
Yes, the LDS church does have new apostles and prophets. LDS also believe that the scriptures that their existence is one of th signs of the Church of Jesus Christ. The priesthood professed by orthodoxy descends from Peter; LDS claim that same priesthood was restored by Peter, James, and John. The claims of Christianity are just that claims to eveyone who is not a Christian. I am not sure what this logic is supposed to prove? I think what you are trying to say is that orthodoxy has hundreds of years of history and therefore it possesses more validity. The poblem is that if we are talking about history providing validity we would all have to be Hindu; a much older religion than Christianity.
Logic is a two edged sword and it certainly cuts both ways. One can not assume to use logic to defeat the validity of a religion without having that same sword cutting your own legs out from beneath you. It is a precarious position you are claiming. Mark, you know better friend. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no interest in proving or disproving the validity of a religion. I have contested the meaningfulness of certain comparisons and contrasts. In fact the article should allow that, if Joseph Smith is a true prophet, if the Holy Spirit attests to the authenticity of the LDS, then Mormonism is valid regardless of what history or logic would otherwise seem to indicate. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
As for the "secrecy" issue - I am stymied by the inability or unwillingness to see what I mean. The Book of Mormon attests to words of the risen Jesus Christ during a visit to America about which history and the Christian faith knew nothing before Joseph Smith revealed it, which he discovered from golden plates that have not been kept, a hidden book discovered by revelation, in any case written in a language that is otherwise not known, translated by a method which can only be called mystical and secret, concerning people whose history is known from no other source besides this book. The system of religion restored through Joseph Smith will not be discovered by looking at history, tradition, archaeology or the Bible - without submission to the prophetic authority of Joseph Smith, his scriptures, and his successors. It is a religion buried under the "doctrines of men", that has lain hidden and lost to the world, until it was revitalized by the calling of a new Apostle, the re-establishment of a quorum of divinely guided shepherds, and the re-dedication of a temple system of rites, and many other elements of the fullness of truth to which the world has never been privy and the Christian church long ago forgot.
The contrast to "mainstream Christianity" would seem to be obvious; but apparently not, to everyone. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
"...if Joseph Smith is a true prophet, if the Holy Spirit attests to the authenticity of the LDS, then Mormonism is valid regardless of what history or logic would otherwise seem to indicate..." Yes, this is true.
"...The Book of Mormon attests to words of the risen Jesus Christ during a visit to America about which history and the Christian faith knew nothing before Joseph Smith revealed it..." Yes, this and everything else Mark is saying in this paragraph about the BoM is true, the only biblical reference is "Other sheep I have who are not of this fold...", intentionally cryptic, as Jesus Christ explains in 3 Nephi 15:13-24.
"...The system of religion restored through Joseph Smith will not be discovered by looking at history, tradition, archaeology or the Bible - without submission to the prophetic authority of Joseph Smith, his scriptures, and his successors..." True, except they are only Joseph's scriptures in the same sense that the book of Genesis is Moses scripture. Both came from God.
"...It is a religion buried under the "doctrines of men", that has lain hidden and lost to the world, until it was revitalized by the calling of a new Apostle..." Everything Mark says in this statement is also true.
"...The contrast to "mainstream Christianity" would seem to be obvious..." Yes, it is obvious. I have to agree with just about everything Mark is saying here. I'm just not sure what his point is, except maybe to show that he clearly understands what LDS believe.
It would be so much simpler if God would just send an angel to every person and explain to them individually what is true and what is not. But LDS know that this wouldn't work. See 1 Nephi 17:45-47, where Nephi tries again to help his elder brothers see the truth:
"...Ye have seen an angel, and he spake unto you; yea, ye have heard his voice from time to time; and he hath spoken unto you in a still small voice, but ye were past feeling, that ye could not feel his words..."
"Behold, my soul is rent with anguish because of you, and my heart is pained; I fear lest ye shall be cast off forever..."
Ultimately, everything comes down to what the Holy Ghost tells each of us individually. If we can't or won't hear it, then angels, miracles, scripture, geography, secular history, etc., doesn't matter. Where was God's true church when Jesus Christ was born? It was there, and yet it wasn't, just as Christianity was there, and yet not there when Joseph Smith was called by Jesus Christ to restore His true church. Moses was a true prophet of God. He established God's true church, as God wanted it established at that time. But over time, the spiritual essence and the meaning of what Moses revealed was lost, this is why The Lord had to keep sending successor prophets. By the time Jesus Christ was born, the traditional interpretation of the scriptures had become more important than the message of scriptures themselves, leading most Jews to reject Jesus Christ as the Messiah. A few hundred years later these traditional interpretations were written down and became scripture themselves for the Jews. I see many parallels, most of the arguments against the restoration were also applied by the scribes and Pharisees to Jesus Christ and his message. Within Christ's church traditions developed, these traditions were discussed, debated, eventually written and now have the force of scripture even though mainstream Christians refuse to label them as such.
But the article shouldn't be a tract for Mormonism. I have tried to follow Mark's guidance, I have not attempted to define mainstream Christianity except in its own terms, the way I have seen non-LDS Christians define themselves. Mark has objected even to this. Maybe the only labels that will satisfy Mark are 'true Christianity' or 'real Christianity', which I think would be POV.
When I last reworked the lead I considered using 'other Christians' instead of 'mainstream Christians' in the last paragraph. I think 'other' is more neutral, maybe it would be more acceptable. 74s181 12:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I seem to have trouble making clear what my point is, but I don't know why. What I've been discussing most recently is that the article would sound absurd, if it were to say that Mormonism is "closer to Orthodoxy than to Protestantism", which is what I found you all discussing, yesterday. Such an extremely superficial and meaningless comparison has been my most immediate concern.
The pervasive concern is that the article is clueless, or seems to pretend to be, about what is being compared. It is prone to the constant tendency to marginalize the norm. Of the 2.1 billion "Christians", the marginalized beliefs of 11 to 15 million of them are adequately represented in this article. It is a slightly mis-titled Mormon tract, and nothing more.
The editors here, from the very beginning of this article, despite their substantial efforts to be "fair", cannot help but portray their marginal beliefs as glorious, reasonable, noble, unjustly suppressed; and the doctrines of their opponents as mundane, confused, obsolete and oppressive. I understand how this happens. It's not as though the remainder of the 2.1 billion, or even so much as a tithe of a tithe of that number, are all Orthodox Presbyterians; and yet I feel that justice is done to our arguments only if they appear conspicuously near the center of the whole universe, just as you do.
But this is why the article fails, and fails so pervasively that it is difficult for me to understand why you don't see it. I know myself well enough to recognize my own obsessive streak. After all, it's not just Mormons who think that the article ought to be an explanation of what Mormons "really believe", and who want to weigh the evidence and marshal the arguments for and against the theses that either "mainstream" or "Mormon" Christianity is apostate. So, seeing myself pretty much alone, demanding things that no one on either side seems to understand, I am blaming myself and opting out - at least for a while. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I think the disucssion page is the creative side of the article and it discusses concepts or ideas that should not necessarily be included in the article. For example, it is "my" opinion that Mormonism is closer to Catholicism than to Protestantism, but this is opinion and should not be included in the article. I suppose that a lot of what is said here is just interaction and has nothing to do with the article.

