Talk:Mormonism and Christianity/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives for Mormonism and Christianity (current talk page)
<< 1	< Archive 15	Archive 16	Archive 17 >	19 >>

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 1 Omnipresence, con't 2 Glory of God 3 Led by prophets 4 Parable of the sailors 5 Not a 'different Jesus' 6 Seeking consensus on potentially controversial new topic 7 Criteria for article sections 7.1 Most Important Sections 8 Christianity restored 9 Nominations for deletion 10 Nomination for rewrite / refocus 11 PBS/Frontline Special Broadcast: The Mormons 12 Misunderstanding of Christ 13 Possible comparison outline 14 Interesting sources for discussion 15 Update to my user page 16 Conference Talks Relevant to This Page 17 Semiauto review 18 Totally disputed 18.1 "Mainstream" views poorly referenced 18.2 Different approach recommended 18.3 Re-titling recommended: "Mormonism and ... " 18.4 MC:"Prophetic authority" clarified as MC:"on the authority of the prophetic writings" 18.5 Please edit chronologically 19 Subject of this article 19.1 Comparison is not debate 19.2 LDS: "Alive in Christ"

Omnipresence, con't

The concept that Satan is beyond the light of Christ has been a topic of discussion, but I have never heard the church declare an exact position. It appears that it has been a topic in other churches, with some conflicting positions. As for me, I assume that the evil one has chosen and there is no chance for because he has committed to fight against our Father in Heaven.

I still do not separate the Light of Christ from Christ. LDS theology is clear that Jesus has a body of flesh and bone; he can be found in a place. However, that does not mean that the Light of Christ is confined to that single place. That would be a mischaracterization of our beliefs and drawing parameters that do not exist. I think you would find the current prophet be quite comfortable with Joseph's statement and would state it as fact today. I would also say that LDS do not spend a lot of time attempting to define God in these terms; suffice it to say that He is God and is all-powerful, were He not so, He would not be our God. At the end of the day our beliefs are quite simple. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. Satan failed his first estate, and will never have a physical body. This is LDS doctrine, unless something has recently changed that I am unaware of. The 1/3 of heaven who rebelled against god were denied their "first estate" which means they will never be born and receive physical bodies, and therefore never progress. We, on earth are those who kept their first estate and have been, or will be born and given a physical body. We will all be resurrected and keep our bodies forever - In Adam all die, in Christ shall all be made alive. If we are judged worthy, we will receive our second estate, which is exhaultation or eternal life. IS there a wiki page on first and second estates? This is a very LDS concept, because it has to do with the pre-existence and how our choices there determined our existence here. Satan and his follewers lost all hope for salvation before the Earth was created. Anything beyond that, like his spirit matter will be "recycled", or that he will somehow be forgiven, is pure speculation, and extremely fringe ideas. It goes against standard LDS doctrine. Bytebear 04:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that Cogden or I have said anything that contradicts your statements. The focus was the Light of Christ and Omnipresense, with a small side topic of, "does it "touch" the evil one". This has been a concept that has been discussed by theologians since the beginning; albeit a passing one. I concur with you Byte, Satan rebelled and was caste out of heaven; his choice put him in a place not where the Light could not touch him, but where he totally rejects the Light in its entirety. However, this is pure speculation and nothing more. I am reminded of the temptations of Jesus and what Satan desired most was that Jesus bow down and worship him. The fact that he could conceive of Jesus bowing to him indicates a pretty self-deluded soul. I think I have had enough of talking about him; let us focus on Jesus Christ and our Father in Heaven. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would expect to find "first estate" and "second estate" in Plan of Salvation, but they're not there. 74s181 10:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, I agree that the "light of Christ" is not confined in space, but that fact shows that there is a distinction in LDS theology between Jesus and his "light". If Jesus and his "light" were the same thing, or part of the same "substance" (as MC would say), then Jesus would physically exist everywhere, and there would really be no distinction between MC and LDS theology as far as Jesus is concerned (putting aside the fact that he, the Father, and the Holy Ghost have separate "substance"). And I think it's likely that this is what Joseph Smith understood circa 1832. But modern LDS writers (based on Joseph's 1843 teachings) don't say that Jesus is in everything. They say that Jesus is in one physical location, and that (1) there is a separate thing called his "light" that "emanates" from him and fills all space, and (2) there is yet another separate thing/person/medium called the Holy Ghost by which Jesus is in communication with all of space (possibly excepting, in both cases #1 and #2, Satan or sons of perdition). COGDEN 17:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not advocate that the concept of the Trinity and the Godhead are one and the same; there are major differences. However, there are also significant similarities and in this instance I see similarity. Within MC theology it gets very complicated and I need Mark or Wesley to step in here to correct me, but Jesus currently has or manifests himself with a resurrected body. However, this physical body/manifestation does not separate him from the Father; they remain one substance. The difference is that in LDS theology we do not have a concept of "substance" that is generally taught. Further, the Father and the Son have physical bodies. This does not mean that LDS deny the Spirit of their nature, which you seem to be proposing. What I undertsand you to say is that because LDS believe that Jesus has a physical body and can be found in a single place, we somehow believe that when Jesus is standing in front of us his Spirit or Light can not be elsewhere. I am completely unfamiliar with that teaching; you may be extrapolating a thought that does not exist.

We don't even believe that about ourselves as evidenced by the function of the resurrection. We, the creation of God, have a spirit and a body that death separates and through Christ is reunited at the resurrection. That does not mean we are two separate beings; we are one being with two parts. Note that we begin to enter deep water here that has not been greatly explained in LDS theology. However, we know in the Bible that Christ also had a Spirit and a body and they were reunited at His, the first resurrection. The difference between our Savior and us is that His Light/Sprit can be felt everywhere (I am ignoring the issue of the evil one at the moment because there is no concensus anywhere in Christianity) whereas our spirits are infinitely less than that. We may need to agree to disagree or this may just be an issue with semantics; regardless, I do not see any conflict within LDS doctrine or current teaching that would lead me to think that we deny the omnipresent nature of the Father and the Son. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

But what about the LDS doctrine, taught by Joseph Smith in the 1840s (and arguably discussed in 1829 in the Book of Ether), that spirits are made of physical (albeit more pure and refined) matter? Jesus' spirit body, like his physical body, has one location. I don't know of any modern LDS writers suggesting that the "light of Christ" is his actual spirit. They say that the light "emanates" from the body of Jesus. But even if it were his spirit, it would seem to be limited to one location. Of course, nobody has ever explained, to my knowledge, why the Holy Spirit can be everywhere, but normal spirits are limited in space. It seems reasonable to me that if the Holy Spirit could be everywhere, then Jesus' spirit could also. But then again, the influential scholar James E. Talmage, at least, thought that even the Holy Spirit was limited to one location, but that only his "influence" could be felt everywhere. COGDEN 18:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Within MC theology it gets very complicated and I need Mark or Wesley to step in here to correct me, but Jesus currently has or manifests himself with a resurrected body. However, this physical body/manifestation does not separate him from the Father; they remain one substance. — Storm Rider, that's correct. The Son does not "change" into a man - he becomes a man. This difference between "change" and "becoming" is significant. Therefore, as the Eastern Orthodox more consistently emphasize (to our embarrassment in the West) at the moment of Christ's conception in the virgin's womb, Immanuel is Man become God. This is why the East almost always speaks of Mary as "Theotokos" - God-bearer, mother of God (a phrase of witness that is a particular scandal to the Muslims, among whom so many of the Eastern Orthodox are situated). — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

When Jesus Christ is raised from the dead, God is not changed; rather, the Son of Man puts on the glory of God which was his from the beginning; and he sends the Holy Spirit from the Father, who goes out from him without in any sense at all being separated from the Father or the Son. Therefore, in receiving the Spirit we receive the Son, and the Father - so that we are "like him", in the sense that we partake of a nature which does not belong to our human nature, and therefore we are called "sons of God" by adoption. You're right that it is, as you say, "very complicated" - or the simplest thing imaginable, depending on how you look at it. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That is, indeed, very complicated. That raises another question I've always had: Are members of mainstream Christian churches who don't understand the above complicated metaphysics in the same boat as Mormons, who, according to this tradition, also don't understand the correct metaphysical nature of the Trinity? In other words, aren't Mormons just like your average Joe Christian who sees God as a white-haired old man sitting in the sky and looking down on creation? If being a Christian requires a correct understanding of the nature of God, then why aren't simple-minded or untrained Protestants, or Catholic peasants from the 500s who thought God was essentially the same as Thor or Jupiter, non-Christian? COGDEN 18:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to leave the impression, though, that Man is not "changed" by the resurrection from the dead. God is not changed, but man is changed: for now, we have "become" living, we have "become" imperishable by the deposit of the Spirit who is in us - but we are earthen vessels, and many of blessed memory have fallen asleep. At the resurrection, we will be "changed" from dead to living, from what we have in ourselves to what we cannot imagine from ourselves. So, we are not discouraged that for now we see as in a mirror, darkly, the likeness of Christ in one another. If we said that we now see him face to face, it would not be from faith that we say this, and with the loss of one another we would then suffer the pain of loss instead of hope - because faith concerns that which is not seen. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

From the "Paschal Hours" that we pray in the week following Pascha (Easter), one troparion (short hymn) says: "In the grave bodily, but in hades with Thy soul as God: in Paradise with the thief, and on the throne with the Father and the Spirit wast Thou Who fillest all things, O Christ the Inexpressible." And from the "Hymn to the Only-Begotten Son" that's now part of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, "...[you] deigned for our salvation to become incarnate of the holy Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, and became man without change; ..." I'm about to give up trying to either compare or contrast that with LDS doctrine or opinion, as the latter seems to be all over the board. For instance, I fail to see how Jesus can be God for all time in LDS teaching, and still believe that "as man is, God once was..." or how to reconcile various conflicting quotes from LDS spokesmen. I'm sure MC theology looks no less confusing from your side though. Wesley 17:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

An extraordinarily beautiful troparion, Wesley. I hope never to forget it. Cogden, our smallest children lisp such praise. We do not imagine that they understand. We only know that they are in the name of faith, the church, and if we are diligent we teach them how to examine themselves in terms of this faith according to their capacity - or else, through misunderstanding as they grow older, you can see how it could seem to them to be an occult incantation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In case you're interested, and even if you're not, LDS children sing: "I am a child of God, and He has sent me here. Has given me an earthly home, with parents kind and dear. Lead me, guide me, walk beside me, help me find the way. Teach me all that I must do, to live with him some day." I think the LDS children understand what they are singing. 74s181 01:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This is helpful. It sounds as though the children are taught to learn from their fathers what their Heavenly Father is like. Therefore, you are teaching them that God is understandable, because we understand our fathers. Is that pretty close? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be the exact antithesis of what LDS are teaching their children. They are teaching that there is a loving Heavenly Father that will always be there for them. He is not some stern, imposing figure in yonder heavens with thunder bolts in his hands demanding obeisance. That is not God to the LDS people. He is our God, our Creator, and our Father. He loves us, He seeks for us to come unto Him in humble prayer. He is our everything. The charaterization that he is some "mortal man that grew up on another world; perfectly understandable and no better than us" is a gross mischaracterization that anti-Mormons have cooked up. Sadly, far too many Christians have become parrots and only repeat what they hear without any understanding of Mormonism. This is not pointed at you, but the silly Father I was listening to on Catholic radio today. Few things are worse than posing as if we know something, when in reality we know nothing. When will we learn to just say, I don't know? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Although LDS would agree with the essence of what you are saying, it is not the message of the song. Rather than explain in my own words I will quote short excerpts from "The Family: A Proclamation to the World".

I am a child of God - "...Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents". 74s181 05:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

He has sent me here - "...His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. ". 74s181 05:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Has given me an earthly home, with parents kind and dear. - "Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. " 74s181 05:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cogden, perfect intellectual understanding isn't required; otherwise, even the 'doctors of the church' would be sunk. But the hope is that, through frequent participation in corporate prayer and general immersion in the life of the church, people will learn to tell 'this is like what we pray in church... but that other thing isn't.' Much like bankers learn to recognize counterfeits chiefly by studying and being familiar with real currency. And this is a case where icons make it easier for people to properly visualize God, even peasants. One's beliefs can be consistent with the ancient Christian faith without having to be overly detailed or intellectualized, even if one doesn't have the mental capacity to give intellectual assent to much of anything. Frankly, I rather doubt that the peasants of the 500s thought that God was the same as Thor or Jupiter. Computers seem at least as likely to provoke superstition. (Ever seen a program that was "possessed" or an OS that was determined to thwart you, or a peripheral that hated your guts and refused to cooperate?) Wesley 16:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Brother Cogden, I believe the Church does teach that the Light of Christ and the Spirit of Christ as the same thing. Lowell L. Bennion stated, "The Spirit of Christ will be and will abide with us. Whenever we practice Christian principles, and particularly with faith in the Savior, his Spirit comes into our lives. It is a Latter-day Saint teaching that the light of Christ is given to every person as he enters the world. As we are responsive to it, through faith and Christian living, the Spirit of Christ will play an ever larger role in our feeling and action, lifting us above our limitations."

The Book of Mormon teaches, "For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for everything which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. . . . Wherefore I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ. (Moroni 7:15-16, 19.)

Lastly, Erin Eldridge stated, "Spiritual feelings can nag and create incredible discomfort. They may seem, in times of struggling with temptation and sin, to be a curse, a nemesis. The truth is, there is no greater Friend. The stirring is Jesus Christ. It is the light of Christ, the hope in Christ, the Spirit of Christ. Be it ever so dim or so bright, it dissipates the darkness and illuminates the Truth."

Friend, we may differ on many things within Church History (not in fact, but in priority); however, in this issue I believe the Church is unequivical that the Light of Christ and the Spirit of Christ is the same thing. Joseph spoke true, these men have spoken true. I would still submit that you are attempting to apply the understanding of man to God; if you do so your thinking will come to naught. You can not understand Him. Also, I agree with you that Spirit has matter or substance, but you may not assume that this substance is limited by the same laws of a body of flesh and bone. The Spirit of God, of Jesus, of our God is omnipresent. Because of iniquity one may succeed in becoming unfeeling to Spirit for a time in the case of mortals, I suspect permanently in case of satan; he I believe to be beyond redemption by his own choice. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Glory of God

There has been some discussion about MC vs LDS concept of glory. I want to try to explain the LDS perspective a little better, and see how it is different from MC view. 74s181 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that MC believe God does not 'share' his glory by giving us a portion of it. Men only have glory to the extent that they merge or become one with God. Ok, I can see why MC believe this, there are some Biblical passages that could be interpreted this way. 74s181 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

LDS have a different view. Because we believe that we are literally 'children of God', we also believe that some of us will grow up and become 'like' God. However, unlike parents and children here in mortality, LDS believe that the child can never surpass or even equal the parent, God the Father is God The Eternal Father in all respects. 74s181 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Now for the idea of glory. If we become 'like' (again, similar but not identical to) Him, then part of that 'likeness' is glory. Peter said of the righteous under shepherds: "And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." (1 Peter 5:4) 74s181 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Does receiving our own 'crown of glory' diminish the glory of the Father? LDS believe that exactly the opposite is true, that as His children achieve Eternal Life and receive their own 'crown of glory', His glory is increased. To understand how this works we need to talk about what LDS believe is the purpose of creation. I could give you the single verse that you've probably heard many times before, but it doesn't fully express the LDS belief in the infinite power and majesty of God when it is taken out of context. So, here it is, in context:

And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them?

And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me.

And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth.

And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.

And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.

But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.

And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.

And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.

For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. (Pearl of Great Price, Moses 1:30-39) 74s181 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What a description of the infinite goodness and greatness of God! What a statement of selfless love! Although I suspect that MC will reject this quote from the LDS Book of Moses out of hand, I hope that you will at least read it and think about it. Other than the source, I don't think that there is much if anything objectionable to MC here, and I am pretty sure there is nothing in it contrary to the Bible. 74s181 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

LDS believe that all who have ever lived on the earth will inherit glory. Some greater glory, some less (1 Corinthians 15:38-44) but any glory we receive only adds to the glory of the Father. Thus, although LDS believe that it is our Father's plan for us to become like Him, none of His children can ever equal Him, because any greatness, glory, or honor that His children achieve throughout all eternity only adds to His greatness, glory and honor. 74s181 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I want to address a specific objection to this idea that Mark brought up, from Isaiah 48:11. I want to put this in context:

For my name’s sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off.

Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.

For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another. (Isaiah 48:9-11)

First of all, do you see the relationship between this and "for this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."? The Lord here is saying that he is temporarily tolerating the wickedness of man, and refining him for His own sake, for His own glory.

Mark brought this up in reference to the idea of God sharing His glory. In Isaiah 48:11 God says that He will not give his glory to another. As a LDS, I look at this and immediately think, 'war in heaven'. The war in heaven is Biblical, mentioned in Isaiah, Luke, Revelations, maybe elsewere. Part of the reason that Lucifer was cast out is hinted at in Isaiah 14:12,13, but a more detailed account is given in LDS scripture:

And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor.

But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever.

Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice. (Pearl of Great Price, Moses 4:1-4)

Now, back to Isaiah 48:11. As nearly as I can figure out, the phrase "...and I will not give..." is translated from a Hebrew words that implies a full or unconditional transfer, not sharing. So, God is not talking about sharing his glory. As I said, I think he is refering to Satan's plan whereby all would be saved and God's glory would be given to Satan. The MC commentaries I looked at say that this refers to God's unwillingness to let His glory be had by idols or other false gods. This also makes sense, refering back to Isaiah 48:5. 74s181 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

So, this is what LDS believe about the purpose and glory of God, and the glory that we may receive. I think that there are more similarities than differences here, but I think that this is a topic that belongs in the article, I'd like to see how what I've explained fits or doesn't fit with what MC have believed about LDS, and I'd like to see how MC belief is different, with scriptural references if possible. 74s181 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

We share the glory of Jesus Christ - we are conformed in ourselves to his image, if like him we do not speak from out of ourselves, like him giving no cause to be hated by the world, like him in sharing in his suffering, then we share in the glory of Christ. We do not share the glory of God. It's he who is glorified in us, not we ourselves. Christ has two natures, not one nature that passes through different phases of glory; therefore the glory which man obtains in himself is not the same as the glory which God has in himself. It is the deification of man to have God glorified in him; it is the shame of man that, instead, he makes himself out to be a god. God opposes the proud, and gives grace to the humble. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In other words, our glory is not "like" God, but "the same as" God. The glory with which we are glorified is God Himself. If we "shared" his glory, it would be diminished, because we are not God. We "participate" in the glory of God himself, by sharing in the humanity of Christ: we are not "merged" or "mingled" with God, just as Christ's humanity which he shares with us is not merged or mingled. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Mark, I'm going to try to summarize what I understood from what you said. 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The glory of God and the glory of Jesus Christ are different. 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Man may share in the glory of Jesus Christ but not in the glory of God. 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still confused by these statements. 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"It's he who is glorified in us, not we ourselves." I said something similar, but I don't think you mean what I meant. 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"It is the deification of man to have God glorified in him..." 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"God... gives grace to the humble." - Sounds like grace is a reward for humility, I don't think that is what you meant. 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"...our glory is not "like" God, but "the same as" God." - when I said "like" I meant of the same character or type, but not equal to. I think you meant something else. 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"...we are not "merged" or "mingled" with God..." - is this because we can only become 'one' with Jesus Christ, and not with 'God'? 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"...as Christ's humanity which he shares with us is not merged or mingled." - do you mean, not merged or mingled with God? 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing my questions I'm begining to think that my failure to understand some of your statements on glory is linked to my lack of understanding of the nuances of the MC Trinity doctrine. Mark, without granting any support or approval, would you agree that it is easier to understand the LDS Godhead doctrine than the MC Trinity doctrine, or maybe the LDS Godhead doctrine seems as mysterious to MC as the MC Trinity doctrine does to LDS? That would be really interesting if true. 74s181 11:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"Sounds like grace is a reward" - It is a reward, but it is not based on deserving. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

LDS believe in grace. We do not believe that we can ever merit salvation on our own efforts, but we do believe that grace is a reward from God for obedience to his commandments - "...for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23), or as LDS often say, we do all we can, then Jesus Christ makes up the difference. 74s181 01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The difference might be expressed this way: We cannot add anything from ourselves for our salvation because, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"We cannot add anything from ourselves... flesh and blood cannot inherit..." Yes, this is what LDS believe as well. On our own we can do nothing at all, because the gap between us and God is infinite. This is why an infinite atonement was necessary. However, LDS also believe that Jesus Christ gave commandments for us to follow, and if we follow them, we will be rewarded with grace. 74s181 11:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think we are pretty close, maybe this will help. Back in 1977, Boyd K. Packer gave talk titled "The Mediator" which included an excellent explanation of the LDS belief concerning how grace fulfills the demands of justice and mercy. I have heard this parable many times since then. I don't know if it is original with him or not, but it truly encapsulates what LDS believe about justice, mercy, grace and the atonement, and I'd like to know how close this comes to what MC believe. 74s181 11:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

There once was a man who wanted something very much. It seemed more important than anything else in his life. In order for him to have his desire, he incurred a great debt.