You have very definite ideas about Mormonism being a complete fraud, baseless, and without any foundation in Christianity. Just as your POV taints your editing, the POV of other editors is tainted because of conviction that Mormonism is true. Neither side can paint their position as overwhelming "right". On Wikipedia it does not matter; truth or right has no place. We should be reporting facts as supported by reputable sources. Further, we should not be offended when an editor, on a disucssion page, talks about the "truth" of their religion. I reject that truth is relative, but I support being tolerant and respect when other people talk about the truth of their respective religion.

I admit that I do not have much time to perform actual writing of the article and spend what little time I do have trying to push concepts on discussion pages. I also agree that I would write differently than other LDS editors, but you should not stop editing because of what is said on the discussion page. Focus on editing the article and discuss those things are found to be controversial to other editors here. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not say that Mormonism has no foundation in Christianity. On the contrary, to repeat my personal view of it, everything of value in Mormonism (which is substantial) indicates its origin in historical Christianity. If it matters to you, my view is that this debt to "apostate traditions of men" includes the Book of Mormon, which has unmistakable marks of Protestantism, the King James Bible, and the American situation circa 1820. There is a lot of snake-oil stuff mixed in but really not much more than Cotton Mather's "scientific" Demonology, etc.; this sort of thing is typical of Modern Religions in that mid-Modern age. And of course, I see some very wrong-headed theology, pious lies and other issues of real consequence.
So much for my views. But, I am not here to argue that. Even if someone else is here to argue, where did I say that I am "offended" or anything like that? My only goal is to steer the article in a more stable direction, as much as possible away from polemics. This is not the interest of editors here, on either side. I am wasting your time and mine by trying to point you in a different direction. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Mark, I kibbitz with you on the discussion page regarding Mormon theology when your spin gets a little heavy, but I don't believe we have worked at cross puposes on this page or any other for that matter. You and I agree on far too many things. I would say that I may be overly concerned with offending others; I can be very harsh at times.
The snake oil stuff I assume you are speaking of relates directly to Joseph Smith, but not the content of the Book of Mormon? My view of the Apostacy is not a wall that came down, but an evolution. It did not result in the absence of truth; far from it. Interestingly, I recently attended a symposium at BYU where a young scholar spoke upon Patristic writings. His premise was the debt owed to the great theologians for their work in spreading the Gospel of Christ. I was surprised to hear his viewpoint at BYU, which one would think would strive to ensure orthodox LDS teaching. There was also another paper presented about the value of the Nicene Creed, which I found interesting. The individual was more focused on the importance of the Creed to ensuring that Jesus Christ was known in the world rather than the actual creed itself, but I still found it interesting. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I won't be profitable to the project unless I can show you in some significant detail what I'm aiming for. So, thanks for the attentive ear and the over-all conciliatory intention, but you'll be better off without me holding things up, until I can give you something to work with. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Stylistic consideration

It reduces readability to debate particular issues within the same paragraph - unless the issue of the paragraph is the debate concerning the point itself. If the paragraph or section is explaining the view of traditional Christianity, it is not clarifying to answer this explanation with a rebuttal in the very same context: this has the effect of turning the paragraph into an explanation of Mormonism, rather than what the opening sentence promised. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I'll move it up to the second paragraph where it was before...Mpschmitt1 01:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Howzat...Mpschmitt1 01:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Fine — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Early church

The most recent edits have introduced a slight contradition / redundancy into the second paragraph of the lead.

"...same authority and structure as the ancient church..."
"...many similarities between currently held LDS beliefs and those of early Christianity..."

"Same" is much stronger than "similar". LDS believe it is the same authority. Structure? Well, comparing the primitive Christian church to the early restored church, both are founded on a foundation of apostles and prophets with Jesus Christ the chief cornerstone, the structure is very similar, I don't know enough to say it is exactly the same, I don't know if anyone knows that much about the details of the workings of the primitive church.

Anyway, maybe we could eliminate the "many similarities" statement but retain the reference? 74s181 05:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The second sentence is talking about the apostate/post-apostolic early church. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, both here and in the lead, it makes more sense now. 74s181 12:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Nature of God

The section originally began: "LDS describe the Godhead distinct from mainstream Christians, differing primarily in their interpretation of 'oneness'."

In looking at the evolution of the Nicene creed I learned that there was an earlier creed called the Old Roman Symbol, which dates from the second century. LDS belief about God appears to be 100% compatible with this creed, so I reworked the opening sentence to include this idea, as well as introducing the idea that there were other distinctions from current mainstream Christian belief besides 'oneness'. 74s181 12:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this particular creed, but after reading the text here at wikipedia, I see numerous points of apparent differences. I'm sure many of these will boil down to how the creed is interpreted.
  • "...God the Father almighty..." -- my understanding from discussions here on Wikipedia is that Mormons believe in a Father who is relatively almighty, but who nevertheless was at some point created or sired by some other god in some other world/universe/kosmos/dimension or what have you. I believe that Christians have historically understood phrases like 'almighty' and 'omnipotent' in a thoroughly absolute sense, to the point that such words can never go far enough to describe God's otherness and transcendent power.
  • "...born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary..." -- many Mormon leaders have said that God the Father has a physical body, and that He physically fathered Jesus just like any other man. This would nullify her virginity as well as discount the role of the Holy Spirit, and flatly contradicts the Roman Symbol and the doctrine of the virgin Mary.
  • "... holy Church..." -- Mormons clearly believe that the church ceased to be holy and apostasized, losing its apostolic authority.
The only way to claim agreement with this creed is to radically redefine its terms, which many different groups have done over the course of the centuries. Wesley 17:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The concept of eternal progression has been applied to God the Father and is most notably found in the statement "As man now is God once was and as God now is man may become". Interesting when questioned about this President Gordon B. Hinkley responded that we just don't know. Though it is very common thought within LDS theology, it is not doctrine of the church. My personal belief is that God the Father has always been and always will be God. This belief is often extrapolated into all kinds of wierd suggestions by our good Evangelical friends who write those excellent excellent religious tracts that I find so humorous. Regardless, LDS do not "limit" the abilities of God the Father in anyway. He is omnipotent.
You second statement is a extrapolation also found in anti-Mormon tracts. LDS believe that Jesus Christ was born of the virgin Mary. That is beyond question. The tracts come from a quote by Brigham Young; however, Young never stated that God had sex with Mary. That is strictly how Anti-Mormons or Cultists have interpreted what Mormons believe.
You last point is accurate. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The question Wesley asked though, is what does "almighty" mean? Do you think that a fair interpretation of that creed is that the Father became almighty?
Is Jesus Christ the only son of the Father - or might there be others?
The creed calls Jesus Christ the "son" before it says that he was born. Do you think that a fair interpretation of that creed is that Jesus Christ became the only son only after he was born?
Is Jesus the same God as the God of the Old Testament? Or, is the God of the Old Testament the Father?
— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure if my understanding of LDS doctrine is "orthodox". We have few statements that support much of what we are talking about. Most I believe to be speculation; other LDS would say it is absolute doctrine, but I would contend with them that it is not. The truth is that our Canon does not address it.
LDS believe that Jesus Christ is the only begotten of the Father. Through Jesus Christ we become sons and daughters of God in a more complete sense. However, the union between Jesus Christ as the only Begotten Son of the Father is unique. LDS theology has not spent a great deal of time attempting to explain these mysteries. Some things are stated cleaning and directly. Other things have bee referred to obliquely and other remain speculation. It is much like the concept of One Godhead, yet three specific beings. Whereas Holy Councils were held in the years past in an attempt to understand/explain the divinity of Jesus Christ while remaining true to monotheism; regardless it remains a mystery and not comprehended by anyone, LDS have not been led to specific understandings. Until a prophet comes forward with specific revelation and stating it is doctrine, we are left without precise doctrine.
We believe that Jesus Christ was the god of the Old Testament. In our view, the Father directed all things through His Son. The Son fully glorifies the Father and is in perfect union with Him. At the moment, nothing comes to mind, but we believe that the Father rarely, personally interacts with humanity; genearlly it is always through the Son or the Second Comforter, the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost (the label is secondary).
I am not speaking in relationship to the creed mentioned; I am still studying that issue. I would be slow to support a statement that our beliefs and the statements of any of the creed are congruent. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that this hesitancy and ambiguity illustrates pretty well, why the central contrast with Mormonism is not in the doctrine of God, per se: but in the attitude toward theology, generally.
Would Mormons acknowledge a stark difference here? Do you agree that in contrast to the very specific and exacting theology of "traditional Christianity", Mormonism is a manner of life and experience above all, and theology is less certain? Isn't this a very important element of why we talk past one another? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


I don't think Mormons have less of a theology, but rather individual members are more responsible for coming to their own understanding and interpretation. When we all stand before the judgment seat, each of us are responsible for what we believe and do. Not only is each person is entitled to personal revelation, but they are expected to obtain it. While there are certain beliefs that all are expected to accept (e.g., Joseph Smith was a prophet; the Book of Mormon is scripture), as well as a number of commandments, the big difference that I have noticed between LDS and many other religions is that each of us is expected to interpret how those beliefs and commandments apply to us.
A good example of this is the Word of Wisdom. Different people will interpret the restrictions differently. Most all avoid coffee and tea, but some avoid Coke, while others drink Coke. Some drink alcohol free beer, while others don't. And while I might not agree with another person's interpretation of a commandment, as long as they are comfortable with their interpretation, there is no problem. All I have to worry about is if I feel comfortable with my interpretation of what I should be doing. What we can't do is say "so-and-so does such-and-such, so it is okay if I do it too". Our justification has to come from us, not from others.
I realize this makes it hard to nail down what LDS believe, but that is one of the things I appreciate, the fact that each of us is responsible for determining how we are to live our lives. There is no central authority telling us what we are to be doing. Each of us are responsible for our own thoughts, beliefs, and actions. I recall discussing beliefs with a protestant, and at one point she said "I'm not sure what we believe about that, I'll have to ask." For LDS, there is nobody to ask. We can ask for suggestions and guidance from others, but in the end it is up to us to determine what we believe and what we are to do. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The closest thing to a creed that LDS teach are the Articles of Faith. However, my point is that if we accept the "Old Roman Symbol" as a defining statement of early Christian belief concerning the Godhead then LDS belief is not that odd. So, point by point:

1. I believe in God the Father almighty;

2. and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord,

3. Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,

4. Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried,

5. on the third day rose again from the dead,

6. ascended to heaven,

7. sits at the right hand of the Father, whence He will come to judge the living and the dead;

8. and in the Holy Spirit,

9. the holy Church,

10. the remission of sins,

11. the resurrection of the flesh

1. LDS believe that God the Father is almighty, has always been so. This doesn't mean that there aren't other gods, but God the Father is God over all. Wesley said "...words can never go far enough to describe God's otherness and transcendent power.", I agree.

But who created God? No one. God is eternal. So is man. Does this make man equal to God? No. Joseph Smith said: "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" Later in the same discourse he said: "The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. "

My personal interpretation, not official doctrine, is that God the Father exalted himself, then established the plan whereby his lesser brethren (us) could progress.

2. LDS believe that Jesus Christ is the "...Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh...", He was also called the "... only Begotten Son..." before He was born into mortality. LDS believe that He is the Jehovah of the Old Testament, speaking for God the Father in "Divine Investiture of Authority".

3. How could Mary be a virgin if God "...physically fathered Jesus just like any other man..."? Harold B. Lee quoted Isaiah 55:8 in answer to this question: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.". Today a virgin birth wouldn't be considered a miracle, a man makes a donation, a doctor performs a procedure on a virgin, presto, virgin birth.

So, one possible explanation, THIS IS NOT LDS DOCTRINE but it is consistent with the Biblical account and LDS belief: God the Father as biological father, the Holy Ghost as mediator, and Mary as the virgin mother of Jesus Christ.

4,5,6 I don't think there is any controversy on these points.

7. It seems to me that believing Jesus Christ and God the Father have separate, physical bodies makes it easier to believe in Jesus sitting at the right hand of God.

8. LDS believe that the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit who can only 'be' in one place at a time, but whose influence can be felt everywhere. His primary role is to bear testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and of His Divine mission. He also acts as a cleansing and purifying agent, this is the "baptism of fire" that John the Baptist spoke of.

9. Contrary to what Storm Rider said, I think LDS do in fact believe in "the Holy Church", emphasis on "the". Not many holy churches, but "One Lord, one faith, one baptism", which is the "...strait gate... which leadeth unto life..."

10. LDS believe that "...through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved...".

11. LDS believe that Jesus Christ was literally resurrected in the flesh, had a physical body that could be touched and felt, ate food, etc., and that after "...being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God...he (was) taken up from you into heaven, (and) shall so come in like manner..." BTW, what did He teach the apostles during those 40 days?

LDS also believe that all will be resurrected in the same way, physical bodies fully restored, not a hair on the head lost. 74s181 03:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I agree that LDS theology is "fuzzy" and is probably one of the reasons we may talk past one another. It is near anathema for LDS to think it appropriate for a group of men to come together to vote on what we believe and what we don't. In fact, that is one of confirmations of the Apostasy to us. Man is trying to interpret God and make him comprehensible to other men. Although I find creeds to be a wonderful tool in teaching beliefs, they remain outside of our concept of revelation. As stated above, personal revelation is paramount to gain a testimony of truth. We rely on prophets and apostles to guide us in those areas where we do not know.
This topic is very interesting. We are attempting to describe God, who is outside of time in term that are simply not applicable. LDS theology encompasses this thought of God as exalted man, which certainly would seem to say that there is another God before Him. However, being outside of time there is no concept of "first" or "last"; He has always been.
Mankind has a far more elevated position in the cosmos in LDS theology than in mainstream Christain thought. Man is described as "Intelligences", a state prior to gaining a spirit body through our Father in Heaven. We like to think that Jeremiah recording this concept of the preexistence in Jer:1:5, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." This knowing is interpreted to be that Jeremiah himself existed to know. He himself was sanctified and ordained a prophet. Our physical bodies were created and needed for our progression. For us the beauty and importance of the resurrection is the fact that we gain an eternal body. The resurrectoin seems not to hold any significance in mainstream Christian thought. Since God is only spirit, I have always found it odd that He wants to make us physical, Why? It does not make sense to me unless the physcial body is of some import.
In closingk, I think this fuzziness will cause problems. To many Christians it must be frustrating talking with LDS because thoughts are never interpreted in a single, absolute manner. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
What is frustrating to Christians confronted with the LDS, is trying to figure out how to reach you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 08:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Holy Spirit

It is regrettable that the "God had sex with Mary" thing continues to be repeated. Such statements should be attributed more to annoyance and perplexity, than to malice, I think. We have a hard time understanding in what sense Jesus is supposed to be "begotten by the Father", in light of the distinctions in the "Godhead" asserted by the LDS, between God and the Holy Spirit.

It appears to us that the LDS says that the Holy Spirit is a spirit-personage just like the Father and Jesus used to be; and yet, the Spirit is somehow an agent of God's personal action, so that although Mary is pregnant by the Holy Spirit, Jesus is not the son of the Holy Spirit but of the Father - a different person and entity entirely.