He had been warned about going into that much debt, and particularly about his creditor. But it seemed so important for him to do what he wanted to do and to have what he wanted right now. He was sure he could pay for it later.

So he signed a contract. He would pay it off some time along the way. He didn’t worry too much about it, for the due date seemed such a long time away. He had what he wanted now, and that was what seemed important.

The creditor was always somewhere in the back of his mind, and he made token payments now and again, thinking somehow that the day of reckoning really would never come.

But as it always does, the day came, and the contract fell due. The debt had not been fully paid. His creditor appeared and demanded payment in full.

Only then did he realize that his creditor not only had the power to repossess all that he owned, but the power to cast him into prison as well.

“I cannot pay you, for I have not the power to do so,” he confessed.

“Then,” said the creditor, “we will exercise the contract, take your possessions, and you shall go to prison. You agreed to that. It was your choice. You signed the contract, and now it must be enforced.”

“Can you not extend the time or forgive the debt?” the debtor begged. “Arrange some way for me to keep what I have and not go to prison. Surely you believe in mercy? Will you not show mercy?”

The creditor replied, “Mercy is always so one-sided. It would serve only you. If I show mercy to you, it will leave me unpaid. It is justice I demand. Do you believe in justice?”

“I believed in justice when I signed the contract,” the debtor said. “It was on my side then, for I thought it would protect me. I did not need mercy then, nor think I should need it ever. Justice, I thought, would serve both of us equally as well.”

“It is justice that demands that you pay the contract or suffer the penalty,” the creditor replied. “That is the law. You have agreed to it and that is the way it must be. Mercy cannot rob justice.”

There they were: One meting out justice, the other pleading for mercy. Neither could prevail except at the expense of the other.

“If you do not forgive the debt there will be no mercy,” the debtor pleaded.

“If I do, there will be no justice,” was the reply.

Both laws, it seemed, could not be served. They are two eternal ideals that appear to contradict one another. Is there no way for justice to be fully served, and mercy also?

There is a way! The law of justice can be fully satisfied and mercy can be fully extended—but it takes someone else. And so it happened this time.

The debtor had a friend. He came to help. He knew the debtor well. He knew him to be shortsighted. He thought him foolish to have gotten himself into such a predicament. Nevertheless, he wanted to help because he loved him. He stepped between them, faced the creditor, and made this offer.

“I will pay the debt if you will free the debtor from his contract so that he may keep his possessions and not go to prison.”

As the creditor was pondering the offer, the mediator added, “You demanded justice. Though he cannot pay you, I will do so. You will have been justly dealt with and can ask no more. It would not be just.”

And so the creditor agreed.

The mediator turned then to the debtor. “If I pay your debt, will you accept me as your creditor?”

“Oh yes, yes,” cried the debtor. “You save me from prison and show mercy to me.”

“Then,” said the benefactor, “you will pay the debt to me and I will set the terms. It will not be easy, but it will be possible. I will provide a way. You need not go to prison.”

And so it was that the creditor was paid in full. He had been justly dealt with. No contract had been broken. The debtor, in turn, had been extended mercy. Both laws stood fulfilled. Because there was a mediator, justice had claimed its full share, and mercy was fully satisfied.

Each of us lives on a kind of spiritual credit. One day the account will be closed, a settlement demanded. However casually we may view it now, when that day comes and the foreclosure is imminent, we will look around in restless agony for someone, anyone, to help us.

And, by eternal law, mercy cannot be extended save there be one who is both willing and able to assume our debt and pay the price and arrange the terms for our redemption.

Unless there is a mediator, unless we have a friend, the full weight of justice untempered, unsympathetic, must, positively must fall on us. The full recompense for every transgression, however minor or however deep, will be exacted from us to the uttermost farthing.

But know this: Truth, glorious truth, proclaims there is such a Mediator.

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim. 2:5.) (Boyd K. Packer, “The Mediator,” Ensign, May 1977, 54)

Kind of long, I know. I started to paraphrase it, but thought it more appropriate to find the original talk and quote it here. So, what do you think? I see one possible difference, the idea that "It will not be easy, but it will be possible" may not fit with the MC concept of grace. Mark, you said "It is a reward, but it is not based on deserving", so it seems like you are agreeing that even though we cannot possibly earn salvation by our own efforts we still must do something. Perhaps the only difference between MC and LDS, or, for that matter, between evangelical and Catholic is how much we believe we are required to do in order to receive the reward of grace. LDS believe we are required to do "...all we can..." 74s181 11:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this illustration. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"we can only become 'one' with Jesus Christ, and not with 'God'?" - Jesus Christ is one person. We share in his humanity, we participate in his deity. God does not change into a man, man does not change into God. Jesus is God in full possession of humanity; and Jesus is humanity in possession of the fullness of God. But God is not changed, man is changed by sharing in the humanity of Jesus - because we are otherwise not in possession of God. His own humanity is not changed, because he is without sin: so that he is the exact likeness of God in flesh, and he is the express image of God as God. The humanity he shares with us is the same as ours in every way, except without sin, because he is truly man. The deity that he shares with God is the same as God's in every way, because he is truly God. Therefore, by union with him we share in his humanity, and partake of his divine nature - but not by sharing his divine nature (because we are not God). Therefore, we are one with God indeed. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

So, Jesus Christ is the 'bridge' between human man and divine God, and we partake of his divine nature thru our human connection to Jesus Christ, is this right? 74s181 01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You have said it. That is, through his human nature given for us, his body and his blood, we partake of his divine nature. We already have humanness; and yet there is nothing good in ourselves. What we need is what we do not have - which is in him - and that is the righteousness of God. We receive this by believing into His death, just as we were baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, to be raised with him by that faith - that is, to be raised by the Holy Spirit who has the same unshared glory as God has. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Would you agree that it is easier to understand the LDS Godhead doctrine(?)" — Yes, I recognize that what I'm saying is hard to understand. I can't attribute my grasp of it to myself, however. I'm speaking from out of the faith of the church, into which I was baptized.

"Maybe the LDS Godhead doctrine seems as mysterious to MC ... (?)" — I really doubt that. There's nothing particularly difficult to follow, in the LDS view. However, there is a fascinating mystery, concerning the LDS Godhead: what obsesses me is trying to understand why Mormons will often say that they are saying the same thing, or almost the same thing, that we are saying. I do not understand what compels you to do that, at all; and it is as great a mystery to me as the Trinity is for you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I will try to explain the mystery. As I'm sure you've heard many times, LDS believe that the doctrine they teach are the original doctrines taught by Jesus Christ and his original Apostles, and that the doctrines taught by MC are a distorted versions of this true doctrine. Therefore, when LDS look at MC doctrines, they are looking to see the doctrines that they know are true hidden within the doctrines taught by MC. I suspect MC view things in a similar way, that LDS doctrines are a distorted copy of the original true doctrines taught by MC. On a personal note, I think we learn more if we can find common ground, it seems that communication becomes easier . The most important common ground between us is Jesus Christ. Mark, I know that you and I got off to a bad start, it was my fault, you have been very forgiving and I appreciate it. 74s181 01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You've been very apologetic, but I have not been offended; and yet, if you mean that you are now enjoying the conversation more, because you are not offended by me, that's a reason to be grateful. Thank you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

You are perceptive in thinking that we look for things that are "hidden" from you within the things you believe. This is exactly what we do, because faith has to do with things not seen. They are the things that you do not understand, that are our common ground; because it's your understanding that prevents you from agreeing with us in the truth. Our faith concerns things not seen, not understood ...

"... what no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him"

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words. (Alma 32:26,27)

74s181 01:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

To take this idea a little further let me give a specific example. LDS believe in the literal account of the flood. Noah, who was a prophet, taught his children many doctrinal truths that were not recorded in Genesis. His descendants went off in all directions and repopulated the earth, taking with them the things they had been taught. Over time these teachings were distorted into the various religions in the world today, both Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic. So, when I read about the Hindu doctrine of reincarnation I see a distorted version of the true doctrine of premortal existence, mortality, spirit world, judgement and resurrection. LDS and MC are much closer in belief than Christian and Hindu, I suspect in the eyes of a Hindu, LDS and MC are nearly indistinguishable. 74s181 11:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

With each breath he breathes, the heart of man is caused to know that he is somehow "alive" in a way that other things are not. This is what disturbs him, and stirs his imagination, to wonder, to search, to study, to calculate, to ask or to despair of asking, for what it means to be "alive". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"when I said "like" I meant of the same character or type, but not equal to. I think you meant something else" — Yes I do mean something else. I do not mean "equal to" - if in any sense you are thinking, of the same magnitude but different in any respect at all. I mean, "identical" - exactly the same in absolutely every respect. But to understand what that means, you would need to believe that the one person of Jesus is God; and that his humanity was not changed into God. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This idea that Jesus Christ has this separate, dual nature is something new to me. Is this pretty much standard MC belief? 74s181 01:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It is definitional of "MC" belief, yes. He was as we are exactly, in his humanity, except in sin: but he is unlike us entirely in being God. When he suffered, he was exactly as we are in our condemnation, except in deserving condemnation. And therefore, he is identical to our salvation - he is our salvation, as such, into whom we believe. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

He has two natures - distinct, not mingled, but not separate - in one person: unlike us. When he was glorified he revealed that, he is in himself what we cannot be in ourselves; but if we are like him in his suffering, we become sharers in what he is in himself in his humanity, and the glory of God that is impossible for him to share without denying himself becomes our glory. — Mark (Mkmcconn) **

Obviously, there are many ways to misunderstand this. But we are saved through believing in Him, and this becomes our understanding, as opposed to understanding Him. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Led by prophets

Hey Mark, here's a question I've always had. Perhaps you can shed some light. The fully developed concept of the description of Jesus that you share here is something that has evolved (or "come to light" piece by piece if you prefer that terminology) over centuries of Christian history. Certainly there are many centuries in between today and say 200 AD, during which time these concepts like the duality of the nature of Jesus Christ, the nature of the Godhead, the expression of the trinity as "One God in three persons who are eternally distinct", and other doctrines were being hashed out by the clerics and scholars. Certainly God cannot condemn these people for not having exactly right, especially without Apostolic direction and authority. To this day not everybody in MC agrees on the minutae, but some follow a "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty and in all things charity" kind of philosophy based on the statement from Catholic humanist George Cassander(At least I think that was his name). If I understand you correctly though from that last sentence, it is essential to believe in Christ, but not essential (or possible to fully comprehend him). So my questions are these:

1. How do you know what the essentials and non-essentials are without prophetic direction? John Locke thought the only essential doctrine was to believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God and the Savior of the world. Earlier and later theologians had distinctively longer lists. Some say Baptism is essential others that it's just a symbol of a committment, etc. This is what troubles me most about the MC perspective. Where is the firm anchor doctrinally? Some would answer the only authority needed is the Bible, but since scripture is not of any private interpretation, whom do you trust to make a proper interpretation and why? How do you determine the essential doctrines from the ones you can disagree on without dividing over? Okay, so that's like 5 questions :-)

2. I've been studying the new testament for about a month now (I rotate through the standard works of LDS scripture) and John 17:3 struck me as important to what has interested me for about a year now (I've been doing an in depth study of what the scriptures have to say about the nature of God and the destiny of man). "And this is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent". So life eternal has something to do with more than a list of good works that you can trot out at judgement day, or a list of facts that you can know about Jesus and the Father. This scripture seems to imply that we must have relationship with deity. And my second question...How can we claim to have a relationship with deity if he doesn't teach us by direct revelation and scriptural authority who he is? Jesus said if any man came unto him He and His Father would come and make their abode with that man. So herein is a conflict. The Latter-Day Saints say that God has revealed himself through prophets for all of time and continues to do so. The Mainstream Christian perspective says that God deposited the yardstick for all matters theological in the Bible and the Bible alone. Latter-Day Saints like other Christians claim biblical authority for their teachings. Not all who call themselves Christians agree on the nature of God in all the details. But if we truly have a relationship with God, won't he take us through that process of knowing him better and better until the perfect day? If we are sincere (as I am and as I believe you to be) won't he take us through the experiences we need to clear out our false ideas and come to truly know him? I don't think God will condemn us for not fully comprehending him, but I do think he wants us to know him and understand who and what we worship(See D+C 93). Where there are still shortcomings in our understandings what other way but through his servants the prophets (Amos 3:7) will he see fit to reveal himself? Why would he do it any other way but by prophetic revelation confirmed in the heart of the believer by the Holy Ghost? (again, probably another five questions here, sorry :-) Mpschmitt1 01:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

1Q Since the ideas that express this doctrine have changed, the doctrine itself has changed; and people have different ideas of the doctrine - so, which idea is the one that saves: all of them together, one of them in particular, or some of them and we don't know which ones?

1A The answer to the first question is, we are baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit leads us into all truth. Since we are not saved by our understanding, but by the faith into which the church is baptized, it's not really so much a matter of figuring things out like a philosophical puzzle (although I realize that's what it looks like), as it is agreeing in the faith. What we "figure out" is how all the things we are given to believe agree with one another. It doesn't bother us not to understand. It only bothers us to misunderstand. The doctrine changes in order to eliminate misunderstanding.

2Q Without controversy, the LDS believe that prophets prophesied concerning Christ. Do you see the advantage of having a living prophet to help you to clear out the false ideas and direct you to the right ideas, as God gave prophets to Israel?

2A1 It's hard for us to understand why you think as you do about prophets. Such prophets did not lead their generation. Exceptions you might think of prove the rule: Moses (whose generation died in the wilderness, and he died after being permitted to see the generation that would follow him), Samuel (who anointed the king, because the people did not listen to him), John (who baptized Jesus and was beheaded by Herod the king), Joshua and the judges who were prophets for judgment and death, not of life, etc (this would get unnecessarily complicated if we went through all the apparent exceptions, to show why they prove the rule). David and Solomon were prophets of their generation to the living, but I do not think that you want a king other than Jesus. As evidenced by the fact that they often perished at the hands of their own generation, or else their generation perished, or else they did not speak concerning their own generation, we know that prophets spoke for the sake of a later generation: one that would live. So, "leadership by present-day prophets" is, in Old Testament terms, practically a contradiction in terms.

Not so if you understand the concept of Greater and Lesser prophets, and again it has to do with dispensations. Prophets who begin dispensations are Greater prophets, like Adam, Moses, Abraham, etc. Other prophets are Lesser prophets, called to continue the work, but not necessarily to restore truth, as that is what the Greater prophet are for. The distinction isn't meant to be condescending to the Lesser prophets, but to distinguish them and their work. So Brigham Young, although he did great things, was a Lesser prophet in this sense. So would David be considered a Lesser Prophet, although he did great things, he was not the prophet of a dispensation. We assume that after Adam's death other prophets took his place and led the people, as they did with others. Peter was chosen by Christ to continue after his ascention. We assume there were many prophets that we do not have record of. In fact, we believe there were MANY prophets out there. We have the record of two tribes, Judah in the Bible, and Joseph with the Book of Mormon, but there may very well be records from all 12 lost tribes that we simply have not found yet, or rather, that God has not revealed. The Book of Mormon says that Jesus continued to visit others after his visitation in the Book of Mormon and perhaps extablished his Gospel in various corners of the world, but those events were either never recorded, or have been hidden until such time as to reveal them. So prophets are abundant but we simply do not know about them unless they do a great thing. So Joseph Smith was a Greater prophet and Gordon B. Hinkley is a lesser prophet. In 4000 years, and assuming the limited or lack of record keeping of the day, Hinkley would proably not even be known of, but Smith (and probably Young) would have his stories told. Bytebear 01:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

2A2 So, you had Joseph; but Joseph is dead. Now you have the General Authority, but you don't have to listen to them if they contradict Joseph. We have Christ as our prophet, who proving the rule was put to death in his generation, but rose from the dead as our king, so that those for whom he intercedes as priest are the generation that lives, who are led by the prophets. Therefore, to add anything to Christ by later prophecy is to add only misunderstanding while the prophet lives, and afterward the dead has authority over the living. We believe that this is not a benefit to the living. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Parable of the sailors

I came up with this parable/analogy last night (based on another one shared a while back by whom I can't rememnber) which makes what I'm asking a little clearer (and I know how fond you are of parables :P). I liken the process by which the modern trinitarian concepts came to be to some men on a boat:

Now. I just wanted to make a few observations on what you responded. To your first point: I was baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but I'm not sure where that leaves me in your view. If you can't say which baptism is the correct form or by which authority it should be performed, how can you know you've done it right or if it was necessary at all. Either I'm saved or I'm not. Either I can fall from grace or I can't. Either I've got a correct understanding of who God is or I haven't. Either we are predestined to salvation or damnation, or we have free will and we can choose life or death. I don't consider any of these issues to be minor and I have a hard time figuring out how some of them came to be issues that the modern Christian communions could agree to disagree on, while being united in their condemnation of the "cults" like my faith who don't agree with what they decided are essential doctrines. I don't consider understanding the Nature of God to be a philosophical puzzle at all, so I think we agree there. But that is exactly how this subject has been unpacked by theologians within historic christianity for over 1800 years. Rather, I think it is about God teaching us who he is and us forming a relationship with him and with our Savior. To your second point: The fact that people don't listen to a prophet and follow his counsel does not negate his prophetic calling or status. A prophet is not measured by whether all people avail themselves of his gift. I'd say the prophets of the new testament (among whom I include the Apostles) and the old testament alike, and Joseph Smith all exemplify a common trend. Light stirs up darkness. Preaching a truth brings persecution and often times martyrdom. In a similar fashion, though the Lord has provided modern day prophets like Gordon B. Hinckley et al, the world as a whole is not listening. Only 12 million people are members of the church out of the world's entire population. So I'd say it's exactly similar to Moses' day. As a side note, our modern day General Authorities like President Hinckley, his counselors and the Twelve are every bit as authorized as Joseph. They are not beholden to his teachings if the Lord corrects something he taught, but the scriptures he revealed are scripture, so yes those are binding doctrinally. But I want to make it clear that every prophet since Joseph Smith has, in the LDS view, been equally authorized as a prophet, seer and revelator, and we uphold their teachings in official capacities like General Conference as doctrinally sound and binding. My point earlier about being able to dismiss extra scriptural teachings of general authorities still applies but it refers more often to the books General Authorities write wherein they make it clear that they are writing as men from their own experiences and opinions and not as prophets in an official capacity as setting forth official doctrine. Mpschmitt1 09:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I like the ship analogy, good job! 74s181 12:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you said "Now you have the General Authority, but you don't have to listen to them if they contradict Joseph." But this has occured. An example is the King Follett sermon. Joseph Smith introduced what are probably the most controversial doctrines LDS believe in this sermon. Later prophets such as Brigham Young and Lorenzo Snow also spoke on these doctrines. But more recent prophets have taught that we haven't mastered the fundamentals and shouldn't waste time speculating on what Joseph, or Brigham, or Lorenzo said or didn't say about the origin of God or other matters that are not needed in carrying out the three fold mission of the church. So, yes, it is possible for past prophets to make minor mistakes, and it is possible for later prophets to correct those errors. (just to be clear, I'm not saying the mistake was the doctrines themselves, but rather the manner of teaching them) 74s181 12:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I say the following only in light of what you ask under the following heading - because otherwise I would not feel it necessary to say it. Your lesser prophets tell you that if they don't understand what Joseph has written or said, then what Joseph has written or said cannot benefit you. Therefore, because Joseph is dead, your living prophets cannot assist you in anything except what they understand from what the greater prophet has said. Joseph Fielding Smith urges you that neither he, nor you, can go beyond what is written. We are urging the same thing - only we are urging you, that the dead Joseph Smith cannot benefit the living; Jesus Christ is risen, therefore let not the living envy the dead. Your own dead prophet testified according to the words of glory, "this is my beloved Son, hear ye him." Listen to your prophet, and stop listening to the dead. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is also possible for situations to change, and for the Lord to want His people to do something one day that He doesn't want done on another day. When Wilford Woodruff issued the manifesto officially ending plural marriage I'm sure it seemed to many that he was contradicting what Joseph had taught and was cannonized as scripture. Some still believe this is true today, thus we have the various 'polygamy' groups. But 12 million (and growing) LDS continue to believe that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Spencer W. Kimball were prophets, even after the various controversial changes. 74s181 12:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Prophetic infallibility means that if we follow the prophet we will be safe, the Lord won't allow the prophet to lead us away from Him. If the Lord were to allow a prophet to teach something that isn't exactly right, something that might even be a stumbling block for some, it would be because it is part of His plan for His children to be tested in that particular way. A couple of examples (note that I'm not saying that these were at all false doctrines when they were in force), plural marriage was a trial both when it was introduced and when it was ended, witholding the priesthood from those of African ancestry was a trial for many (including me), and became a trial for some others when it was ended. President Wilford Woodruff said: "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." (Sixty-first Semiannual General Conference of the Church, Monday, October 6, 1890, Salt Lake City, Utah. Reported in Deseret Evening News, October 11, 1890, p. 2.) 74s181 12:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean... Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" There have been changes in practice within the Lord's church in the past, and there will be changes in practice in the future, but the core fundamental doctrines of the atonement, faith, repentence and baptism will never change. 74s181 12:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both, for your replies. They both directly engage the view I explained, and went a long way toward clarifying your own views. That is the quality, even if it can't be the style, that we should try to reproduce in the article. I am particularly intrigued by your parable of the sailors, Mpschmitt1, as an answer to the Parable of the wheel-barrows. It is both, thoughtful and illuminating - so, I reformatted it, decorating it for special attention, as something requiring meditation. I hope you don't mind this breach of wiki-etiquette, touching your comments - but I have left the content the same. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I reread the parable of the wheel-barrow yet again, and I still don't understand. Your other comment tells me that this has something to do with sharing the gospel, but I don't get it. Oh, well. <g> 74s181 00:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of seeming to want to either annoy or intrigue you, it's written in such a way as to frustrate interpreting it, unless you know what it means. As I say that, it sounds very annoying, or obnoxious - as though I'm trying to spell-bind you with something mysterious: disregard it as badly written, then. But what I told you it means is sincere, even if it's a fraction of its meaning: we can work together on this article. That should be an encouragement to both of us. Otherwise, what I wrote isn't important. This parable, on the other hand, should be more important to you in my opinion. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Only, I would also caution that, argument rather than explanation will not be reproducible in an article concerning comparison, without violating the rule of pretended neutrality. Although it is helpful to clarify what you do not believe, it is important to focus on what you do believe. This will help us in working together, not only to maintain focus on comparison (focusing on faith, rather than attacking one another's faith), but also will keep us from one another's throats, so that we can ignore the other's misunderstandings or uncharitable distortions (as they will seem to us). So, if I perceive a comment as an attack, I will simply ignore it, until or unless I can obtain insight into how what you have said is a clarification of what you believe, rather than a declaration of what you don't believe. Make sense? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I especially like about the parable, that you chose "Iceland" for the destination. As you probably realize, "Iceland" is an inhabited place, although it has the name of a place uninhabited by the living. This corresponds to your view that heaven has the name among the uninformed, that it is uninhabited by any but God and disembodied souls (if God or souls exist) - which belies the actual case, that heaven is filled with intelligences and souls of men returned to their original home, and Jesus Christ who has been bodily resurrected. You say that these souls at sea came from there, and the purpose of the journey is to return, body and soul, to where your life originated - although those who know nothing but the name of your destination assume that it is not an inhabitable destination. Very good. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If I were to quibble with the parable, though. I would say that the destination to which the misguided sailors finally arrived, should be "Greenland" - which is an uninhabitable place, although the name indicates that it is a habitation. After all, we are comparing views which disagree concerning whether the name, or the place regardless of the name, is our proper habitation. Do you see? If you do, please adjust the parable, to indicate this. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I will consider the Greenland ammendment :-), but I like Australia if only for the southern location of it (driving home the point that a vote on which way is North does not settle the question of which way truly is North). God exists and is who he is. We either approach describing him accurately with words, or we walk in the other direction because we are reasoning rather than receiving revelation directly from him. We have finite minds and limited capacities, God does not. So any true words we use to describe him are merely the brush strokes in a beautiful painting, but God is not the painting itself. His glory, majesty, truth, righteousness, love, and character will always transcend being able to be adequately circumscribed with mortal words. Our God is either one being manifest in three persons who are eternally distinct, or three beings that are physically distinct but one in the oneness described in the Lords great Intercessory Prayer in John 17, or we are both wrong and God is something else (I don't subscribe to options A or C personally, but you know that). I first heard a shorter version of this parable I shared from Truman Madsen quoting a general Authority who's name escapes me still, so I can't take full credit :-). I wanted to return to something you said earlier, Mark so that I can clarify something as well. I'll quote you here so you don't have to go searching:

(Mkmcconn) Wrote: 'I say the following only in light of what you ask under the following heading - because otherwise I would not feel it necessary to say it. Your lesser prophets tell you that if they don't understand what Joseph has written or said, then what Joseph has written or said cannot benefit you. Therefore, because Joseph is dead, your living prophets cannot assist you in anything except what they understand from what the greater prophet has said. Joseph Fielding Smith urges you that neither he, nor you, can go beyond what is written. We are urging the same thing - only we are urging you, that the dead Joseph Smith cannot benefit the living; Jesus Christ is risen, therefore let not the living envy the dead. Your own dead prophet testified according to the words of glory, "this is my beloved Son, hear ye him." Listen to your prophet, and stop listening to the dead.'

. I wanted to just clarify a few points here:

1. There is no such thing as "lesser prophets" in LDS belief. I hope I didn't mislead you there. Gordon B. Hinckley holds all of the rights, keys, powers and priviledges that Joseph did as have all Presidents of the church in between. It is not that they don't understand what Joseph has said. I'd venture to say that they understand his teachings much more deeply than lay membership. The point is (and I think this is what 74s was trying to get at too) that they encourage us to focus on the trunk of the tree and the doctrines essential to salvation rather than the interesting nuances and details Joseph and his successors chose to share in their talks and lessons, many of which were never ratified as official church doctrine or position. If a lay member fascinates himself with extra-canonical records from church history, but never reads his scriptures and misses out on a deep understanding of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, there's a real problem there, and it usually leads to their becomming the kind of Mormon that anti-mormon writers love to cite as exemplary Latter-Day Saints (hence the reason we are often seen as so "kooky" ~ though you might think I'm pretty "kooky" too :-). One of the primary responsibilities of a prophet (and I think you would agree that this has always been the case) is to raise a warning voice to God's people and steer them towards truth and away from iniquity. As I look over the records of Church teaching throughout it's history and study the writings of the prophets in those sources that are considered cannonical and doctrinally binding on the Church, I see a continual thread of consistent reinforcement of core doctrines, the majority of which most Christians would not find repulsive in the least. What tends to happen in Anti-Mormon literature is that the fringe ideas and teachings of some early leaders receive entirely too much weight, the the sound, official, cannonical doctrines too little, and the entirety of Mormon teaching is not viewed in context. When you study all of Mormon doctrine in light of itself and in light of Biblical teaching, it's not nearly as scary as the polemicists make it out to be.Mpschmitt1 14:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Which brings me to my second point of clarification:

2. The Joseph Fielding Smith quote (on my talk page for anyone who wants to read it again) should not be misunderstood. He was not saying that we cannot go beyond what is already written in the sense that we cannot receive more revelation, he was saying that no General Authority of the church has any right to teach his own opinions and personal convictions on a subject if those opinions and convictions run contrary to the scriptures or to doctrine that has passed through the proper channels. No official official doctrine or position of the church on a given subject is made so simply because a General Authority woke up one day and decided to say something. All doctrine becomes doctrine when (and only when) the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have arrived at a unanimous conclusion on the matter, through prayer together (in much the same way the new apostle is selected in Acts 1). Often such declarations are also presented to the membership of the church for a sustaining vote (wherein the membership is sustaining the decision of the leadership).“Every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same; that is, every member … must [agree] to its decisions, in order to make their decisions of the same power or validity one with the other...Unless this is the case, their decisions are not entitled to the same blessings which the decisions of a quorum of three presidents were anciently, who were ordained after the order of Melchizedek, and were righteous and holy men.” (D&C 107:27-29)Mpschmitt1 14:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

This kind of clarification is conspicuously absent from much of the Anti-Mormon literature I've seen, and often completely ignored as the writers of such literature accuse Mormons of believing that Adam is God and lives on the moon with people who dress like pilgrims (okay so that's an exaggeration, but you get my point :-). Just the fact some General Authority was supposed to have said something somewhere, does not make it binding doctrinally on the Church (especially when one considers the reliability of some of these sources from a historical viewpoint). That is Joseph Fielding Smith's point. Being a prophet or an apostle to does not preclude the right to have personal opinions on matters where the Lord has not revealed counsel. Paul makes this same point and distinction in 1 Corinthians 7 verses 12 and 25. God gave us the ability to reason things through, and if we get off track or where he needs to be more specific, he will reveal that through the proper channels.Mpschmitt1 14:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Now in saying all of this let me also point out one other thing. There are many writers and thinkers in MC, particularly in the Evangelical movement for whom I have a lot of respect and admiration (David Jeremiah, James Dobson, C.S. Lewis, Martin Luther King JR., Chuck Swindall, R.C. Sproll etc). I hear a lot of truth in what they teach and I am often uplifted by the sermons and lessons of theirs I hear on the radio. My belief in the propetic callings of my Church leaders does not preclude me from recognizing the truth in what others are teaching. Quite the contrary, from Joseph Smith to the present, Church leaders have encouraged us to treasure up every truth we learn no matter where we learn it and to let the Holy Ghost do his job of teaching us truth from error. In studying the teachings of these Mainstream Christian leaders, I find much goodness in them and I see and applaud the good that they accomplish in their ministires. But studying what they teach has taught me something else. There are many more commonalities and touching points between the two doctrines (LDS and MC) than are often acknowledged. If it were not so, listening to one of David Jeremiah's sermons would be a painful experience for me rather than the delight that it is. I share all this because I want the degree of respect and admiration I have for many in the MC denominations to be known. Had I not received the testimony I have of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ from the Holy Ghost, I would most likely be involved in some Evangelical ministry myself. I recognize the zeal and goodness many MC people and I rejoice in it. But I have received that additional witness and cannot deny it, and feel like Paul to describe myself as a "prisoner" (in a good way) of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 3:1, Ephesians 4:1, 2 Tim 1:8, Philemon 1:1-9). I am His and solely His.Mpschmitt1 14:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mpschmitt, I'll read what you've written later; but for now, it might be enough to say, the only reason I wrote what I did to 74s181 was to emphasize once again that the reason that your arguments are unpersuasive is because of what we believe - not because he gives bad facts or reasons badly at all. No matter what he argues, given what I believe it comes out as complete nonsense when I hear it; obviously, it works the other way too. So, what I'm looking for is clarification in terms of what you yourselves believe, not arguments for why I should believe as you do - in order to avoid arguing with one another. The difference is subtle; but for one thing, clarifications are usually much shorter (74s181's paragraph was a clarification, but I responded with an argument). Also, clarifications do not suppose that the solution to our differences is found in pointing out things in the other's beliefs of which the opposing party is himself supposedly ignorant (see the section below). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to talk to you more about your parable, as a clarification of your beliefs about us. I'm out of time right now, though. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let me continue the parable a bit to add some more depth to it:

This how I see what happened around the 15th and 16th centuries when people had just about as much as they could take of oppression and opulence from the Historic Church and began to strike out on their own. While it was the best thing that happened to Christianity in centuries because it opened the way for the reading of scripture by the common man, it was not without it's own problems. It did not take Luther long to turn from oppressed to oppressor after he gained a little authority, for example. For another example, Calvin introduced doctrines that were quite harsh and (in my view) not consistent with the true character of God, and was himself responsible for many a persecution of heretics. Poor Erasmus had some good ideas and he was lucky he wasn't born a few decades later, or he might have been burned as well during the Counter Reformation. So what I see throughout the history of Christianity (from about 200 AD on) is a pattern of Common people aching and striving for simple faith in Christ, having some successes, and corrupt men gaining the predominance of theological thought and ecclesiastical power. It's only in the recent developments over the past 100-200 years, with Evangelical Christianity, that I begin to see belief systems emerging that ring truer to what I would call true Christianity. If that's not Apostasy in it's quintessence, I don't know what is. The whole notion that the true nature of God can be decided by the votes of councils (who were also responsible for other doctrines like the cult of relics and the priviledge of riches in obtaining eccesiastical authority and heavenly reward), is to me out of step with Biblical teaching. God has always been a revelator. Why would he stop when such an important question needs to be answered? Why would he leave us on our own during the most tumultuous and wicked time the earth has ever seen when every other important period had Prophetic declaration to guide and instruct? To me the Latter-Day Saint perspective is the only tradition that adequately answers these questions. A vote doesn't settle the question of which way is true North. True North is true North. The compass (revelation) is how we know where it is. How can we let a vote settle the question of who God truly is? Am I over simplifying here? Does the "mainstream Christian" perspective allow for revelation from heaven and divine guidance in a different way? Mpschmitt1 01:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is even more thoughtful and clear than the last. I'll look at it closely. Are you sure that Greenland isn't where you want the sailors to end up - "misguided" as they are? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Alas, Greenland has no kangaroos. Mpschmitt1 23:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha :-) But the kangaroos would be a pretty big clue that we're in the wrong place. Here we are in the "wrong place" without a clue.

A people, and a place; a place, and a people

— Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a 'different Jesus'

Let me start by saying I hope what I am about to say won't be offensive, but I feel like we're dancing all around the truth. I think we've built up some good will, and that is important, but I also think we need to get to the point. So, here goes. 74s181 03:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We clearly disagree about the relationship between the members of the Trinity or Godhead. And yes, the doctrines Joseph Smith and some of his successors taught concerning the origin of God can be confusing, even to LDS. 74s181 03:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

However, to be blunt and to the point, the phrase "a different Jesus" is MC propaganda. LDS doctrine concerning Jesus Christ is not "...all over the board" as Wesley has suggested, in fact it is very clear, well documented, and very close to MC doctrine. Wesley quoted from two different hymns or poems, the first could be in the LDS hymnal, and I think there are probably many MC who would join LDS in disagreement with the doctrines expressed in the second. 74s181 03:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been "...all over the board", so let's focus on one thing and see if we can drive it to ground. I am not proposing the following as part of the article, but I think it may be the most efficient way to get to the bottom of this particular myth. Please feel free to edit the table as you see fit. 74s181 03:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

LDS believe Jesus:	MC believe Jesus:
existed as God in spirit form before his birth	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
created heaven and earth	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
born to virgin Mary	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
lived sinless life	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
performed many miracles, including raising Lazarus from the dead	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
gave many commandments and instructions to his followers	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
said to Peter "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
prayed to his Father in the garden "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
was arrested, tried, scourged, crucified	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
said to the thief "Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise"	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
said "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" and died	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
spirit ascended to paradise with the thief while his lifeless body lay in a borrowed tomb.	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
spirit reunited with body, arose from the dead on the third day, appeared to Mary and said "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father"	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
appeared to the apostles, dined with them, and showed them many things not written in the Bible.	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
promised his apostles that the Holy Ghost would soon come upon them and then ascended to heaven while an angel prophesied that he would return.	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.
paid the debt demanded by justice and offers salvation thru His mercy to all who will accept it, even though none deserve it	Sent the Spirit from the Father to guide the church in testimony to him.

74s181 03:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This kind of comparison is interesting, in that it disguises the difference. It does not explain why you have words that belong to us, but you do not belong to us. But, because you say that in former times God revealed himself through his Son, but in these latter days God has spoken to us by a prophet, we have our own idea of whose words were taken from whom. And this is why we urge you, since these words do not belong to a different Jesus, do not differ with us. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

But you see, this is the same question in different form, that I've "scolded" you for asking in the past. It's the "what is a Christian?" question. I wish that I could help you to see that, your efforts to find an INDIFFERENT definition of "Christian", "Christianity", "Jesus", etc. are all what we call "stealing". We can talk to one another profitably, if we talk about what we believe. This is different from talking about what we have "in common" - you will find us to be extremely jealous, in that regard, and we will make no progress together. — — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Mormons think much about the exclusivity of the term "Christian". Reading the word "steal" completely bewilders me. If I were to analyze it, I would say MC has hijacked the term and use it only to cause a wedge. Mormons are glad to agree that we are not mainstream. We are glad to admit we are not trinitarians. We are glad to admit we are not Protestants. But we are completely baffled when we are told we cannot claim to be Christians. We don't want to be part of the MC, or the "catholic" tradition. We don't want to blend in. But we do want to be acknowledged as followers and worshipers of Jesus Christ. It's simple for us, but MC wants to complicate it by fencing in those who they don't agree with. Mormons are happy to call you Christians, and even Jehovah Witnesses or other heretical groups, as long as they are following Jesus, even in their own way. It has to do with light and truth. Everyone has some degree of light, and others have more. Eventually we will all be given the opportunity to accept the full light of Christ. We will choose our fate, and be judged fairly, so for us "Christian" is not an exclusive term. And we look to the Bible for the definition, which has no mention of the nature, trinity, or doctrine of any kind to be a Christian. I often hear the thought that the church is not a Christian church, but that some members may be Christian. That is the most rediculous thing I can imagine. Everything about the church, from baptism to the weekly sacrament is focused on our affirmation of Jesus Christ as our personal savior. Again, the exclusive nature of MC doesn't baffles me; it's that you call this exclusive wall "Christianity" when in fact it is "catholic" or "trinitarianism" or "creedal" beliefs. I am sure you could do a whole article on this topic. Bytebear 06:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I it may seem like I am asking the same question again but I am trying very hard to stay away from that particular question. In our discussions here we have identified some things that are clearly different between MC and LDS belief. I'm not trying to box you or anyone else into a corner where you might be forced to admit that LDS are Christians. 74s181 12:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What I am trying to do is find closure on one common topic of discussion about LDS. There is a blind spot here, it seems that MC have certain beliefs about LDS, and that no matter how much we try to explain what we actually believe, MC will not consider even the possibility that some LDS doctrines might be the same as MC doctrines. 74s181 12:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing that triggered this particular attempt is as good an example as any. Wesley said "For instance, I fail to see how Jesus can be God for all time in LDS teaching, and still believe that "as man is, God once was...". I read this and I am shocked and amazed. Isn't this a true statement within the framework of MC trinitarian doctrine? Isn't Jesus God? Didn't He exist for all time and create all things? Didn't He take on mortality and walk on earth? Didn't He suffer hunger, fatigue, pain, sorrow, just as we do? Wasn't He once "as man is"? Yes, I know that MC reject the second part of the couplet, fine, we disagree on several other doctrines. But to reject what seems to be so clearly doctrinally correct to the MC, just because it is described using a portion of a phrase spoken by an LDS prophet, isn't that a blind spot? 74s181 12:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it all goes back to the First Vision? 74s181 12:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

...all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith History, 1:19)

Some MC hear this and say, "Yes! That's exactly right!". Others, especially those who are part of the MC establishment hear this and take it as a personal attack. I suspect that reformers like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, etc. would be more likely to agree than to disagree with this statement, in fact, I suspect they have embraced this statement and all that goes with it and are now LDS, Joseph Smith certainly implied this. 74s181 12:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So, where does that leave us? Can't we agree that we agree on anything? Mark, you said that we can't do this, that we can only talk about what is different. But it looks to me like what you're really saying is that you can't. 74s181 12:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You say, "I am trying very hard to stay away from that particular question". Maybe so, but under this heading you step right into it. Your religion is founded on not agreeing with us about Jesus - reading back, see how long you've gone, on and on about how what you believe. When have I objected? Hasn't it been a profitable way of working, to simply describe what you believe, and we have done the same? I don't understand the compulsion to ask us if we recognize which part is the true part, of all the lies. Why do you ask us if we agree that, Since there is a true part in the lie, then isn't the lie essentially true? The honest, non-argumentative answer is "no".