Furthermore, we don't understand where the Holy Spirit's temporal existence is supposed to have begun, if not from the Father. If the Father is not the source of all spirits, but only of those besides the Godhead, then we do not understand why Jesus is called the Son of the Father - or do the LDS say that the Holy Spirit is a Son of the Father, like Jesus?

Some statements of the LDS seem to be hostile to the idea of omnipresence, when it is posited of God, and yet the LDS also seems to assert that the Holy Spirit indwells and guides believers, by his personal presence within (rather than by the force of words, or paranormal powers). The picture we derive is that the Holy Spirit makes his presence and power felt or evident everywhere, but not by actually being everywhere. But if this is the case, then what is the role that the Holy Spirit (who is merely spirit) played on behalf of the Father (who is spirit/flesh) in begetting Jesus? In what sense is the Holy Spirit NOT the father of Jesus Christ? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

All excellent questions. I hope you aren't expecting answers. ;^)
Seriously, there are many things that are not specified in LDS doctrine. Some of the proposed beliefs of LDS would be better expressed as "some LDS believe".
I'm not sure how the LDS view of the Godhead makes it easier or more difficult to understand how Jesus is the only begotten. Although we consider all three individuals, they are still one in purpose, and all in perfect agreement with the Father. He is clearly in charge, and clearly directs what happens, although sometimes the implementation is by either Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Perhaps it is how we talk about somebody building a house when in reality they hire a contractor to do the actual construction.
I have never heard any clear explanation about how the Holy Spirit came to be, although I have never heard anyone claim he didn't come from the Father. It is clearly stated that Jesus is a spiritual child of Heavenly Father (as are all of us). I can't think of any time that Jesus claimed to be a child of the Holy Spirit. IMHO, they are both children of Heavenly Father, but I know of no doctrine that addresses that issue.
You are correct, LDS don't state that Heavenly Father is omnipresent, but rather than his influence is everywhere. The Holy Spirit affects communication between Heavenly Father and us, and so (IMHO) the Holy Spirit provides the omnipresence for the Godhead. Since everything that Jesus and the Holy Spirit does is under the direction of Heavenly Father, we don't perceive any conflict in saying that God is omnipresent, since we typically translate "God" into "Godhead" (or at least I do.)
Brigham Young's comment was that Jesus was born by natural causes, the same as the rest of us. Remember that the LDS view of miracles is not that it violates any laws of nature, but rather conforms to a higher (and less well-known) law. Just as an airplane defies the law of gravity, somehow Jesus' birth defied the law that requires a physical father.
We put limits on Heavenly Father: he can't lie, he can't break a promise, etc. We believe that God can't take away an individual's ability to choose, nor can God break the laws of nature (which would mean breaking his own laws). I don't think anyone knows what that higher law was through which Jesus was born, however.
Once again, none of the above are absolute doctrine. There are still a lot of mysteries within LDS theology, just as there are in most other religions. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 03:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the Brigham Young quotes indicate Young's belief that Jesus was born by natural causes, and conceived through natural causes, through a physical father and physical mother. Other LDS Apostles are on record confirming this belief. If any have LDS apostles or elders have repudiated these statements publicly, in some place that's verifiable, I'd be interested to know it.
Your description of God's 'omnipresence' is a far cry from the historical understanding of the term. As is the notion that God was created/fathered by some other god, who was created/fathered by some other god, and so on, that at least some LDS apostles have suggested.
For a church that is supposed to have restored the authority of the priesthood, this comes across as an incredible diversity of theological beliefs concerning very fundamental doctrines. If everyone gets to choose from a variety of possible beliefs, some of them are bound to coincide with some of the early church's beliefs, if only through chance. Others are bound to diverge from them, if only through chance. But to claim agreement with any ancient creed, such as the Old Roman Symbol or similar, is absurd. There doesn't seem to be enough uniformity of belief to reach agreement on such things. 207.246.115.225 21:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The "God had sex with Mary" issue has been addressed plenty of times already. (See #Nature of God). You will find no reference to a physical father in anything Young or any of LDS authority said. That is an interpretation of what he meant.
Most LDS are interested in what is needed for Salvation, so they don't get too caught up in the various ways of interpreting non-essential details. For example, the church is neutral on evolution, stating that belief for or against evolution has no effect on your salvation. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 23:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Attitudes toward "theology"