How does this approach help the article? Why would you want to fill an article of comparison with pages of argument? It makes no sense to me. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the debate is about you, it's about us. How do we react to the MC position? Some have said the chruch is changing to be more welcomed by MC, but I think any changes like changing the logo or adding "Another testiment of Jesus Christ" to the Book of Mormon is not to bridge the gap to MC, but rather to emphasize what has always been true, the focus on Jesus Christ. In other words, the church doesn't really worry about what MC believs, and frankly neither do the members for the most part. The issue is the term "Christian". You say it's your club, but we say it's Jesus' club, and all are welcome. Bytebear 17:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

  For weeks and weeks it's been shown that when you simply share your beliefs, and we share ours - there is a we. We get to talk about our comparable beliefs concerning Jesus Christ, according to our different faith - similarities in x, are different in a compared to a₁. If only we don't attack one another's faith, we can each talk about his own faith and how they compare from each perspective. It is frankly with profound sorrow that I hear these things, but at least it is a pleasant sorrow when my reward is that I learn more and more how to love you.
   But this is not what some LDS want to talk about. They want to talk about how much "in common" we have, how much "the same" we are. There is no we, in that respect. They think I'm just being stubborn, but I am not. They think it's just a matter of building up enough good will, but it is not. I am the same person I was yesterday, and my attitude toward you is exactly the same - and yet, while yesterday, when you were describing your own beliefs, I could praise God for the truth that is in you, today you would be astonished by the lengths I would go to burn the bridge, crush the cinders, defile the dust, and flush anything that you offer as "common ground" between the religion of Joseph Smith, and the faith into which I've been baptized. They are asking me to judge from myself what is good and what is evil. By the grace of God I will not do it, and neither will anyone else who believes in the catholic and apostolic church, to be guided by the word of God written on our hearts. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Mark, if you wack me in the head with a 2x4 enough times I guess I will finally get it. I thought that I was begining to understand what MC believe, and I assumed with all the explanations, questions, answers, and so on that you were begining to understand what LDS believe. Not that you would acknowledge that all I believe is true, or vice versa, but I thought that at least we were getting past some of the propaganda. 74s181 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then Wesley quoted one hymn which, as I said, would have been at home in an LDS hymnbook, and another which I think wouldn't even be found in many MC hymnbooks, and said: "I'm about to give up trying to either compare or contrast that with LDS doctrine or opinion, as the latter seems to be all over the board. For instance, I fail to see how Jesus can be God for all time in LDS teaching, and still believe that "as man is, God once was...". Huh? Haven't we just been talking about this? 74s181 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then, Mark, you praised him. Later, you told me that you never intended for me to understand the 'wheelbarrow' story, in fact, it was "...written in such a way as to frustrate interpreting it." 74s181 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd better do a sanity check. So I posted the table above, trying to draw from things that I thought you or Wesley had said you believed that LDS also believe, and throwing in a couple obvious LDS-oriented, but still Biblical scriptures. I tried really hard to avoid the 'Christian' question. I even tried to clarify what I was doing. And how did you respond?

"...today you would be astonished by the lengths I would go to burn the bridge, crush the cinders, defile the dust, and flush anything that you offer as "common ground" between the religion of Joseph Smith, and the faith into which I've been baptized. "

Well, at least you called it a religion, and not a cult. So, how am I supposed to interpret this? It seems like you are saying that no matter what LDS believe, it can't be the same as what you believe. Not in the slightest. Even if it IS the same, you swear an oath that you will deny it.

So I get it. I'll back off, pick up my shovel and go dig for a while. But I want to leave you with a parable of my own. You might want to hold onto that dust. You see, I think you've inherited a really nice garden, hundreds of years old. It's well manicured, carefully planned and organized, with geometric flower beds, carefully shaped bonsai trees, not a tree or flower or blade of grass out of place. And you've built a really nice path thru your garden, using only the finest cement, carefully preparing the gravel bed below it so it won't settle and crack. But there's one thing, and this is the reason you might want to hang onto that dust. You see, as carefully as your path along the wayside of the flowers and trees was planned and as firm and unyielding as it might seem to be, there's a lot of common dirt and clay between it and the true bedrock. And as a result, someday when you least expect it, a crack will appear. And when it does, you'll want to have those defiled ashes handy to stuff in the crack, because you wouldn't want an unplanned seed to happen along, land in that crack and start to grow. No, that wouldn't fit with the garden plan at all, would it? We all know what happens when the right kind of seed starts growing in a crack in the sidewalk. 74s181 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I say unto you, it is well that ye are cast out of your synagogues, that ye may be humble, and that ye may learn wisdom; for it is necessary that ye should learn wisdom; for it is because that ye are cast out, that ye are despised of your brethren because of your exceeding poverty, that ye are brought to a lowliness of heart; for ye are necessarily brought to be humble.

And now, because ye are compelled to be humble blessed are ye; for a man sometimes, if he is compelled to be humble, seeketh repentance; and now surely, whosoever repenteth shall find mercy; and he that findeth mercy and endureth to the end the same shall be saved.

And now, as I said unto you, that because ye were compelled to be humble ye were blessed, do ye not suppose that they are more blessed who truly humble themselves because of the word?

Yea, he that truly humbleth himself, and repenteth of his sins, and endureth to the end, the same shall be blessed—yea, much more blessed than they who are compelled to be humble because of their exceeding poverty.

Therefore, blessed are they who humble themselves without being compelled to be humble; or rather, in other words, blessed is he that believeth in the word of God, and is baptized without stubbornness of heart, yea, without being brought to know the word, or even compelled to know, before they will believe. (Alma 32:12-16)

I know that I don't have all the answers. I look for truth where I find it, and depend upon the Holy Ghost and the prophets, both ancient and modern, to herd me in the right direction. 74s181 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

And now, my son, I dwell no longer upon this horrible scene. Behold, thou knowest the wickedness of this people; thou knowest that they are without principle, and past feeling; and their wickedness doth exceed that of the Lamanites. (Moroni 9:20)

Where's my shovel? 74s181 01:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're starting to see why Joseph is two men, to me - the man who saw and believed so much, and the man who was so blind that he thought he was alone. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never found it cute or honest to hide meaning in incomprehensible drivel. When conversing with others who repeatedly use the method I find it sad; when one tries so hard to sound wise or intelligent, the effort fails miserably.

I rejoice anytime I can worship Jesus Christ with others; regardless of church affiliation. In discussing Jesus and worshipping Him, He makes us one, He makes us “We”. Do any of my beliefs prevent me from doing so? Of course not! Do we lose something by discovering what is in common or what is different? I can’t think of what. Does it help to ridicule the beliefs of other Christians? In all my years, I have never found that to be a tactic worth employing.

I think we are doing too much talking and not enough writing. The discussion seems to have worn out its usefulness. 74, I suggest you not give up, but just edit the article. Seek not to overpower the article with LDS beliefs, but never back down from writing cleaning and plainly the beliefs of the LDS Church. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is nothing profitable in ridiculing beliefs, or for that matter in ridiculing one another. Talking seems to help writing, if it prevents turning the article into a tract for the LDS, or for the Creed, or something that is not what either one believes. It is this latter despicable thing, for which I harbor so much contempt. Avoiding that shows the way that two people who disagree with one another can describe the same thing. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 03:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

We are one accord on rejecting writing that is only a tract or descibing that which is false of either LDS or the many other Christian churches. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on potentially controversial new topic

I thought that the purpose of an article's talk page was to try to reach consensus on controversial topics and thus avoid edit wars.

I thought we were moving towards a consensus in several areas, then some things were said that made me think I might be wrong. I tested the water on one topic, it went badly. I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from what happened other than to not try to reach consensus with MC on certain topics, so I've let that one go.

We've been encouraged to focus on editing the article. I have had another topic in mind for some time. I suspect it will be highly controversial, possibly even more so than what we just went thru. But I think it is a useful topic. I'm not sure that we will be able to find citations to support it, so it may never come to pass, but before I start doing a lot of research I'd like to run it by the LDS editors of this article and see if they think it is worth pursuing or if I should just forget about it.

Here it is. Many LDS believe that there are significant parallels between Jesus Christ's founding of the church, and Joseph Smith's restoration of it. I've been thinking about this idea for some time. I thought about it as a separate article, but I couldn't come up with a concise title. I think it belongs here, as a section of the M&C article. Something like 'Historic parallels'.

So, what do you think? As I said, I suspect it might be too controversial, but frankly, I don't really trust my judgement about that right now, that is why I am asking for other opinions. Like I said, I haven't looked for references. Given the amount of discussions I have heard among LDS I am sure that references exist, but we may have to go beyond conference talks to find them. I think this may have been discussed in a Gospel Doctrine lesson when we were studying the Doctrine and Covenants. There are LDS books on just about any topic you can imagine, I'm sure there is something on this one. So, assuming that there are decent references to cite, is it worth including? Or, should we just leave it alone? In any event, it will be a while before I can do much more than research on this as I am more concerned about the condition of the First Vision right now.

I said we've been encouraged to edit the article. I'm not trying to start a big discussion here, I'm looking for few short comments, pro or con, before I decide what I want to do next. 74s181 21:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's an important part or consequence of LDS doctrine, then it belongs. If it's debatable whether it's important to either the LDS or those being compared, then it's debatable whether it belongs. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I've heard much about that concept, so I'm not sure it is doctrinal. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 00:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a few examples of these parallels would help. LDS believe that the Christian community of Joseph Smith's time was very much in the same state and responded to Joseph Smith in the same way as the Jewish community of Jesus Christ's time responded to Him. That is, the Jewish community had the outward form of God's true church, but had added to it, distorted it, and had lost the true heart of it. When Jesus Christ told them what they were doing wrong, they rejected him and called him a devil, eventually putting him to death. Similarly, the Christians of Joseph Smith's time had added 'doctrines of men' and lost or distorted other doctrines of the true church that Jesus Christ had established, and when Joseph Smith as a prophet of God told them what they were doing wrong, they rejected him, called him a devil, and eventually put him to death. 74s181 12:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Another example. There are OT prophecies that refer to the birth and mortal mission of Jesus Christ, but only if you approach them from a believing Christian perspective, as the Jews read and believe these same scriptures but insist that Jesus was not the Christ. Similarly, there are NT prophecies that refer to Joseph Smith and the restoration, but only if read from a believing LDS perspective as the MC read and believe these same scriptures but insist that Joseph Smith was not a prophet and didn't bring the 'times of refreshing' and 'restitution of all things'. 74s181 12:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Another example. Jesus Christ was the Only Begotten of the Father, was God himself, and lived a sinless life, and died as an infinite sacrifice to pay for all our sins, obviously Joseph Smith was none of these. However, there were interesting parallel events in their lives and their missions, as well as some interesting dissonances. 74s181 12:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Final example, parallels in the organizational structure, message and methods of Jesus Christ and His first Apostles relative to the existing Jewish establishment, and the same for the early LDS movement relative to the existing Christian establishment. The article already talks about some of these, but if we added a 'parallels' section then that would be a logical place to move and expand on these things. 74s181 12:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure if we start working on it we can come up with more examples. Obviously, if we can't cite LDS authorities speaking or writing on these things they can't be included in the article. But before spending that effort, the question is, does anyone care? Is this interesting or useful information? Or is it going to cause more trouble than it is worth? Based on recent experiences I'm inclined to believe the later. 74s181 12:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards not going down that road, but maybe the best thing would be for you to create the section and then once we see it in action, we might be able to better assess whether it belongs. I think though that if you approached it from comparing similarities between what the Saints experienced in the early days of the Church to the persecutions in the early days of Christianity there might be more fruit there. There are parallels between how the Apostles and other early Christian members rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name (Acts 5, Luke 6:22-23, and how LDS folks, then and now, view suffering for the cause of faith. (4 Nephi 29:29,Helaman 3:33-35,D+C 122). That might be something that would fit better in the article, and there are some overlaps in MC history where the persecution was actually coming from the MC community itself. Certainly there are similarities worth noting between the persecution of Church in the 1800's and the Church in the early Apostles day, and the very similar reactions to persecution evinced in both groups. I've been wanting to explore the persecution the Church received early in it's history and explain how that has progressed to the present day where there is a lot more toleration appreciation and love from those in the MC community, despite the differences. I'd like to talk about the Library of Congress symposium on Joseph Smith and the more good-will sentiments coming from Evangelical leaders like Ravi Zacharias and Richard Mouw as evidence that Latter-Day Saints are being treated much more civily in our modern era than in times past. Mpschmitt1 13:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

More than half the article is already filled with things that are frankly, barely relevant - no, worse than that, it is PURE CRAP. I strongly urge you, not to add more things that are barely relevant. More precisely, we do not have room for more explanations of why Christians should believe in Mormonism. This is what has always been wrong with this article, and always will be wrong with it, until this approach is eliminated entirely.

PLEASE stick to explaining Mormon beliefs considered in their own light, and we will explain MC beliefs considered in their own light, on comparable issues. PLEASE stop trying to help the other side to see things from their point of view - that is called "Evidences", and it is relevant to the Apologetical task, and not to this article. You should ONLY be trying to explain your perspective in such a way that the other side stops misunderstanding it. You should STOP adding more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and MORE "content" (arguments) - as though rattling on and on about your perspective is what is missing from the article: that is EXACTLY what is WRONG about the article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And please, please begin to understand this: when we stop misunderstanding what you believe, this does not necessarily mean that we will begin to understand things as you do. Please, please understand (I am getting weary of explaining it), your goal cannot be to try to help us to understand: we cannot understand you, because we do not believe what you believe. I will NEVER understand why you follow a prophet in order to follow Christ. Are you hearing me? It is gibberish to me, and the more you go on, the more nonsensical it sounds. Please stop trying to help me to understand it. I don't want your arguments. I only want your explanations. Please stop pushing your point of view. Is there not even one of you who gets this? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill! Help! — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what parts are real crap, so I'm not sure how to help. As I've said before, religious beliefs only make sense to those that believe them; to all others it is utter nonsense. And while I agree that you will (probably) never believe what we believe, I would hope you could get to the point where you understand why we believe what we do.

Think of during OT times. People asked prophets what God wanted. During NT times, many of the followers of Jesus thought he was a prophet. (The concept of the Messiah being divine was never considered.) The idea of listening to a prophet is basic to Judeo-Christian beliefs. You do it yourself when you read the NT - each of the authors were prophets.

I hope by now you realize that we really, really, do believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet. I can also tell you that I have felt closer to Jesus since becoming a Mormon than I ever did as a Catholic, or when looking at various Protestant churches. I think you believe that Joseph Smith and our other leaders get between us and God, but we don't perceive it that way. They provide insight, but each of us are responsible for our own personal relationship with God.

Having said all that, I must admit that the concept discussed above certainly isn't core, significant doctrine. IMHO, it is more the kind of doctrine taught in the foyers rather than the classrooms. ;^) It is easy to find correlations after the fact, and some of the above arguments sound a lot like some of the scriptures that Christians point to as a prophecy that Jesus fulfilled, even though they were never considered Messianic by the Jews. I think this article would be best served by sticking to the main differences. To try to cover all differences is far beyond the scope of a single article (or a single book, for that matter.) I would prefer that we talk about fewer major important differences than try to cover a lot of less important ones. The goal (IMHO) is to allow the reader to understand the differences between Mormons and Mainstream Christians. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 21:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I have never, never, never, never doubted that it is your belief that Joseph Smith is a real prophet. You have made this even more abundantly clear than I could even imagine. It is astonishingly clear. But it does not help to clarify, to give even further evidences of why you think he is a prophet. I get it.

We know that the LDS has a very open view toward those who disagree with them. This has a lot to do with your view of where truth resides: that is, in ordinances with proper authority, in a priesthood, but especially in works of kindness. Why do you need an entire section showing how appealing this solution is? It's as though saying it again and again makes it seem more true, to you. This is what that CRAP section does, "Traditional LDS attitudes toward those of other faiths". Understand me, I don't begrudge you the argument. Let it be said, 'Mormons believe that doing works of kindness is vastly more important than "theology"'. Say it twice, or even three times if this is right and it's why you are proud, but don't say it so much that it becomes a sermon. Delete the section. It is crap argumentation in the context of a neutral comparison of religion. It is POV pushing. It does not belong.

Now we are being asked, once again by 74s181 who consistently does this, if we might have consensus (by which I suppose he might mean, a vote somewhere down the line), on whether it would help to compare the calling of Jesus with the calling of Joseph Smith. Is there no limit to the urge to argue for Mormonism? Can it never simply be described for the purposes of comparison? This article is not called "Mormonism Vs. Christianity". Please get them to stop doing this. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Mark, I sometimes ask for consensus before adding controversial material to the article, that is what the talk page is for. No, Mark, you're not being asked to consider anything, I was asking the LDS editors if they thought this was a topic worthy of inclusion. It isn't. So, that's it. 74s181 03:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I must admit that things have been hectic for me and I haven't been keeping up with all the changes recently. I don't know where that section about attitudes towards other faiths came from, but I agree with Mark that it doesn't belong. It might be appropriate for a paragraph or so, but that section was way too long, IMHO. I decided to be bold and delete it. When we first started this recent set of additions, the expectation was that some of them would shake out and we would keep the more significant ones. I think this might be a good time to think about trimming this article down more. IMHO, we should be stating what the various views are, not trying to prove and/or justify them. Details are fine in footnotes for anyone who wants to follow up on any point, but I believe the main article should be more concise. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 04:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your deletion of that section, I'm glad you did it. I was thinking about doing it myself but I was afraid to do so without asking for consensus first. Hopefully, no one will be offended. 74s181 13:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Storm Rider mocked me for sounding wise, I made myself a fool and this is what got your sympathy and attention, to do what I've been asking you to do for months. This is not how it should be. I don't want to have to do that again. Let me reason with you as grown ups, with all our faculties and resources directed to what I believe is a vitally important topic. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

When I read this though, it puts too much on him. It worked out for the betterment of the article, that he showed me a way that succeeded. So, he should know that I hold nothing at all against him, since he helped me to see the way to help; and I won't bring it up again. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I was actually the one who wrote the "Traditional Attitudes of Latter-Day Saints to Those of Other Faiths" section. I don't mind that you deleted it, but I've saved that source material to turn that into an apologetic article on my own website someday (that's really what it is at it's core anyway). I agree that it's probably (in that form) a little too patriotic to the LDS side so it probably fits on my site better, but the reason I added it was that there was a need for exploring how Latter-Day Saints traditionally treat the beliefs of others. There were several sections before that (that have been since shortened considerably) that were exploring the ways in which Mainstream Christians treat Latter-Day Saints and seek to minister to them. This was more of a response to that, but the direction of the article now (and rightfully so, thank you Mark et al) has become far less of a ping pong match, tit for tat session. I apologize if anything else I've contributed has furthered that unfortunate tone. I still think there may be room for a shorter section about how MC and LDS agree and differ on the beliefs of one another and on respect and toleration for those who disagree or oppose (perhaps also exploring the trend in MC to be much more civil and accurate in the portrayal of Latter-Day Saints in recent decades compared to earlier periods and how some inroads have been made in dialog between the perspectives ~ or perhaps that just doesn't belong and we should remain focused on the types of sections we've been creating). Mpschmitt1 13:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for article sections

I think it is time to trim this article down to the essential, important differences between LDS and MC traditions. I would like to recommend the following criteria:

• Each section should identify significant differences between LDS and MC
• Each viewpoint should be presented concisely; footnotes are fine for providing reasons for differing beliefs, but the emphasis should be on comparison, not proof / justification / whatever.
• Viewpoints should be balanced. If one side has significant beliefs, but the other side doesn't, then perhaps that section should be deleted. The purpose of the article is to compare the two, and if it is a one-sided comparison, then it probably doesn't belong here.
• The overall goal of the article is to allow the reader to understand the differences between LDS and MC beliefs. Obviously, it should be NPOV.

Does anyone else agree with this approach? Do you think I'm off base somehow? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 04:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I definetly support making the article more concise, which means deleting material. I am not sure that it should only address those areas where there is "conflict" or overlap. The beauty of both bodies of doctrine is found in what they profess to value most. I think there is some value in juxtoposing main beliefs, which may include both similar and dissimilar.

For MC organizations Mormonism is a cult and only marginally Christian; this needs to be explained why this position is held. Also, it should address why Mormons feel they are Christian. Though I believe this is addressed to a degree, we need to make sure that it is adequate.

Further, many of the statements should really just be linked to other articles where they are more fully explained, rather than going into detail. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all except the 3rd point - which is an important one. Imbalance is impossible to avoid: because we are not making a symmetrical comparison. If it is important, it belongs. It may belong for the very reason that it is NOT important to the contrasting view. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. I proposed something similar about a month ago, see Prep for re-organization. Although your specific 'planks' are different, I think the goal is the same, come to a consensus on how we are going to handle the structure of the article, independent of any consensus on particular topics. I hope you succeed, and for that reason I will not be participating further in this particular discussion. 74s181 13:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming others also agree, perhaps the next step should be to identify what various editors consider the essential / most important sections of the article. Once we have somewhat of a consensus (and I hope 74 participates in this), we can work on tightening up the sections we keep, and either completely delete the other sections or reduce them to a sentence or two. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 16:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

74s181, I will be very disappointed, after working so hard to gain your cooperation, and you have been so patient to put up with so much of my pleading and lecturing regarding the rules of Wikipedia. According to the measure of the work I've put into recruiting you to be an editor with me - to provide clarification of the LDS view - I will be disappointed if it's now that you decide to walk away: just when I think we are arriving at the same understanding of our task together. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And to all the LDS, please accept my sincere expression of admiration, that even as you have begun to perceive the danger of working with someone like me, you have tried hard to think the best of me despite appearances, and you have not attacked me. Even when you have attacked me, you have restrained your anger, and you have tried to be patient: and indeed, you have put up with a great many things that have offended you, when you could have fallen into mocking me, which would have sabotaged our task together. Thank you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I will gladly withdraw the point about balance. Certainly if one side thinks something is very important but the other doesn't, that is worthy of a section. What I was trying to eliminate are sections that aren't really that important to either side. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 16:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your intention, and appreciate your desire to be fair. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Most Important Sections

Please list what you think are the most important sections from the article. Please keep in mind that (IMHO) the purpose of the article is to allow the reader to compare LDS and MC views. You are also encouraged to include what you think are the least important sections - in other words, the sections you think should be deleted. The text for the deleted sections might be moved to articles on those specific articles, so deleting a section from this article doesn't mean that work will go to waste. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 16:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed the only humble opinion, because the topic is "Mormonism and Christianity". Anyone who does not subject himself to the topic is not being humble. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As an example of how "imbalanced" the comparison is, how important is it to the LDS that there is only one true institution of truth, one visible church? You can perceive that this is also very important to Trinitarians, but not in a symmetrical way. The Truth we uphold is One, and therefore although the Church consists of many, we must be One. Yet, we are many and not one. For us then, this is a very profound mystery, and a cause of stumbling. For the world, it is a cause of scandal, because they cannot know that we are disciples of Christ if we are many but not one.

Modernism attempted to resolve this problem, by providing rational things upon which we may objectively agree - things verifiable, testable and knowable. They relegated "faith" to a realm apart from "fact", in order to establish unity on the foundation of "fact". Post-modernism now is denying the objectivity of the realm of "fact", and is attempting to establish unity on the foundation of "faith" regardless of "fact". But the Trinitarian churches who have not departed from their foundations have answered, The faith in which we must unite is the fact of God; and the fact in which we must unite is the faith of God: because fact and faith are one. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You might also perceive that this is different from Fundamentalism: which is Modern. This is Trinitarianism: which is Tradition. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I think "One True Church" could be an excellent section, among other things it could illustrate how we use similar terminology to mean totally different things. LDS believe that there is One True Church in the sense of an formal organization that is sanctioned and directed by God. From what I have read here, MC believe that there is One True Church in the sense that the church is the true followers of Christ, even though they belong to many different institutions. This could be a metaphor for the entire article, that is, you said that the article is an asymmetrical comparison, but viewed in this perspective is it really that asymmetrical? . 74s181 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is a problem with this approach, it would arise from trying to decide what, or which is the One True Church. Nevertheless, whatever the article is titled, this is the subject we are writing about from our different perspectives. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean to suggest that there would be any conclusion as to which was the 'one true church'. What I meant was, both LDS and MC believe this, but they mean something completely different. I was thinking today that maybe a section on various examples of this, where we use the same terminology to mean such different things. Earlier we talked about the temple, that would be another example. There are others. 74s181 02:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your intention to write the comparison neutrally, and I submit to your plan. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

My nominations for most important are Revelation (including First Vision), Nature of God (rewritten as I described below). Faith and Works, expanded to include Grace as described below is also important, but this is not a defining difference in the same way as the other two, because MC don't seem to be as united on this one as they are on the other two. 74s181 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Christianity restored

The opening paragraph ends with this sentence:

However, Latter Day Saints have been clear that they do not consider themselves a branch of the Trinitarian tradition, and therefore reject trinitarian interpretations of sacred scripture and their familiar Creeds, in favor of what they believe to be the restored Gospel; that is, Christianity restored to its original authority, structure and power.

My impression is that at least some LDS writers wish this expression of what they "reject" to be less final and total, than this sentence indicates. Is this right? If so, could the sentence be repaired by saying something like this:

The Latter Day Saints have been clear that they do not consider themselves a branch of the Trinitarian tradition, and therefore reject trinitarian interpretations of sacred scripture and their familiar Creeds, in favor of what they believe to be the restored Gospel; that is, Christianity restored to its original authority, structure and power. Nevertheless, the LDS affirm that, apart from the Trinitarian creeds, that which Mainstream Christians affirm is faith in the same Christ proclaimed by the LDS, except without the priestly authorization and prophetic power that is appropriate to that proclamation.

Is this a more exactly correct affirmation of the LDS position? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In our view, this would express more completely the great power of the delusion which belongs to anyone who would presume to add to the fullness of the revelation of God, which is the Son of God himself. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You do make me laugh! Yes, I like your word-smithing and believe that it improves the sentence.

The last comment is an excellent example of how you can be offensive, but without any realization that you are offensive. For example, if I said, "the fact that MC proclaim the heavens closed and that God no longer speaks to man is exemplary of their house of faith being dead and lifeless. How does one say that God no longer speaks to humanity nor cares enough to speak?" It would be best for you to hold those comments to yourself; the alternative is possibly create a sitution where others speak bluntly in reply. You may be accustomed to the quality of conversation, but it would sure to offend other editors of more sensitive composition. Does this make sense? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand. I cannot change this, unless you want me to disguise what I am saying with parables. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thought - because it is brought to mind that I promised that if you do this again, I would seek the appropriate action - I'll take your advice to heart, concerning how to deal with you. It would be better if I just let you know that what I say about our beliefs has an accompanying interpretation of your beliefs; and what I say about your beliefs has something accompanying it which concerns our beliefs. Then, if you want to know, you can ask. This would be more polite, and would probably be less likely to be taken as offensive. So, I very much regret being hasty, and for being inconsiderate of feelings, and I'll seek improvement in that regard. And, I'm grateful for your help. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

As for what you say about our "house of faith being dead and lifeless", there is a sense in which this is true. That is, the sense in which you think yourselves alive, we are dead, and we die daily. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand your meaning, but I think you would find some LDS that would consider organized religion outside of the LDS church to be dead to the Spirit. I reject that premise; it is a fallacy. I know too many Christians that are alive in Christ Jesus to ever believe that the Spirit is confined to a single organization or people.

We each grow and learn about religions to the degree we have an interest to learn. In some we find an abiding respect and appreciation; in others we find less appreciation. It is polite to keep offensive characterizations to ourselves. In the sharing we can only cause unneeded pain. It should be understood that we are limiting this conversation strictly to Wikipedia. Here our objective is to report facts in the article and to discuss how best to write an article that is both difficult and complex. How we talk about the religions of the world outside of Wikipedia is a personal matter; even then I would urge prudence. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If I'm prudent it's to spare your feelings. If I'm bold it's to spare your life. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but on Wikipedia we are not acting as missionaries for our respective churches. For a LDS a baptism in another church is wholly without authority; it is like taking a bath or having water thrown at you. I, nor does any other LDS, need to be bold and remind everyone of our personal beliefs. I have not problem stating the beliefs of the LDS church, but only in context of reporting or referencing beliefs.

I don't for a minute doubt your convictions or beliefs or those of any other religion. You also should understand that I, and many other LDS, have been students of religion for many years. My personal beliefs are not just built upon my understanding of scripture, but they are more importantly strengthened by the witness of the Holy Spirit. I am a LDS because it is the restored Church of Jesus Christ; I don't say that, but God says that. However, those are personal convictions that do not have a part here in this "world". The issue at hand is the context in which we are communicating; we are editors of Wikipedia. Our personal convictions and our beliefs about "truth" are irrelevant here. If we lose sight of that we greatly increase the probability of conflict and poor articles. I do hope this makes sense. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

We are not acting as missionaries. We are acting as editors. I take this role seriously, and that's why I will take your advice to heart - and I hope that with your coaching I will play the part with impeccable realism and sincerity. Do not hold it against me, however, if being an editor is only an act. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What keeps you safe from the missionary that I am, is that I am restrained by the rules to act as nothing except an editor. Hold me to this: I am content. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominations for deletion

I suggest that God and the natural order and Confession of Sins be deleted. They are minor points, and IMHO not worthy of that section. There are plenty of LDS who are creationists, even though the LDS church is neutral concerning evolution. As for confession of sins, there is so much difference between Catholic and Protestant beliefs, that I'm not sure the comparison really adds much. (I seem to recall that I added those sections, so hopefully nobody will be offended by that nomination. ;^)

I would also like to see more balance in the sections within Differences in doctrines and core beliefs. I believe that there should be a brief description of the two views, along with links to more detailed articles. What we have now is a long description of LDS beliefs, followed by a paragraph or two about the MC viewpoint. The LDS portion should be trimmed back severely, and I would like to see links to MC articles where possible. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 12:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Confession of Sins, I was thinking that a section on repentance might be useful, this is close to that, but not exactly. My thinking was that LDS have a formal repentance process, so do Catholics, but I don't think that Protestants do. That is, they believe in repentance, but it seems like they are more focused on grace and would consider both the Catholic and the LDS 'process' something like a 'work'. Is that even close? If so, it might be interesting to contrast the different approaches. 74s181 23:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a "work" exactly. More like, an accidental misdirection. We must confess our sins to one another, but we must seek forgiveness from God alone. Then, if we find forgiveness from one another, we may have assurance that it is from God. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a re-write of the Core Beliefs to make it consistent with the non-argumentative procedure of comparison which has been followed at the start of the article, and is abandoned in Core Beliefs. It's as simple as 1,2,3

1. Find the central point of comparison
2. Explain the LDS point of view
3. Explain the MC point of view

As an editor of a controversial article on Wikipedia, you are the announcer for a boxing match.

We do not fight, here. The hour to fight is not now. All we do is compare. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that I generally hate tables, but since the sections over time seem to keep getting longer and longer instead of shorter and shorter, perhaps we should consider a table for comparisons. That would force us to come up with short descriptions of the two sides, and encourage us to add links instead of details. Any comments? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 17:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that, structurally, what we are describing sounds like tabular data. However, I am concerned that if we conform the content to that structure, the structure might overwhelm the nature of the content: it might look to the reader as though we are keeping a tally, or making a mathematical comparison. Since that's not how either of us see it, I wouldn't want to give the readers a misleading portrait. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for rewrite / refocus

While some sections should go and some should stay, there are some that cover important differences but need to be retitled, refocused, and rewritten.

My first nomination for this is "Nature of God". There are clear differences between the LDS Godhead and the MC Trinity, and although there may appear to be many similarities, I think we have learned that even the apparent similarities reveal themselves as insurmountable differences when viewed in the light of the more obvious differences. The "Nature of God" section describes some of this in a factual way but does nothing to capture the depth of the chasm that divides us on this issue, or the ferocity of the torrent raging thru it. 74s181 23:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Another one is "Faith and Works". Title needs to include the word 'grace' as that is a key part of disagreement, and explain the differences between LDS and MC faith and grace. Although it is already a bit long, it doesn't define 'works' beyond charitable works. I think another significant dispute is the need for works of the Law, that is, ordinances such as Baptism, conferral of the Gift of the Holy Ghost, etc. 74s181 00:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would second everything you said 74s181, but we also need to make clear the distinction between the old law which MC and LDS agree is fulfilled in Jesus Christ and the law of obedience to the Gospel which is what you mean by "works of the Law" above. There is a subtle distinction there too. For example when Paul talks about works not having saving power in Romans, he's talking about the old dead works of Jewish law. But when James says "Faith without works is dead, being alone", he's talking about the works associated with being obedient to the terms and conditions of the New and Everlasting Covenant, (which, yes, includes baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost, etc). This is what sometimes causes confusion about the LDS perspective on these matters and gets people thinking we haven't accepted the New and Everlasting Covenant but are trying to save ourselves by dead works. Does that make sense? Mpschmitt1 01:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think there are two important distintions of 'works' that should be covered in the discussion of Faith and works. First distinction, works of Charity or the pure love of Jesus Christ vs works of obedience to the law. Second distinction is within works of obedience to the law, that is, the works of the old law of the Lord commonly called the Law of Moses, vs works of the new law of the Lord, as given by Jesus Christ and recorded in the New Testament. The central 'work' of obedience of the old law was either circumcision or animal sacrifice, probably the former. LDS believe that the required work of obedience of the new law is baptism. 74s181 13:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

PBS/Frontline Special Broadcast: The Mormons

Hey all, if you can catch this over the next couple of nights (starting tonight) PBS is doing a series of shows with Frontline to explore Mormonism. Should prove useful to our purpose here: Click Here Mpschmitt1 23:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of Christ

I must be missing something. I don't understand how this statement is NPOV:

Trinitarian Christians allege that any, ostensibly including the LDS, who persistently believe a misunderstanding of Christ, are prevented from believing the Christian proclamation of salvation in His name, the Gospel of reconciliation with God.

The way I read it, the phrase "misunderstanding of Christ" is from a Trinitarian Christian point of view, which is why I inserted "what they perceive as a misunderstanding". Mormons, for example, think that Trinitarians persistently believe in a misunderstanding of Christ. It certainly wouldn't be appropriate to state; "Trinitarians allege that any who persistently disagrees with their misunderstanding of Christ." Qualifying the statement doesn't imply that Trinitarians doubt they are right, but rather quite the opposite (IMHO). Would "that persistently disagrees with their understanding of Christ" be more acceptable? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 16:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of a misplaced subordinate phrase. You are reading the sentence as saying "the LDS persistently believe a misunderstanding of Christ" - as though it were a statement of fact. It should be read, "all who persistently believe a misunderstanding (which according to their creed would included the LDS) ... ". I've shuffled the phrases, to clear up this understandable misreading of the sentence. Does it help? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Somebody added some POV edits that (IMHO) threw off the balance in the intro. I meant to revert w/ a comment, but accidentally used popups instead. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 19:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the revert. It took a lot of listening work, to find the right notes to strike. What is composed by patience shouldn't be over-written in haste. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I still feel (pretty strongly) its a bit polemical in tone without that "in what they view as" I'm not sure what they trouble is with that phrase but can we please leave it in? Sorry for the snippy sounding comment in the history, it came off the wrong way and I can't go back and change it... Mpschmitt1 14:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about how you came across; it's not being held against you. Think closely about these two versions of the sentence:

1. Trinitarian Christians allege that any who persistently believe in what they view as a misunderstanding
2. Trinitarian Christians allege that any who persistently believe a misunderstanding

The two allegations are different.

1. In the first case, they are supposedly alleging that they themselves or their views are the measure of what a misunderstanding is. This is a false statement. We do not say that our views are the measure.
2. The second version states the case succinctly. We are saying that the truth is the measure - and that, if we misunderstand, or if you misunderstand, then one or the other of us is prevented by misunderstanding from hearing the Gospel (but Christ came to remove misunderstanding of God, and sin, to reconcile the world to God). This is a statement of our imperishable faith. You should not change it into what you believe about it (which is that, it is not what you believe).

Does this make it more clear, that while you are trying to introduce balance, what you are actually doing is pushing your POV onto ours, obscuring what we believe? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The offense you are referring to, occurs in applying this allegation to the LDS. But note that the sentence is carefully constructed, to be neutral. Trinitarians can say, but Wikipedia cannot say, that the LDS has misunderstood Christ. Therefore, Wikipedia says, "ostensibly including the LDS". It is not a statement of settled fact but a circumstantial opinion to which both, LDS and Trinitarians can assent - that is, if it were the case that Trinitarians were right that misunderstanding prevents hearing, and if they were correct that the LDS has misunderstood, then the allegation would apply to the LDS and not otherwise. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I get it now. Thanks for being patient with me and not reacting in kind to my reaction ;-) Mpschmitt1 13:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe this statement is sufficiently representative of the views of Trinitarian Christians for these reasons:

1. It ignores what I understand to be the official position of the largest Trinitarian church. The Roman Catholic Church holds that salvation is available to those outside the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - even to Muslims whose "misunderstanding" of Christ must surely exceed the LDS in Catholic eyes.

"But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place among whom are the Muslims: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day". (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964)

I know that the Catholic Church no longer accepts baptisms performed by the authority of the LDS Church (as of 1991) but this does not prevent individual Mormons being saved by faithfully living true to the truths that they they share with the Catholics.
It does not allow for all Protestant viewpoints. Even an Evangelical scholar has written:

"Evangelicals often accuse Latter-day Saints of worshipping a "different Jesus" because we believe some things about Jesus than cannot be proven with the Bible...This charge, that people worship "a different Jesus" if they disagree over any detail of his character or history, is simply a rhetorical device, a trick of language. (How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation by Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1997, pp. 136-137)

2. I would suggest that a large number of lay members of Trinitarian Christians either misunderstand the doctrine of the trinity or don't believe in it. I contend that this makes them respectively unqualified or unwilling to condemn any misunderstanding of Christ by the LDS. This page and the subsequent links provide an overview of Trinitarian orthodoxy as well as some common heresies. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/beliefs/trinity_1.shtml I challenge any Trinitarian to try a pop quiz based on the contents of this site on their fellow worshippers next Sunday and report back on the percentage who are free from error. Certainly some qualification is needed here.