You rightly perceive that I do not expect an answer; and as you also probably expect me to think, your answers are not answers. But I say this to re-iterate the point that I've been trying to make.
My perception of the LDS is that they have a very specific and definite idea that Christian disunity is a scandal, which they view as a loss of authority and progress for the Kingdom of God in the world. To fix this power failure, the world needed God to intervene, to plug it back in. All of the Mormons I know are frustrated with theology, not because they think their theology inadequate, but because it hardly has anything at all to do with what they are looking for from God.
What Mormonism puts in the place of Christian theological reasoning is not really another theology, but a different conception of the church, of truth, and of the Christian life, per se. The Christian concern for theological agreement, which surrounds the very center of the classical Christian concept of worship and unity in Christ, has no symmetrical complement in Mormonism. Beyond the basic declarations of doctrine, the rest is a mystery to the Mormon, and this (ironically to us, who observe it) seems to inspire all the more piety by its brute defiance of reason. Consequently, there is a vast liberality with regard to the "theology", i.e. "speculation". The Trinity is held up as a key mistake, such an arrogant stab in the dark that if a prophet were to explain the real facts it would sound ridiculously naive; and this is what the Mormon thinks has happened, and that is enough proof to convince him of the error involved in centering the religion of Jesus on theology.
My impression of the Mormon religion is that, it is pervasively concerned with Man and with Man's struggle to learn God's ways: and in fact, this is foremost even in Mormon thoughts about God. It is concerned with the cosmic order - within which God is thought to be completely enfolded. Study humanity, or any of humanity's pursuits, and you are engaged in Mormon theology. It looks at spirituality as though it were a kind of secret science, something so advanced that it looks to the uninformed like a kind of alchemy. Knowledge of a few key elements is supposed to accomplish results that defy expectations: like rescuing souls, keeping families together, holding back the collapse of civilization, attaining to heaven after death.
I wish that the article would focus on this, unless I'm completely off base. Because this makes Mormonism understandable to me, and explains its power and appeal; whereas the present article ... I won't elaborate. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate your juxtaposition to the Mormon position stated above. We may disagree on some of the terminology; and some of the points I think are not quite right (i.e. alchemy and spirituality is not an analogy that Jesus would use and I find baffling, but may not quite understand your point). Regardless, I do find your direction to be interesting and may end up somewhere grand for the article. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know what you mean about the terminology. To me, when Mormons speak of God, it sounds as though they are saying that there are eternal secrets, a deep order, a limitless potential of power inherent in the cosmos. It sounds as though you're saying, that God not only governs by complete mastery of this deep order, but he is also himself the highest expression of that cosmic potential. What I'm saying is that, when I with my understanding hear Mormons talking about their outlook, it sounds like a "magical worldview" (there might even be a book by that name, come to think of it): not on Mormonism's own terms, but in comparison to my theological terms. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 08:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Mark, I think maybe I am finally begining to understand what you've been saying. The thing that makes it difficult for me is that certain things seem self-evident, but maybe are not so to other Christians. Let me throw out a couple of foundational LDS beliefs, and then I'll take a look at the idea of 'theology'.
LDS believe that God has stated His purpose: "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."
LDS also believe that the church has a mission that supports this goal: to "...invite all to come unto Christ... This grand mission of the Church is accomplished by proclaiming the gospel, perfecting the Saints, and redeeming the dead."
So, proclaim the gospel, perfect the saints, redeem the dead. This is often referred to as the three-fold mission of the church. It is a basic test for LDS, everything we do should fit into one of these categories. This seems self-evident. I realize that other Christians don't believe that there is anything they can do to redeem the dead, but otherwise, I would think that the other two goals would be fundamental.
Theology is a word which, like so many words, means different things to different people in different contexts. LDS do have theology, the church has even had a few trained theologians. But generally speaking, most LDS are impatient with theology, it is often equated with 'arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'. I teach the adult Gospel Doctrine class in my ward, this is a discussion-oriented class, not a lecture, and so I have to be constantly on the alert for this, both from class members and from myself. The question I ask myself is, "Are we perfect yet? Is discussing this particular subdoctrine going to help the class members become perfect, or accomplish one of the other three goals?" If the answer is no I have to try to refocus the discussion, not always an easy thing as some people have their pet theories and are easily offended.
I was asked to give a sacrament meeting talk last Christmas eve. If you don't know, sacrament meeting talks are essentially sermons, written and given by members. Anyway, I was asked to speak on Mathew's account of the birth of Christ. Another person was to speak on Luke's account, so I decided to focus on the visit of the Magi. In the first few minutes of my talk I read the account in Mathew, then covered the some of the things that are known about this event, the things that are debated, what some LDS theologians have said about it (BTW, Bruce R. McConkie had some really strong opinions about the 'magi'), who were the Zoroastrians, were they pagans or did they actually have some truth, etc. I then stopped, and said, "But this is all trivia.", and began discussing what was important - the idea of the gifts, what each gift symbolized relative to the mission of Christ, and the gifts we receive from the Savior as described in the 2006 Christmas message written by President Monson. I then read an excerpt from the 2001 Christmas message written by President Faust. He spoke of giving gifts to the Savior, and quoted from Mathew 25, ending with "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.", then went on to discuss some of the other gifts that we all as Christians share, as well as some uniquely LDS gifts. He then closed with his testimony of the Savior, I followed this with my own testimony of the Savior.
This is what is important to LDS. Not what the various factions said at the council of Nicea, or Trent, or wherever, or for that matter, what Brigham Young said or didn't say about Adam, or Mary. If it doesn't proclaim the gospel, perfect the saints, or redeem the dead, then it's trivia, not worth taking up time in a Sacrament Meeting or Sunday School class. Maybe this attitude comes from having a prophet to keep us on the right track, and not thinking that we have to figure out all the details on our own.
So, Mark, if this is what you meant by refocusing the article, I am very much in favor of it in concept, but I am not sure how it would work in practice. And by the way, in case you were wondering why I would spend time here discussing these things that I would never waste any time on in my Sunday School class, well, look at the first element of the three-fold mission. 74s181 13:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Another thing to remember is that many Mormons are converts, and so they bring with them many of their previous attitudes towards religion. So the "typical" LDS will depend in some cases on where they were raised. The typical LDS in Utah is quite different than the typical LDS from South America. Having been raised Catholic, I probably am more interested in the writings of early Christians than someone born and raised in Salt Lake City. However, as 74s181 said, these things are interesting intellectual exercises that aren't considered all that important in the long run. The important things most Mormons concentrate on is bringing their lives in conformance to God's wishes rather than understanding theological details. As hinted above, most classes concentrate on how the Gospel can help us become better people; rather than learning a lot of details, the emphasis is usually placed on how to apply Gospel principles to make good choices. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
74s181, yes, this is what I mean by re-focusing the article. LDS theology is a stark contrast to Trinitarianism, no doubt. And it does matter in the confrontation, without question. But people who confront Mormonism at the level of its theology, do not interact with its central principles of identity and mission; and they are bewildered by the vagueness and diversity of LDS theological reasoning; because for the LDS, all things concern demonstrating God's power and authority in the life of Man (or as wrp103 put it, "bringing their lives in conformance to God's wishes rather than understanding theological details").
Wrp103, in contrast to what you've described, you must understand (and probably do understand) that, every category of traditional orthodoxy is theological. Its soteriology, ecclesiology, worship, ethic, goal, mission and message are all profoundly and thoroughly theological; because, all things are centrally concerned with participation in the life of God.
To demonstrate this in the article does not require, as someone might fear that it would, that we do original research of our own, or that we have to locate the perfect representative specimens of the debate (as the article presently tries to do). What is needed is only to account for the very different ways in which the debate is conducted, observing (as many credible authors do) how it happens that the two sides are constantly astonishing one another by how far off-track the other is. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Mark, this article is simply comparative in nature. When I read your edits it seems like your agenda is different. Though on the discussion page we are more direct and inquisitive in our interaction, I doubt we go beyond a comparative position. However, when you make statements such as "astonishing one another by how far off-track the other is", my impression is that you are attempting to project truth or "wrongness". If so, then we need to talk in more depth about objectives.