3. The language used to describe the Trinitarian position is flowery and repetitive:

"Christian proclamation of salvation in His name, the Gospel of reconciliation with God"

. This points to it possibly being an unattributed quote of sectarian origin. Something simpler and more representative of the wider community of Trinity-believers would be more appropriate. 4. The claim that the LDS are prevented from believing "the Christian proclamation of salvation in His name" is patent nonsense as shown by the fact that the LDS do believe this. At issue seems to be access to salvation so I suggest the phrase

"Trinitarian Christians allege that any who persistently believe in a misunderstanding of Christ, ostensibly including the Mormons, are prevented from believing the Christian proclamation of salvation in Christ's name, the Gospel of reconciliation with God"

be changed to "Some Trinitarian Christians allege that any who disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity, ostensibly including the Mormons, may not be considered Christians and may not be eligible for salvation. --Tctwood 15:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

1. It's impossible to allow for all Protestant viewpoints, and you'll always find counterexamples among the thousands of denominations. The statement still holds largely true in a broad sense. And despite the cited official position of the Catholic Church, it's easy to find evidence that many Catholics remain highly critical of Mormonism, as a quick search on http://catholic.com for instance reveals.

2. So now you want to judge who's really a trinitarian? Every religion of any size is going to have a range of understanding and misunderstanding of that religion's doctrines within its ranks. (And no, I'm not saying that because I'm worried about how my parish would fare.) How would local Mormon groups fare if asked a simple set of questions, like "Do you worship God the Father? Do you worship Jesus? How many gods do you worship?" We've been told repeatedly that many criticisms of Mormonism are invalid because they're criticisizing a misunderstanding of actual Mormon doctrine, even though that misunderstanding may be widespread in practice.

3. There may well be room to improve the way it's worded, but this is by far a secondary issue.

4. Your proposed rewording represents a substantial change in meaning. Wesley 16:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we are talking about if one group is critical of another, but rather what are the views of salavation that Trinitarians have towards those who do not believe in the Trinitarian doctrine. In other words, is the ability of the salvation of Jesus Christ believed to be limited, incapable, or denied to Mormons? Wesley, from my understanding of Catholicism I have heard both positions taken by different theologians, but at the end I think Catholicism would say that the saving grace of Jesus Christ will save all who believe in him regardless of other beliefs.

Also, the proposed langage would be better if it stated "Some Trinitarian Christians believe that any who disagree with the doctrine of the Trinity, ostensibly including the Mormons, may not be considered Christians and may not be eligible for salvation." This statement seems more NPOV; we do not take sides on what is true, but simply report the beliefs of others. In this situation, the Trinitarian position is only one of belief, not fact. The way the current langage reads it is presented as fact, no?

We are not too concerned here on Wikipedia about the individual beliefs of Christians, but we necessarily must state the doctrine as stated by churches. Wesley speaks well in this regard. IMHO, the concept of Trinity or the LDS Godhead are equally difficult to understand, if not impossible to do so. They both reveal an understanding of three beings, one makes the one essence and the other simply does not address essence (it is a foreign concept). One has no beginning and no end, as does the Godhead, but there is this concept of eternal progression that would appear to deny that God was God at one time and yet other statements would contradict this. It is all virtually incomprhensible. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "3", the language can be deleted.

Regarding "4" being "patent nonsense" this is your point of view, and not that of those being described. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The attempt to flatten differences presents a problem for cooperation in describing those differences. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

An allegation is the statement requiring proof. An argument provides evidence or reasons in support of an allegation. They are not synonymous terms, and in this context where the choice of one or the other is being contested, the correct idea is "allegation" and the appropriate term is "allege". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible comparison outline

User:WBardwin presented this outline when a reader asked a question on Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints here Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#What the differance?.

I am copying it here for people to comment on. I thought he did a good job. Maybe others will find it useful as well: wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 18:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

He did do a good job. I've decorated it to highlight its value for meditation. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment - glad to be of help. But, you might consider adding to the center section: LDSaints don't really believe in "original sin" . It didn't seem too applicable to the info request, but is a significant distinction. Just checking in today on someone else's machnine, but should be "back" soon. Best........... WBardwin 00:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please correct it as you wish. Edit the table as you desire, and re-timestamp it if the changes are significant. Thank you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I noted your inquiry on the differences between the theology and practice of Latter-day Saints and Pentecostals. Wikipedia has many articles on religious traditions, and the LDS community has been particularly active here. Many of these articles, including Mormonism and Christianity, may be of use to you. However, I believe a brief summary might give you some topics to discuss with your new friend.

I hope you enjoy getting to know each other. Best wishes. WBardwin 08:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting sources for discussion

With Mitt Romney running for President, several news outlets are discussing Mormonism. This article from Newsweek might be interesting. I don't know how long the link will be relivant. Here is another interesting article. Bytebear 05:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Update to my user page

Hey all, sorry I haven't contributed in a while. Just FYI, I've added a number of links and book references to my User page that might interest some of you. Mpschmitt1 02:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Conference Talks Relevant to This Page

Someone removed my previous links to General Conference saying that it had nothing whatsoever to do with this article, and yet there were several talks that had everything to do with this article, so I'm posting again. Perhaps they were offended by my overly patriotic tone, so I'll leave that out this time and just get to the facts ;-) If you decide you still don't like this for some reason, please consult me on my talk page before you just delete it and I'll see if I can come up with something you feel better about. Several talks dealt directly with this theme we're covering here and I'll put links to them below:

• The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent by Jeffery R. Holland speaks directly to the subject of the LDS view of the Godhead
• Why Are We Members of the Only True Church? by Enrique R. Falabella (self evident by the title)
• Scriptural Witnesses by Russel M. Nelson talked about the LDS Cannon of scripture and why Latter-Day Saints consider those books scripture.
• Faith, Family, Facts, and Fruits by M. Russel Ballard talks about how Latter-Day Saints are taught to represent themselves to those of other faiths and backgrounds.
• The Power of Godliness Is Manifested in the Temples of God by Octavio Tenorio dicusses the unique doctrine of Temple worship in the LDS faith.
• O Remember, Remember by Henry B. Eyring discusses how Latter-Day Saints view the character of God and gratitude toward God.
• God Helps the Faithful Priesthood Holder also by Henry B. Eyring explores the role of a lay priesthood in the church.

Mpschmitt1 02:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Semiauto review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.^[?]
• This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • it has been
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): don't.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Vassyana 23:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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.

Totally disputed

I had a go at fixing this, but it's just too big. Not only is it heavily slanted toward Mormonism, but many "mainstream Christian" beliefs and practices are misstated. Sometimes even when they are stated correctly they are not expressed in the usual terms, but in language I can only guess is customary among Mormons. There are also a number of places where Mormon belief is expressed in factual terms where it is in fact highly controversial: "restored Gospel" is used that way more than once.

Examples of pro-LDS POV:

• In "Personal revelation and theology", some of the most important expressions of Trinitarian thought on the subject in relation to Scripture are relegated to footnotes, while Mormon ideas are delved into in detail.
• In "Beginning of the Latter Day Saint movement" -- Actually the whole section. It's not about contrasting the two, it's mostly an excuse to summarize Mormon claims about their foundation. The events of the early Church that led to the formation of the historical antecedents to modern churches -- several centuries of history -- is allocated a single paragraph.
• "Faith and works" The "mainstream" section seems to be nothing more than an LDS charity promo. Talk about putting the cart before the horse....
• The section "Religious authority" seems mainly to be an excuse to describe the entire Mormon hierarchy, which is absolutely not necessary for contrasting beliefs. Great care is taken in the "mainstream" portion to emphasize the divisions among the churches, while nothing is said at all about intra-Mormon schisms or the separateness of the LDS church from other Restorationist groups.

Examples of misstated "mainstream" beliefs:

• And speaking of "Religious authority", the "mainstream" section is dead wrong, misstating both the origin and nature of authority within the church. "In contrast to LDS" sections, the word "bishop" is not used here. This may not be inaccurate, but it certainly misleads.
• "Priesthood ordinances, sacraments" misstates several particulars about baptism, and gets the Eucharist almost entirely wrong according to any of the traditions.
• "Personal revelation and theology" completely ignores the teaching in all of traditional Christianity that the prophetic office has never ceased. While it is generally correct in what it does say, this is a crucial omission.
• "Faith and works" chooses to represent a Protestant belief as standing for the whole of "mainstream" Christianity, when the vast majority of traditional Christians actually read James 2 very carefully.

This covers just those sections I attempted to fix before I gave up, and is by no means exhaustive even then. I don't know whether I want to get deeply involved here, but after spending over an hour on it I couldn't leave the problems unremarked. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points all. As you review the article's history you will find a number of editors that were not LDS. However, you are correct in realizing that we only have the article as it exists today to work with.

IMHO, the article title is somewhat difficult; I think that the real subject is the "LDS church and Christianity" or clarifying that Mormonism in this context is limited to the LDS church. Attempting to include all of the schisms within the LDS movement would necessarily make the article overly long. A minor focus or minor summation of other LDS movement groups is okay, but the tail should not be wagging the dog.

Which Christianity are we talking about? I support a focus upon orthodoxy; meaning a primary focus upon Catholicism and secondary focus on Protestantism as a whole without any attempt at including all of the nuances found among all of the churches under this banner. This area is controversial simply because any future, Protestant editor may want to enlarge upon what is "mainstream" Christian belief in order to wave their particular "flag" as a member. I think you readily see how difficult this can be. The Faith and Works topic is but one that is a controversial issue when it comes to Catholicism and Protestantism.

As you review the archives you will see much discussion about the issues you have raised. I strongly encourage you to devote some time to the article. I have long appreciated your contributions and think you would be a great asset to this article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Mainstream" views poorly referenced

TCC, You have absolutely hit the nail on the head regarding one of the biggest problems I have been having with this article myself. I agree that the article feels quite lopsided still and I would suggest several reasons for that:

1. Those of us who are LDS have shared quite a bit of detail about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and it's doctrines.
2. There have been fewer contributors from the other Christian camps thus far and detail has been disappointingly shallower in my opinion on what Mainstream Christianity affirms. I would like to see some other Christians step up with those details, since I myself don't feel very qualified to comment on other people's traditions, though I do know something about the history of "Mainstream" Christianity. Part of the trouble is (as you rightly point out) while many would like to present "Mainstream Christianity" as a single monolithic entity, completely united in all of it's doctrines and practices in contrast to dangerous heretics like us Mormons, the historical and culturally observable fact is that there is no such monolith. I've made this point before and I've tried to insert some of what I know in those areas (for instance mentioning the different concepts of the Trinity held by Oneness Pentacostals). But there is a wide range of differences within Christianity itself over various points of theology that this article tends to ignore. I've felt like the article could use more exploration of that because as it is right now it seems like "Mainstream Christianity" is being equated with Evangelical Protestantism which is but one branch of a much larger tree. I have been reticent to start editing in that direction because it might make the article even more complicated as we start focusing on all the schisms and differences within Mainstream Christianity. Please realize though that the mainstream Christianity sections were written by our "Mainstream Christian" contributors for the most part and not by Mormons, so perhaps some of the tension is due to those schisms within Mainstream Christianity over "the right way to be Christian"?
3. I agree that the mainstream section of the Faith and Works section is lacking something and I haven't understood why no one from the mainstream camp has corrected it. I also agree that the nature of God section could use more exploration of other Christian beliefs surrounding the trinity. Same with Personal Revelation and Theology

I think we are on the same page here. Let's take a crack at making it cleaner and more balanced. But let's also be careful to not remove things simply because they're too positive or too negative on one side or the other, let's just balance with the counterpoints...

Oh and as far as using terms like the restored gospel, etc. goes, I don't have a problem with that. I think each side should be treated neutrally. If Latter-Day Saints refer to what they believe as the restored gospel, I see no reason not to state it that way. Likewise, if another Christian group has terminology particular to their beliefs, it is not necessary in my opinion to point out at each usage: "But not everybody believes this". That could get tedious. Using occasional phrases like "what the LDS regard as" or "what Evangelical protestants maintain.." are sufficient to remind the reader that the article is not taking sides, simply presenting facts.Mpschmitt1 03:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Article title. This is not the Christianity or Mormonism page. So, what is it? I think most people would interpret the title as a comparison of the two groups, rather than an exploration of variation within each group. IOW, there is no need to rehash all the differences between the various branches within each group here. 74s181 13:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Which Christianity? I have long thought that a big part of the problem is a lack of definition of 'mainstream Christianity', but my past attempts at such a definition were vehemently resisted. I think a least common denominator approach would be best. One such option would be to replace 'mainstream' with 'Trinitarian', this has been tried and rejected, although 'trinitarian' is still frequently used in the article. 74s181 13:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Schisms. Although there are similar doctrinal variations within the larger Latter Day Saint movement, the title of the article uses the word Mormonism. This label generally refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which, BTW, also happens to be ten times larger than all other LDS-movement denominations combined. Surely what TCoJCoLdS authorities teach is significant, per WP:UNDUE. When other LDS-movement groups differ it is generally in taking a more 'mainstream Christian' view, these variations from 'mainstream Mormonism' should be noted. 74s181 13:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Terminology. I think that each 'side' should tell their story in their own way, while respecting WP:NPOV. Terminology is one of the differences, this is mentioned in a couple of sections but probably deserves a section of its own. 74s181 13:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: "it's just too big'. Don't try to fix the whole thing at once, pick a particular topic or section and work on it. 74s181 13:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: misstated "mainstream" beliefs, I don't think anyone would resist expansion of statements of mainstream Christian belief as long as these beliefs are stated in a WP:NPOV-compliant manner. 74s181 13:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: pro-LDS POV If you think a particular statement of LDS belief is too POV, try neutralizing it, or start a specific discussion on the talk page. 74s181 13:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not had time to work on this article as much as I had in the past. The attempt for this article was to let each side present their case, and the reader decide. Because of this, we tried to avoid the POV of one side within the POV of another. Here is what Mormons believe ... Here is what Christians believe. This is different than many of the other Mormon related articles, but I think it works much better. Each side can present their view without interruption. If you think a Mormon belief is wack-o, then instead of inserting something to that effect in the Mormon side, you would add why Christian think Mormons are wacko to the Christian side. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 13:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the current structure of "Subject -- commonalities -- LDS -- 'mainstream' Christianity" works reasonably well. Areas in which the two are more or less identical could simply be listed in a separate section rather than discussed in any detail. In particular, I think all sides should take care to summarize rather than re-present. We should not, for example, indulge in an extended discussion of "mainstream" Eucharistic theology -- not least because the differences among the groups are found in the details -- but summarize and link to Eucharist. Similarly, a detailed presentation of the LDS hierarchy doesn't need to be here: a brief account will do for the purposes of comparison, and we link to Priesthood (LDS Church).

Perhaps there needs to be multiple articles. The label "mainstream" is highly problematic, and means different things in different contexts. Let's recall that we have to consider a worldwide readership. My own church is not even remotely mainstream here in the US, but certainly is in, say, Greece, Russia, and other places. When "mainstream" is used in the context of American Christianity, it generally refers to the older Protestant denominations, inclusive of neither Catholicism nor Orthodoxy. But while in broad terms these last two can be lumped together for the purposes of this comparison (perhaps along with Anglicanism) they cannot be meaningfully grouped with the Calvinist denominations or the Evangelicals. In fact, once we reach the Evangelicals and groups like the Stone-Campbell movement offshoots, they're at least as different from traditional Christianity as they are from LDS.

So this suggests at least three articles -- I suppose at this point we can call it a series.

• Latter-day Saints and Traditional Christianity: comparison with Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, and maybe high-church Anglicanism. These groups taken together, broadly similar in theology and approach to worship, actually comprise a large majority of Christians worldwide -- the RCs are a slight majority all by themselves. If there must be only one article, it's these groups taken together that therefore ought to be considered normative for "mainstream" Christianity.
• Latter-day Saints and Mainstream Protestantism: comparison with the older Protestant denominations
• Latter-day Saints and Evangelicalism: I actually know fairly little about this part of Christianity, so if this is off-base perhaps someone who knows better can some up with a better title.

TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That may work; it would seem that this series would allow for a more in-depth comparison of the respective groups cited and would remove the problems we all see with the term "mainstream". I am not sure about the number of groups/articles, but certainly the first two. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Different approach recommended

I am going to throw out an entirely different approach. Instead of an article comparing and contrasting doctrine (after all, you can go to those individual articles and read the differences in detail), which tends to end in POV debate over which is better or correct, I suggest instead to take a historic perspective. How did Mormonism begin in conjunction with other Christian groups at the time. How did the move West affect their standing in the global Christian world? when and how have other Christian groups interacted with Mormomism? What historic events have affected the relationships? I think this goes a lot further to explain the relationship, and it should be easier to reference. Go from a historic event driven perspective rather than a doctrine point by point discussion. Bytebear 00:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

When I first came to this article a while back, the reason I decided to start working on it was that as it stood at the time, it was little more than a thinly veiled expose on why Evangelical Christianity was better than Mormonism (in my opinion). Much of the language and arguments presented were very lopsided in that direction, and when we started swinging things the other way, we got a lot of pushback. Then the pendulum swung closer to the middle. I think we've all made a lot of progress since then and had some very fruitful conversation back and forth between the different views. But I keep coming back to even the title of the article "Mormonism and Christianity". Inherent in it the title is a premise which fundamentally flawed in my opinion. The title suggests "All of these varied branches of Christianity over here, despite the fact that they can't agree on all the important doctrines amongst themselvse are _real_ Christianity, these Mormons, well...They're something else altogether and unworthy of the moniker Christian." I think that is a huge problem for a Wikipedia article to have. There are no articles in Wikipedia entitled, "Catholocism and Christianity" or "The Baptists and Christianity" or "Oneness Pentecostalism and Christianity". Why is that? Each of these Christian branches has some unique beliefs that run contrary to the others. And yet they are not singled out for that like Mormons are. Now there may be some of you that are saying "Well, doofus(or my dear misguided brother :-), that's because You AREN'T Christian! You're too different from the definition we've all agreed upon." To which I reply "Why?" Some of the finest Christians I have met are Mormons. I hasten to add, some of the other finest Christians I have met are Evangelicals, Catholics, etc, etc. The definition of who gets to be a Christian is not determined by any one branch of the belief system, in my opinon. If a person professes a belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior of the World, in my view they are Christian, regardless of their denomination. That definition was good enough for John Locke, it's good enough for me. As bytebear suggests, the historical angle is an attractive one and should be included, but I don't think we should steer clear of the doctrinal comparisons either. My main point is that this article should not be used to put down or disallow anyone's claim to Christian belief. That flies in the face of what Wikipedia is for and belongs on the polemecists websites. I would like to see the scope and tone of this article expanded (perhaps into a new series of articles) that explores the links and differences, the history and background, of all organizations that profess faith in Christ without judgement and without polemics. Is that possible? As I'm writing it sounds like a tall order to me, but perhaps we could acheive it. Mpschmitt1 02:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

'Mainstream' Christians may disagree among themselves about certain doctrines, but when the subject of 'Mormonisim' comes up it seems like they close ranks pretty quickly. I think that the unifying doctrines are the Trinity, and the rejection of new scripture, like the Book of Mormon. Other doctrines are not as clear cut, there are 'mainstream' churches with doctrines similar to many LDS doctrines. I think makes sense to report on that, but comparing Baptists to Episcopalians is clearly out of scope for this article. 74s181 04:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This article once contained a lot of history, I think it is better covered in other articles with the word 'history' in their titles. 74s181 04:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Doctrines should not explored in depth, a 'main article' link and a quick summary is all that is needed here. If there isn't a 'main article' for a particular doctrine then make one. 74s181 04:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

'Real' Christians implies a definition, I'm not going anywhere near that. 74s181 04:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Re-titling recommended: "Mormonism and ... "

What does the title "Mormonism and Christianity" mean? Could be a comparison of doctrines and / or practices, past, and / or present. Could be a discussion of relationships past and present. Here's a radical idea, completely eliminate comparison and write an article about why Mormons consider themselves to be Christians. The balancing POV would then be why some Christians reject this claim. 74s181 04:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Your point about the title is appropriate and demonstrates how easily things can take a POV when it is unintended. I prefer an article on doctrinal issues that addresss both what is in common and what conflicts.

Christianity is not monolithic, but it does have some clear segments that form a majority. Csernica has stated correctly that it is the orthodox, or Catholic position. I include within this group the Eastern Orthodox and all of the sister churches. What makes Mormonism different (or Catholicism for that matter) is the doctrine. Both groups have some pertty unique teachings. I think it can be written in such a way as to heed the counsel above of rejecting writting that attempts to state which is "correct" or "true"; it is simply a matter of difference.

I am concerned that the "historic" sounds like it could too easily be focused upon the LDS perspective and not really get to the meat of the matter for which most readers are looking. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that 74s181 has a point about the article title. Whatever most Christians think of LDS, they do self-identify as Christians and it's POV to imply that they are not in black-and-white terms, as the current title appears to.

It appears as if the dividing line is acceptance, to one degree or another, of the Ecumenical Councils. If we're going to retain this as one article, I therefore propose retitling it to Latter Day Saints and Nicene Christianity. This can stand for the name of the series if we end up writing a series of articles as above. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

AMEN! Yes. I second that motion.... Latter Day Saints and Nicene Christianity has a much better ring to it and is much truer to what the article is really about Mpschmitt1 00:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also support retitling the article as described, but I think some of the 'mainstream Christian' editors might object to any qualification of 'their' Christianity. In the view of some editors there are no 'Nicene' Christians, there are Christians, Mormons are not part of the group in any way, shape, or form. Period. 74s181 02:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The view of some editors is mistaken. Any Christian who believes in the Holy Trinity named as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, distinguishable in persons but indistinguishable in essence -- that is, any Christian for whom the Nicene Creed is an accurate statement of belief -- can be fairly characterized as "Nicene". It is the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils that Mormonism specifically denies. If those on the one side who claim to be Christian can be called "Mormon" in an NPOV way, then those on the other who claim to be Christian can be called "Nicene" and just deal with it. If you believe that the first two Ecumenical Councils rightly proclaimed the truth about the nature of God insofar as he has revealed it, then the label "Nicene" is nothing to be ashamed of. (Just so long as we don't also leave off "Christian".) TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also support the title change. As for your comment, 74, there are some 'mainstream Christian' editors who don't consider Catholics to be Christian, either (and vice versa). Nevertheless, I don't think a solid case can be made against the qualification. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 16:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

TCC spent an hour on this article, and gave up. I would challenge TCC to build upon the basic structure of the article's top half, where terms of comparison are selected and discussed from the contrasting points of view. No particular under any of these headings is either complete or completely accurate, especially regarding the "mainstream view". I would also point out that defining a position in terms of a comparison is different from a full explanation. For example, a Catholic may at first believe that the Mormons are "closer" to their position than to the Protestant view, on the relationship between faith and works. But this impression can only come out of a superficial understanding of the particulars of either Mormonism or Protestantism, or both. The Catholics differ from Protestants, but they both differ from Mormonism in a comparable way: that difference is supposed to be what is explained. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, what is up for grabs in this comparison is the name "Christianity". As I've pointed out before, the article is called "Mormonism and Christianity" - that is, Mormonism makes the significant claim that it is the restoration of true Christianity. It makes this claim over against what has been passed down in Scripture as it has been historically understood, and in contrast to any continuous tradition, which we've called "nicene", "mainstream", "traditional", "trinitarian Christianity", etc. Consider how differently the article must posture itself, if it is a treatment of Mormonism in relation to what it in no wise claims to be. Mormonism claims to be Christianity par excellence. It makes no comparable claim to be Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox, or Protestant. If you want to re-title the article as you've suggested then, the proper title should be "LDS versus Nicene Christianity", and the article should be re-structured accordingly. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 00:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And finally, TCC is confusing imprecision with inaccuracy. I would accept the criticism that the "mainstream" sections are rough in the sense of being imprecise and incomplete (and unsupported) - and I would need explanation of how they might be improved without narrowing the terms of comparison more than promised by the title and introduction. I would need some clarification in order to accept the criticism of inaccuracy, let alone totally inaccurate - especially when the broad criticism is withdrawn in the discussion of particulars. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the article subject: Far from posturing itself any differently if it is to draw the comparison my suggested title would lead one to expect, that's exactly what it already is. Please read the article's first sentence. It's not discussing the Mormon claim to be the true Christian Church; it's an attempt to compare Mormonism on the one hand with the collective majority witness of Christianity on the other, which it labels "mainstream" and which I'd rather call "Nicene". I cannot for the life of me see how it could be read otherwise. If the article had been written along the lines either you believe it is, or Bytebear suggested it should be, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I probably would have had nothing to whine about in the first place.

I have no objection to such an article; I just don't see it here.

It would have been more fair of you to begin by assuming I proceeded in a reasonable way. If I say I spent an hour with this and listed a number of concerns specifically calling out sections from the top half of the article, surely I might be expected to find your "challenge" puzzling, to say the least. I was addressing the terms in the first half of the article. That's exactly where I have a problem. I didn't even get to the second half in any detail.

If I'm complaining that the article spends too much space not comparing when it comes to Mormon doctrine but discussing it on its own terms instead, it might also be reasonably deduced that I fully understand the difference between an exposition and a comparison and that I find elements associated with the latter to be lacking.

When you say that on faith and works that the article should be discussing how both Catholics and Protestants differ from Mormonism "in a comparable way", and that this is what the article should be explaining, surely you're not trying to say that this is what it's doing now. Because it isn't. The Mormon viewpoint is first set against Catholic "penances and indulgences". This is a very strange point of departure for a comparison. The Catholic idea of "penances and indulgences" is drawn from sacramental penitence -- the formal expression of repentence -- and is only peripherally related to the relationship between faith and works. For example, one might be told to perform some good work as a penance, but only because between faith and works are already understood to be interrelated on their own terms, apart from the sacrament. It has little to do with why a Catholic charity might, for example, operate a homeless shelter. The rest of that section makes no other comparisons at all that I can see.

One must say that given that section as written, a Catholic will not only come to this article thinking Mormons are closer to his own beliefs than Protestants on the subject, he'll come away thinking that too. As far as I can tell there's little a Mormon would find to disagree with in, say, CCC 1814-1815.[1] (The CCC doesn't treat "faith vs. works" as a unit, but this basic viewpoint is reflected throughout the document.)

Not only do I not confuse accuracy and imprecision, I never used either word, or their negations, to describe anything. I used "misstate", which can certainly apply to imprecision if it's gross enough to convey a wrong idea to the reader. As an example, here's the details of what I meant by "misstate" when I talked about the religious authority section. (Absent my quibble about "overseer" vs. "bishop".)

It discusses religious authority as viewed by "mainstream" Christianity in terms of a "prophetic authority". You will be hard-pressed to find many mainstream Christian theologians approaching the subject in that way. Most -- again, any who can say the Nicene Creed and mean it -- will characterize it first as Apostolic, which is not the same thing. (1 Cor. 12) For example, in Eastern Orthodoxy the authority of the Church is vested in the bishops, who by virtue of their Apostolic Succession possess an apostolic ministry. It is very often remarked how this is often set in conflict (or at least contrast) to the prophetic ministry of the monks, especially the Spirit-filled elders who are its representatives par excellence. To the extent that any monk who is not a bishop has any authority, it's in recognition of his personal gifts of the Spirit, which are not founded on any kind of succession from the Old Testament prophets but by grace as it is given to individuals. The Roman Catholic view isn't much different. If anything it places less emphasis on prophecy as a source even of personal authority. Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and mainline Protestantism likewise do not relate prophecy to authority in their churches as it is normally exercised, even where Apostolic Succession is not an acceptable idea. If there's anything in common within Nicene Christianity for us to compare with Mormonism, it's that the normal religious authority is not prophetic per se: it's neither required nor expected to be, either in its origins or as presently constituted.

I didn't call this "inaccurate", but it is. It's only one example, but the others are of the same order. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

TCC, the "totally disputed" banner led me to assume that you are disputing the accuracy of statements - which you went on to say were not inaccurate. If this is not what you were doing, I won't quibble over that, then.

Regarding your example, it is unclear to me what you are claiming or discussing. I see no reason to assume that the idea of "prophetic authority", as a term of comparison, should be narrowed to an individual gift as you appear to do in your discussion above. In the context, the claim is that the church has a foundation in prophetic and apostolic authority, in which it continues to participate throughout its existence, and that it presently speaks from out of that same authority. Your interpretation of what is being compared in that context does not appear to address the same issue.

Do you argue that the authority of the prophets in bearing witness to Christ has expired with the death of the prophets? In Ephesians 2:18-20, each member of the church is said to have access in Jesus Christ to the Father through one Spirit. The whole church is said to be built upon the one foundation of apostles and prophets. The cornerstone of their foundational witness is said to be Jesus Christ. Has this foundation expired, or might it be superceded? Must we have new apostles and prophets in every generation, or else we are bereft of apostolic and prophetic authority in our witness to Jesus Christ - as the Mormons claim? Would you deny that this authority is continuous in the church throughout all generations, for as long as the church participates in the foundation?

Regarding "faith vs. works", the Roman Catholic theological framework of redemption is trinitarian, and therefore the relationship with the Mormon view is superficial. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither did I say there were no inaccuracies, but it seems to me it would be more worthwhile to comment on what I actually say, since I was rather explicit about what I thought the problem was, than on the contents of a boilerplate tag.

The problem is that two different senses of "authority" are being used here, which are more or less identified with each other in Mormonism but not elsewhere, so they need to be distinguished. "Prophetic authority" rests upon the individual prophet to the extent he speaks in the Spirit. I know of no exegesis that interprets prophecy as a source of hierarchical authority in the Church. (I admit to ignorance in detail of post-Reformation Western theology.) What Paul is talking about there is the continuity from the Old Covenant (represented by the prophets) to the New (represented by the apostles); that the Church is the new Israel and children of Abraham by adoption by virtue of participation in Christ, in whose person the two are joined. So Chrysostom, more or less. (Although I recommend ignoring the notes, as among other things I think we both agree that the OT prophets are being talked about here.) Whatever authority might be borne by the offices mentioned, that's not what Paul is talking about in the traditional reading.

But the "LDS perspective" section is talking about the church's hierarchical organization, where "authority" relates to an individual's position within it. That Mormonism considers the hierarchy to be prophetic in nature is a unique to it; only Mormonism insists that the top of its earthly hierarchy must be a prophet. It's not a feature of historic Christianity; not even papal infallibility extends so far. It is the Apostolic authority and teaching that was given once for all time in that view. Prophecy is a gift of the Spirit that has always been with the Church, but it is not the property of the hierarchy per se. Nor is it a necessary requirement for the writing of Scripture, something Mormonism appears to take as an axiom. There is, for example, no tradition that the Evangelists were prophets. (The editor who wrote the relevant parts of this section doesn't appear to understand that another point of view in that regard is possible.)

Your argument about the faith and works is a non-sequitur. Whether or not one has a correct idea about God's nature, one can certainly say and mean the same thing when one says, "faith without works is dead," and either way one can agree with Paul when he says, "without love I have nothing." Both see faith as a precondition to redemption; the sticking point is that by "redemption" different things are meant. It follows that the substance of their faiths will be different, but since the response demanded in both cases is one of love -- and there's nothing that says love is the exclusive property of the One True Church -- certainly they can be reading the same texts the same way. Every indication is that they are, since they explain them in similar terms. This is in fact one of the few areas where Mormonism and historic Christianity appear to be using the same words for the same things, since we can see the results in terms of their actions are the same. Your blank assertion to the contrary makes no sense on its face. Not to me, and it certainly will not to the reader. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The statement, "there is ... no tradition that the Evangelists were prophets", is sure to be misunderstood. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness". It is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, correcting and training because its truth is guaranteed by God. God has breathed out what is written, so that its profitability is certain. If you say that the writers were not prophets, I'm sure that you would not wish to be misunderstood to be saying that they did not speak from God.

Union with Christ, to be alive in him toward God and dead to sin, in him standing by adoption as sons to our Father, by the gift of His spirit raised up in newness of life, should matter to a catholic in a way that cannot matter to a Mormon. The Trinity is not simply a correct idea about God's nature that stands apart from the issues of life; it concerns what salvation is, and what eternal life is, as such. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm coming back to this late after a several-days long wikibreak and after some water has passed under the bridge, so please excuse me if some of this has already been covered, but things I want to say tend to fall out of my head unless I get to them immediately.

I do see your point here. Perhaps the point that needs to be clarified is that from the POV of traditional Christianity the Church itself is always capable of speaking for God, so any scripture it has canonized does so whether its authors had personally received the gift of prophecy or not. Obviously, someone recording events he was eyewitness to, or a tradition he has received, need not be a prophet to do this accurately, and this is exactly what the Gospels purport to be.

You are correct about the effect of a catholic understanding of the Trinity, but exactly how this affects the response to faith in terms of concrete action, and the necessity of responding at all, is still unclear. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

TCC, this is an excellent conversation and I appreciate your input. The question of authority is of utmost importance to the Roman Catholic church; that belief that the pope today, Benedict XVI, is the actual vicar of Christ and directly succeeds Peter and also the LDS. LDS believe just as firmly that the prophet today, Gordon B. Hinkley, holds the same keys that Peter held. The title Vicar of Christ is not used in the LDS church, but its meaning is appropriate for the way in which LDS feel about their prophet. The question of authority has significant meaning to both groups; however, to Protestants the issue of authority is almost meaningless the more "protestant" the group. The faith of the believer becomes their authority to act in God's name.

There was certainly a belief in the value of prophets in the early church; it would be hard to understand the statement in Ephesians 4:11-13 were it not so: "And he gave some, apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers; for the perfecting ofthe saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" Tradition, as thought of by the orthodox churches, may not acknowledge it, but the scirptures are clear that prophets existed and were part of the organization of Christ's church. The Latter-day Saints believe all of the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are both prophets and apostles, but there is one who actively exercises the keys and that is the President of the church or the presiding High Priest. He fills the same roll that LDS believe Peter filled in the early church. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's exactly that part of Ephesians I have in mind from a catholic (in the broad sense) perspective: It's also hard to understand if apostles are always prophets. The Mormonism identifies the two as a matter of necessity is where the major difference is.

I disagree that prophets were integrated into the hierarchical structure of the catholic Church at any point. Certainly they had their place, an important one at that. Part of my point is that they still do, and that the article doesn't acknowledge this. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I would think that the issue to be clarified for comparison to the Mormon view concerns authority in the sense of authenticity - that is, as an institution, what are the church's credentials, by which it has obtained legitimacy as teacher of the Gospel? The Mormon argument is that the gifts of prophet and apostle must continue to be given, in order for the church to have apostolic and prophetic authority, to proclaim the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit.

In contrast, classical Christianity says that these gifts have been given for the foundation of the church, and that the church manifests these gifts throughout its earthly sojourn by continuing in the Spirit by whom the apostles and prophets bore witness to Christ. The whole church benefits by the gifts given to those few for an unrepeatable purpose, because the whole church partakes of Christ, whose gifts these are, by the Spirit who proceeds from the Father. Tradition carries on those things that were once for all deposited in the church, through an ordained ministry of stewardship - it does not bring a new revelation and a new faith, but carries forward what the church has received once for all.

To avoid the distraction involved in comparing juridical systems of authority, it seems to me that this difference, which holds up in these general terms when Mormonism is compared to Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism, is what should be clarified. I think that Mormons tend to be distracted by the differences between the traditions, to the point that they cannot fully appreciate how Mormonism differs from them all in the same way. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point about what that section should look like, but I disagree with the idea that classical Christianity regards these gifts only as foundational, given once. Every single one of those functions mentioned in Eph. 4 continues in the Church to this day. They are essential features of it. It's the faith, the kerygma of the Apostles, that was given once. The job of "rightly dividing the word" of that truth and of carrying on the apostles' authority, belongs to the bishops. Prophecy can reside with anyone, but is largely found in monasticism. The others are obvious. There is no new revelation not for any arbitrary reason, but because we have already received everything necessary for salvation, and the truth cannot contradict itself. Individuals need not possess of themselves any prophetic gift to proclaim the Gospel in the Spirit; this is an attribute of the Church as a whole and is within the power and authority of anyone she calls for these tasks.

If this were not true, the catholic church could hardly feel itself authorized to formulate dogmatic statements in ecumenical councils, or authorize a canon of scripture or its interpretation. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that we might be understanding one another better. If I may use terms that seek to avoid the objections you raised before: It is God at work in the church, who confirms and edifies the church in Christ. The church's continuity with the mission of God, in sending the Son, is the emphasis of the church's mission. The church is the pillar and ground of the truth because it is God who keeps the church in Christ, and who sends the church into the world filled with the Spirit who proceeds from Him without being separate from Him. And being in the Spirit, the church is blessed with every spiritual blessing in heavenly places. Therefore, it is not for an arbitrary reason that there is no new revelation - it is because the fullness of salvation is in Christ Himself. Does this strike the right note with you? Does it explain why a prophet bringing new revelation would appear to to a catholic to rival Christ, rather than represent him, even if he comes in his name? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It might help if I knew where you were coming from, because I'm uncertain how to read this. I tried to restate it several ways, but I still don't get what it's saying in relation to this section of the article. I liked the way you put it better earlier. My only real complaint was that it seemed to be saying that certain gifts of the Spirit died away, the Gospel having been received once being passed on only as a matter of rigid tradition, when it's by the action of the Holy Spirit dwelling in the Church; and that the Spirit works in many ways and not through prophets alone. Therefore, we don't describe the Church as "prophetic". The prophets revealed Christ in the OT, but they didn't have the full Gospel. Christ revealed himself to the Apostles and gave them the Gospel, and they preached it to the world. It's Christ in the Gospel who saves; it's therefore more the Apostles to whom it was given that we refer to and not so much the OT prophets who only foreshadowed him, or the NT prophets whose role is, as I said, important but not exclusively so. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

MC:"Prophetic authority" clarified as MC:"on the authority of the prophetic writings"

Well, then I failed to clarify, then. My intention is simply to say the same thing without getting tangled up in your concern over the phrase "prophetic authority". The apostolic church proclaims the appearance of the gospel that the prophets declared beforehand. Paul says in Romans 1, as an apostle he is: "set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son". So, the church has what the prophets proclaimed in the holy scriptures: doesn't the church bear witness to Christ, then, on the authority of the prophets? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That's much clearer, yes. It's accurate as far as it goes, but my impression is that by "prophetic authority" Mormonism means something rather different. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm certain that they do mean something rather different. Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God." For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.: For us, it could be construed as a denial of Christ, to say "follow the prophet".

This is not to say that there are not claims of visions or "revelations" - the Catholics are famous for these. But they are received in that tradition according to whether they confirm its hearers in the testimony of Christ, the faith deposited in the church by the gift of the Holy Spirit. As the Catholic Catechism puts it (65,66,67):

Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".