What I would like the article to achieve is demonstrating that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is open to all. That mainline Christains and Mormons alike believe this to be true (much to the dismay of our Evangelical brethren who are convinced that Jesus' saving Atonment stops at saving Mormons) and then show the differences in beliefs. I don't see this as difficult. I am also intrigued about the direction you presented above and feel it would add greatly if we can produce reputable references. As I reread it I get the impression that you seek to address the major quesitons of life: Where does man come from? Why does man exist or what is his/her purpose? and how these questions are answered by mainline Christian churches and LDS. Is this accurate? --Storm Rider (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

No. I mean to be comparative instead of immersed in the controversy. The "difference in beliefs" is not a balanced contrast, with Mormons on the one hand thinking "this", and Trinitarians on the other thinking "that" about all the same issues. The fact is, they don't care about the same issues.
Is it a big deal to you that the LDS looks to me like nothing more than an enormous business, and every ward is like a MacDonald's franchise for drawing in paying customers for the money machine? I doubt that it even occurs to you to think this way. On the contrary, it's a much bigger deal to you that my pastor is paid a living wage. Don't you see? There is much more going on here than "doctrinal disagreements". It has more to do with a difference in thinking about what doctrine is, than what the doctrines say. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
In other words, contrast "the very different ways in which the debate is conducted", and stop focusing on the ways that "the two sides are constantly astonishing one another by how far off-track the other is" — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it might help to share how I view other Christians. For the context of this discussion I basically see the world separated into light and dark. All those who support God (Allah, Buddha, Brahma, etc) are together, but with different interpreations and different degrees of "light" or truth. Let's leave the Dark side out of it for the time being. The groups that seek truth possess varying degrees of truth, but all have degrees of truth. Those religions that focus on Jesus Christ, His life, His teachings, knowledge of His Atoning sacrifice, and resurrection, have significantly more truth than all others. I believe all of these followers seek truth and find the degree of truth to which they are able to absorb or live. I am painting with some pretty broad brush strokes; please don't get caught up in the minutia of the conversation or their implications.
I would be very concerned if others only felt Mormons viewed non-members as nothing more than business opportunities. I would say that thought process is the shocking result of misinformation. Should we not try to clear this kind of thinking up? How does paying tithes become a business in the eyes of other people? Our tithes pay for church buildings and temples throughout the world, welfare for those members and nonmembers that can not provide for themselves and for those who suffer from calamity. I think it would be great to posit some of the article to how we each distort the work of the other. Although I will have to admit, when I look at the bookshelves of the local book store or Christian book store, I see a plethora of books printed about Mormonism, which only serve to terrify the Christian about the evil cult of Mormonism. That type of "work" about other churches is foreign to the LDS. I am not absolving LDS of wrongdoing, but I am stating that there are different degrees of disinformation going on.
BTW, the bit about paid clergy does come up often enough by LDS. There is this overly proud position because so much of the "work" is done by members. However, we do have paid clergy at the top echelons of our hierarchy, called General Authorities, where one has begun a life committment of service. All other service is approximately for periods of five to ten years on a comparative, functional basis to a pastor. The difference is the pastor is generally a life-time calling, which would be similar to our General Authorities. The critique loses its value in this context. This is a cultural difference, not a doctrinal one. Cultural differences are many; from liturgy to ...tithes. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to take a stab at stating Mark's idea in a short, concise manner. I don't think I quite have it, but I think I am close. Currently, the article is mostly about the differences in what the two groups think is true. Mark is proposing that the article might be more interesting if it was about the differences in what the two groups think is important. 74s181 04:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Exactly right, 74s181. (although I doubt that it would be more "interesting" if you mean "exciting" - more "informative" of the topic, is closer to what I'm aiming for) — Mark (Mkmcconn) **
Storm Rider ... no, I don't think that we should try to "clear this kind of thinking up" - at least not in the article.
The vast welfare network of the LDS is well-known, and commended far and wide, regardless of the mystery that remains about what happens to the rest of the tithe. This certainly has something to do with how Mormonism is perceived in relation to Christianity, and should be mentioned in the article.
But it shouldn't be the purpose of the article to erase the impression that the churches of the LDS are a public relations engine for a vast business enterprise. This issue is present at the level of arguments. I do not see how the article can address such things, without descending into the debate itself. And this is just what has happened with regard to Mormon teachings.
The study of Mormonism has not been slack, outside of Mormonism. There is a vast array of books discussing Mormon theology, philosophy, history, and society written at all levels and from all angles of scholarship and criticism. I have read only a small part of these and the responses from the LDS, but this article mentions none of those. There have been numerous books written which attempt to open "dialogue" between Evangelicals, Catholics, Orthodox and the LDS. Not one of those is mentioned in this article. Not one. There is a vast network of forums and conferences, designed for the specific purpose of getting Mormons and others talking to one another, and only one of those is mentioned. There is a strong "liberal" element of the LDS, which actually interacts with Christian outsiders, especially regarding issues of history and culture, but they also are not mentioned in the article. This article attempts to contrast Mormon beliefs from the posture of LDS belief. To answer it would require explaining at the same level of discussion, why Mormon belief is wrong. This cannot be done, here. To do it adequately would require thousands of pages. The editors need to turn a corner, and adopt a more detached approach, explaining the dynamics of these relationships instead of the arguments for and against Mormonism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
You can probably imagine what most LDS would think about this supposed wealthy church that we have created..."gosh, guys, pay your tithes and offerings and you will be able to fund a great deal of things...might even be considered wealthy". Of course, you will there will be far more than just personal sacrifices. Our buildings are not nearly as fine as the many, if not the majority, of other Christian churches. Further, you will support universities, youth programs, 3rd world educational programs, etc. More importantly, you will need a central organization that everyone will trust to manage the funds; there will be no rich church in town and a poor church in the country. No great artwork; just very simple, even plain, buildings, etc.
As an aside, this perceived wealthy is always interesting to me. You take a small group of people who are committed to donating ten percent. That is combined with what used to be a highly active (on the local level) welfare program and, viola, you have wealth. Of course, during the depression the church nearly went broke. It is not surprising that this caused a lot of things to change so that the church would never be endangered again financially. Why aren't other churches just as wealthy? Do the members not tithe? Of course, having a paid clergy will absorb funds, but surely they do not absorb that much of the tithes. Even in this situation there is a trade off; a knowledgeable, trained, some would say far more entertaining preaching. Our weekly sermons are only as good as the speakers and that varies greatly. Each member is assigned talks about once every few years in large wards, more often in smaller congregations.
These things are just fluff and are the topics for people who are seeking to find fault witht taking a look in the mirror. There is no miracle; it is the result of tithes and offerings, a centralized headquarters, and an unpaid clergy; nothing more and nothing less. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the LDS are not the only people who tithe, or the only religious organization that invests. A "paid clergy" arises from a reminder of the law of God, it isn't a strategy for getting more amusing sermons, and it isn't a burden or a drain in the slightest on what the church is here to do. I never said that I was jealous of LDS "wealth". My point was that if the article is engaged in illustrating the disputes themselves, it will get bogged down, and so it is (or would be, if the LDS arguments expressed there were adequately answered). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The historical evolution of paid clergy is an article unto itself. However, you highlight many of subjects that are brought up time and again by those hostile to the LDS church. I am not even sure you are aware of the impact of the things you say.
I did not imply that you were jealous or anyone else was jealous; nor did I imply that others did not tithe. I did imply that the accusation of a rich church is often leveled against LDS as if there was something wrong, sinister, or evil with the church. These accusations are not brought up by Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus; these are the types of things brought up by Christians. Somehow a LDS paying tithing is the act of a cult, but paying tithes in every other Christian church is only a act of sublime piety.
I am not sure if this is the article is attempt to "answer" the problmes that mainstream has with Mormonism. The reasons those who follow Christ persecute one another are baffling; they have existed since the very beginning of Christianity. It is the stuff that gives atheists like Dawkins the ability to doubt the existence of God. How often have people of his ilk posited, "if this is what God does for people, why believe in God". Btw, the quip about better sermons was a complement. You might want to visit an LDS chruch a few times to gain an understanding of what I am saying. Though the speakers strive to do their best and edify the members of the congregation, there are a vast range of abilities among them. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, my reason for bringing it up is not to debate it, but to point to the obvious futility of trying to write an article in the style of a debate.
It is not "persecution" to criticize, or to be criticized. Such an attitude is suitable to people who hate the truth. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here equates persecution and criticism. Examples of real persecution of Mormons is easy enough to find: tar and feathering, being run out of town, having your temple burned to the ground, an extermination order, etc.
Having said that, I agree with you that this article should not be framed as a debate, but rather as a comparison of Christianity and Mormonism. How to go about doing that has historically been problematic. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 09:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
There are plenty of other articles about what Mormon doctrine is, and there are plenty of articles about what traditional Christianity is like. In addition, there are a number of articles that speak directly to the answers they have to one another's teachings. But there is not an article that discusses the relationship between these communities. It has been a problem creating one, because there is more interest in propagating views, than in explaining the interaction, and comparing the general assumptions, of Mormonism and Christianity. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Critical thinking is very different from criticism. I think it quite appropriate to implement critical thinking about this topic; conversely, I would be hesitant to criticize. I do think there is a difference in the terms, but I suspect we are saying the same thing. It is just too easy to offend. Here on the discussion page we are more casual in our dealings with one another, but our tone here would not be best for the article.

I agree with you Mark that seeking truth is one of the signs of a disciple of Christ. However, truth is often interpreted to be what is comfortable, known, and familiar. I hope the truth we all seek would be as Peter when the Savior asked, "But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."[1] Nothing is more important to me than that personal revelation of truth; it is not in a book, it is not in the testimony of another, but it is in the still small voice of God. --Storm Rider (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are answering, or why. Mormonism exists because of a criticism - not because of critical thinking. It stands on a Great Accusation, not careful thinking. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
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.