I'm quite certain that this is a very different conception of prophecy, and of its role in the church, than is meant by the LDS. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

For the LDS the comparison is rather simple. Either there is one single Holy and true church or there is not. Either the Catholic church has apostolic authority or it does not. For LDS the Protestants do not have a leg to stand on. None of them claim any authority to have broken away from the true church except to state their "faith" (not authority) directed them to believe differently (I am speaking in simple, broad stroke terms). Not one of the great reformers ever claimed differently; they found their previous path within Catholicism untenable and sought truth elsewhere...which turned out to be churches of their own making. It is virtually impossible to discuss apostolic authority and pretend there are not significant differences within historic Christianity. It is one of the problems with this article that has been stated by several different editors before; there is no single, monolithic Christian church with one single doctrine and theology. If forced, by sheer numbers we would have to identify it as the Roman Catholic church.

Also, for LDS it is simple issue. To have authority one must have been called as was Aaron. All admit that the early apostles held that authority. For LDS there was an apostasy, for almost all others the line from Peter to the present is in tact, no authority was ever lost. For LDS that authority was required to be restored to the earth, to be called as was Aaron, before the church could be restored to the earth. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, there are significant differences. If there weren't differences, Mormonism would have nothing to say. None of its claims for itself make any sense, except as an accusation against others. The LDS is a replacement movement, one of many that arose in the 1800s. The reason the LDS is the only church that matches its description of a true church is because, no one has this idea of what the true church should look like except a Mormon. In contrast, it is at least a matter of debate among them, how the Eastern Orthodox, the Catholics, or the Protestants should regard one another. Until late, the history of one was the history of all.

When you speak of Protestants, you seem to have only Baptists and their offspring in mind. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is mostly low church Protestants that jump immediately to my mind, which would seem to be the majority of Protestants in the southern United States and the west where I live now. Aren't they really the majority of Protestants in the US? I was hoping to make it clear that I was painting with some broad brush strokes to make the point.

The "sense" of Mormonism is rather obvious; were it not so it would not have enjoyed its significant growth. Where reformers felt the need, they reacted to form their own congregations forfeiting the need for authority. The need for the reformation for LDS was real, but we believe that the event of the restoration of the church did not happen until 1830 through Joseph Smith. LDS have never proclaimed to replace anything, but to actual restore what was once present. The apostasy was not a period of absence of truth, but of absence of authority. There remained many great and beautiful truths; I would say the most significant truths remained alive...that of the knowledge of the Son of God, his virgin birth, life, atoning sacrifice, and resurrection. These were always present for which all of us are grateful.

LDS think the New Testament provides the structure of the church beginning with the Twelve Apostles. There are very few doctrines of the LDS church not found in the Bible. This is great joisting and you know how much I enjoying this type of discussion, but let's get back to TCC agenda and see if we cannot come up with a firm agenda to improve the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

See [2]. Baptists are the largest single group, but they're not a majority. They're also far from the only "low church" (by which I take you to mean non-liturgical) Protestant. We furthermore need to be careful not to make this US-centric. Baptists are very much not the largest Protestant denomination worldwide. That would be Lutheranism. (Adherents.com gives 100,000,000 for Baptists, but that's certainly exaggerated. If you look at the range of estimates, the middling-low end, around 50,000,000 worldwide, is probably closer to the truth.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is not to joust, Storm Rider. The task is to compare Mormonism's marks of authenticity to Christianity as it has been understood by your "mainstream" rival. Mormonism seeks to replace what exists - it rejects the foundation upon which the other churches are built, and offers a new foundation which it says is the original. You have all sorts of reasons for saying that the LDS is more securely founded than any existing churches, but history has nothing to do with why you think this; on the contrary, history - memory - has everything to do with why you will be told that you are wrong. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't really want to joust either, but...

Mkmcconn, you said, "...church is said to be built upon the one foundation of apostles and prophets. The cornerstone of their foundational witness is said to be Jesus Christ." It was, it is. 74s181 03:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, you asked, "Has this foundation expired..."? No, the original foundation has always been there. Unfortunately it was buried deep beneath centuries of rubble beyond the reach of any mortal shovel, even one wielded by such powerful men as Martin Luther, John Wycliffe, John Hus, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin. They were able to tame the underbrush, beautify the park and lay a new foundation, but the original foundation remained buried and forgotten. 74s181 03:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, you asked, "..or might it be superceded?" I don't recall any Biblical passage that said the need for apostles or prophets had come to an end. This doctrine was invented to allow the reformers to justify their actions, it was a necessary evil. However, the need has never been greater than it is today for someone with apostolic authority to continually guide Jesus Christ's true church and correct error like the apostles of the New Testament did. 74s181 03:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, you asked, "Must we have new apostles and prophets in every generation"? Yes, when Judas died he was replaced, see Acts 1:26. Other apostles were called later, most notably, Saul / Paul, see Galatians 1:1. Catholics believe that the Pope is the apostolic successor to Peter. LDS believe that the foundation was finally uncovered by God, the only One who could, and that the first apostles of this dispensation were ordained by Peter, James and John, apostles of New Testament times. 74s181 03:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, you said "Mormonism seeks to replace what exists - it rejects the foundation upon which the other churches are built, and offers a new foundation which it says is the original." That's your belief, and you're entitled to it, but it isn't what LDS believe and I think you know that. 74s181 03:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No Mk, that is not accurate; in fact it has nothing to do with this article. The article is not a whizzing match to "prove" who is the true church or which is the best church. The topic is a comparison between Mormonism and other Christian churches. The difficulty pointed out by TCC is valid; the article reads as if Catholicism and Orthodoxy is an afterthought rather than being the primary comparison because they are the largest Christian group in the world. The comparison of beliefs is not one that decides which is accurate and this conversation is going too far afield. I don't care if Mormons think God is blue and rides a cloud around in the sky or that other Christians think only a select few are going to heaven and everyone else is going to hell because of the whim of God. Individual beliefs will not be judged, they will simply be presented in a neutral manner. This is beginning to smack of the worst form of expression of Christianity; you are wrong and are going to hell and we are right and going to heaven. If you don't believe like we do, then you should be burned at the stake for heresy. What is even worse, it has nothing to do with TCC complaint about the article. Let's get back to improving the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree and apologize for my rant. 74s181 11:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with what? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If the conversation is going far afield, Storm Rider, I don't see how that's my fault. TCC pointed out that under the section on "Religious authority" there is a respectably documented statement explaining the LDS view, which says in summary that only the Mormon church fits the description of the Mormon church. That seems obvious enough. It's followed by a general summary of the contrasting view, that in general terms is true of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism - that in contrast to Mormonism, mainstream Christianity locates its authority in the transmitted memory of what we have been caused to believe about what we have seen and heard concerning what God has done in Christ, passed on by a spiritual stewardship, an inherited understanding. This seems equally obvious - and yet, the article has languished for months without generating much interest or attention to filling out this picture. This leaves the article imbalanced. And of course, my old argument is that the bottom half of the article is nothing but argument and should be re-written. TCC also complained about misleading or imprecise language - and I've attempted to draw out the exact issue of difference here.

I don't think much of the criticism that "Catholicism and Orthodoxy is an afterthought rather than being the primary comparison". If there are comparisons made which do not hold true for Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, then they should be corrected. But since Mormonism throughout its history, until rather recently I imagine, has been more constantly engaged with Protestants than with Catholics or Eastern Orthodox, I would think that it would be germaine to the topic to keep the scope of comparison inclusive of Protestantism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That goes back to what the purpose of this article is, or should be. If it's supposed to be contrasting Mormonism largely with the religious matrix it rose from, it's both lost focus and is misleadingly titled. One way or the other, adjustment is needed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've shuffled a couple of sentences in the lead, in the attempt to correct this organizational flaw. Does it help? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't see that it reads any differently, and I'm still not sure what this article is supposed to be about. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Then I'll need more explanation from you, to see what you think it ought to be about. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually have no opinion on what it ought to be about. My criticisms were based on what it appeared to be. If it is what you say it is -- as I said, I have no objection to such an article -- I have relatively little interest in the subject. The Mormon claim to be the Christian Church are based on its idea of a Great Apostasy and a restored Gospel, right? A comparison to historic/traditional/mainline Christianity when examining that claim appears to me entirely beside the point and not terribly productive. I would more expect a comparison with ancient sects Mormons might identify as representing true Christian teaching, if any such existed, an examination of the reasons why the greater church rejected them, what NPOV historical evidence there might be for a Great Apostasy and how it created a discontinuity with what went before, and so forth. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It turns out to be less fruitful than you might think, to focus on why Mormons think catholics are apostates; because, they evidently don't think that. In fact, it's evidently impolite in their view, to cast doubt on anyone else's beliefs. Although they speak of themselves as a restoration of ancient Christianity after a great falling away, what they seem in practice to mean is that they are the perfection of Christianity. So, it's confusing if you try to clarify the implications of the Great Apostasy - it seems to amount to little more to them than that they deny the Trinity. Instead, they will emphasize what is more orderly and disciplined in the LDS - which they attribute to prophetic guidance - compared to what appears to them to be a chaotic mess in Catholicism, Orthodoxy or (perhaps especially) Protestantism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

74s181, I asked the questions you answered to see if I could discover where TCC was coming from - what the issue of difference is between us. I welcome your answers to them, of course. Thank you at least for allowing me to tell you what the LDS claims mean to the non-LDS. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 08:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Mkmcconn, your response to my rant was very gracious. I also thank you for allowing me to tell you what your claims mean to me. I apologize for the rant, let's talk about improving the article. 74s181 11:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Your rant? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please edit chronologically

When you guys edit out of chronological order it makes the article very difficult to follow. Though I am aware a minority of editors enjoy doing so, I find it disrespectful of the editors who edited prior to them. Further, when others then edit in chronological order future readers find the discussion disjointed. I request that you please edit chronologically so as to make this discussion easier for all to participate and feel like their comments are valued and that future readers are more capable of following the progression of logic and thought. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Subject of this article

We need a clear mission statement for the article, a consensus on what it is about. Until we have that, we are building on sand.

I think that the article should be about why Mormons think they are Christians, and why non-Mormon Christians think they are not. 74s181 12:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeffrey R. Holland talked about this subject in a recent conference address to TCoJCoLdS. He said:

...there is one thing we would not like anyone to wonder about—that is whether or not we are “Christians.”

By and large any controversy in this matter has swirled around two doctrinal issues—our view of the Godhead and our belief in the principle of continuing revelation leading to an open scriptural canon. In addressing this we do not need to be apologists for our faith, but we would like not to be misunderstood. [3]

I think that the article should focus on these doctrinal differences,

1. The definition of God and Jesus Christ.
2. Continuing revelation / Open scriptural canon.

In his talk, Elder Holland focuses on the the definition of God and Jesus Christ. This is certainly the most visibly divisive doctrine. In the past, I have argued that the ultimate question is whether or not JS,Jr. was a prophet, this is the approach taken in 'Overview comparison'. I still think this is the crux of the biscuit, but the problem with this approach is that some mainstream Christians believe in the concept of continuing revelation, they just reject the LDS claims.

Clearly, all MC are united in the trinitarian formula and in their rejection of all who believe differently. I think this should be the main focus of the article. I also think that every other difference in belief and practice can be traced back to these two concepts, Godhead vs. Trinity and contining revelation vs. closed canon. What do you think? 74s181 12:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"why Mormons think they are Christians, and why non-Mormon Christians think they are not" is a debate topic. "This vs that" is a contest. I don't think that it's fitting for Wikipedia to host a debate. The article should be what TCC says it is not, yet. It should describe Mormonism's claim to be Christianity restored to its original authority and structure; and it should describe comparable issues of authority, structure, theology, etc. in mainstream Christianity. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

However, I do think that the goal of "being understood" is a good guide in what the article should look like. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comparison is not debate

74s181, consider how differently you and I would hear a statement such as these, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

• 234 "The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of Christian faith and life ...".
• 249 "From the beginning, the revealed truth of the Holy Trinity has been at the very root of the Church's living faith, principally by means of Baptism ..."

This is Christianity aside from any arguments with Mormons; it speaks as a Catholic statement for Catholics ("mainstream" for "mainstream"). But surely you can admit that this is not the central issue of Mormonism. You may use words that belong to us, but here's an opportunity to clarify why this similarity of words is superficial. The point is that you do NOT belong to us, and make no claim to belong to us. So, how do you account for not belonging to us - this must be what the article is about.

If the article were "Protestants and catholicism" - do you see that this would be the same kind of article? If Protestants see themselves as defending the catholic faith, why are they not Roman Catholics? Well, there are reasons. Here is the same sort of issue: if Mormons see themselves as genuinely Christian, why do they not belong to the historic, the ecumenical, the traditional, the catholic, the orthodox, the mainstream, the trinitarian Christian faith? Well, there are reasons.

In contrast to what the Catholic catechism says is the central mystery of Christian faith and life, what is the central mystery of Christianity according to Mormonism? Speaking as a Mormon, for Mormons - how would you explain yourself? My guess would be, exaltation is the central mystery of the Christian life and faith according to Mormonism. If that were to be right, then we have an issue that can be clarified for the purpose of comparison. Do you see why this is more fitting, than setting up a defense and attack model ("why Mormons think they are Christians, and why non-Mormon Christians think they are not")? Explain on the one hand, explain on the other hand; try to avoid debate (that is, avoid "this vs that, us vs them", avoid what you described above). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 19:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You are only looking at it from one perspective: yours. From other perspectives it may be very different. For example, a Hindu would probably look at the Christian Trinity and the Momron Godhead as being basically the same thing, particularly when you get down to the nitty gritty of what is officially defined. From an outsider's point of view, Mormonism is simply another branch or protestantism that in addition to rejecting popes, bishops, catechims, and all the other little details that many protestants have dismissed or rejected from Catholicism. Mormons simply have a different list. So, this article should not be about why Christians don't accept Mormons as Christians, because the majority of the Earth's population would agree that Mormons are Christians. Do you think Suni's are Muslim but Shi'ites are not? Or from your perspective are they the same religion? Most Westerners would say they are the same, even though bloody wars have been fought by them over their differences, each rejecting the other. This article needs a much larger perspective than the one you propose. 208.203.4.140 20:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

First, you seem to be arguing that Wikipedia articles should seek to adopt a perspective that no one holds - or speak as though "the majority of the earth's population" somehow IS the neutral point of view. You cannot select the perspective of people who are ignorant of the difference, and on account of their lack of interest canonize them as the proper referee. A neutral point of view is not a point of view. To answer your question, it should matter to Wikipedia that Sunis do not consider Shi'ites Muslims, if it matters to Sunis and Shi'ites - after all, these are the claimants to definitive Islam, not Wikipedia (nor "the majority of the earth's population").

Second, you appear to interpret me as though I sought to conclude the opposite of what I've argued. I have said the same thing repeatedly, for years now on this page, the article should NOT be a debate about whether Mormons are Christians. It should instead be an explanation of what Mormonism means by calling itself Christian; and since this claim is made over against a better known definition, it is relevant to their claim to know what the better known definition is, which Mormonism supercedes by its claims. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: 234 - I think the author believes that the concept of the Trinity is a mystery, and is the most important aspect of Christianity.

Re: 249 - I think the author believes that the Trinity doctrine was present from the beginning of Christianity. I don't understand the phrase "principally by means of Baptism". I thought perhaps it was a fragment, and found "CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH". There's some interesting stuff here, the next statement caught my attention:

250 "During the first centuries the Church sought to clarify her Trinitarian faith, both to deepen her own understanding of the faith and to defend it against the errors that were deforming it..."

The author is correct about "errors that were deforming it", unfortunately, the eforts of "the early councils" and the "theological work of the Church Fathers" wasn't enough to overcome the lack of apostolic authority. 74s181 04:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I think I understand your position, I think your belief is that the Trinity doctrine is the definition of Christianity, so if one rejects the Trinity doctrine, one cannot be Christian. I disagree, I don't think that Jesus Christ or any of the apostles said anything like this. There are a few Biblical statements that could be interpreted to support the "3 in 1" Trinity doctrine, but there are just as many if not more that support the Godhead (Latter Day Saints) / "three separate and distinct beings who are one in purpose" doctrine.

In my opinion, the Trinity doctrine today is much like the so-called 'Law of Moses' in Jesus Christ's time. 90% of the 'Law of Moses' doesn't appear in the Old Testament, it was supposedly written from oral tradition handed down from Moses. But the Jews were so invested in these false traditions that they had forgotten the spirit of the true gospel taught by Moses and the other prophets. Christ tried to remind them, they didn't much like it. 74s181 04:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"...an explanation of what Mormonism means by calling itself Christian..." Does that mean you agree with half of my proposal - "I think that the article should be about why Mormons think they are Christians..."? 74s181 04:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"...know what the better known definition is, which Mormonism supercedes by its claims." This statement got my attention, I'm not sure I understand it, I want to hear more about what you mean by this. 74s181 04:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"...what is the central mystery of Christianity according to Mormonism? Speaking as a Mormon, for Mormons - how would you explain yourself?" Three scriptures came to mind:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Moses 1:39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

Finally, all of 1 Corinthians 13 but especially verses 9-12. If I had to pick one verse it would be verse 12:

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

And if you insist on translating 'charity' as 'love', I can live with that, too. 74s181 04:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

My two cents; Mark and TCC, for a Latter-day Saint the central, defining characteristic of a Christian is a faith that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God; that he was born of a virgin, that he lived a sinless life, that he made an atoning sacrifice for all mankind, that he died on the cross and rose three days later, and that he will return one day just as he left so long ago. That is the doctrine of the LDS church. We firmly believe that it is biblical. Jesus told us that if we love him to keep his commndments; LDS strive to do that and yet realize that they fall short daily. However, through repentance we renew our relationship with our Father. That is the most basic concept of being a Christain for LDS. All other beliefs are secondary for a LDS.

What I find interesting is that the article does not even try to define "Christian". The definition of a Christian most often used by orthodoxy is that one must believe in the Trinity; if you don't you cannot possibly be a Christian. This needs to be explained and its history reviewed briefly in the article. In my numerous conversations with all types of Christians what has always been a unanimous conclusion is that that definition has no basis as a requirement in the scriptures; it does not exist. It is a fourth century construct and was never required or taught by Jesus Christ or his early apostles. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 74 - the central or greatest virtue according to scripture is love, but that's not what I asked. I'm asking you, what is your Christian life centrally concerned with - what makes sense of it all, your goal, your hope and confidence, your faith?

The Catechism says that it is that God is one; and that from God the eternal Word who issues from his being has been given for our salvation; and that from his being the Spirit of God has been poured into our hearts, so that we say "Christ in you, the hope of glory". Who and what God is, is the central mystery of Christianity according to the Catechism. But what is the central mystery according to Mormonism?

Storm Rider, what does it mean to have "faith" that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God? How does this save you? That's what I mean by the "central mystery".

How can the article "define" what Christianity is, when there are at least two definitions in view here? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 14:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The gospel is the power of God unto salvation; faith is the first principle of the gospel. Faith is eternal; faith is a gift of God. The Bible tells us to believe in Him and we shall be saved. To have faith in Christ is come to a knowledge that He was and is our Savior; that there was a debt of sin that was completely and totally impossible for us to pay and it was paid by the sacrifice of the Son of God. Faith in Christ is to know Him and become alive in Him. He becomes our Lord and Master and we are changed in Him and brought to new life. To have faith is to act in accordance to his will, to do all that he has commanded us to do and to carry the penitent spirit knowing that we fail in our striving for obedience to his will and yet he forgives us as we seek forgiveness.

I think it best to use scripture for a definition of Christian or follower or disciple of Christ. It is okay to use something else, but only if we then qualify that term and make sure that readers will understand where the definition is coming from and where it is not coming from. This is vital to the LDS because it is impossible to prove that a LDS is not a Christian by using scripture. However, if one simply creates a definition outside of scripture then Christian only becomes a word assigned a new meaning and has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's possible to prove that the LDS is not Christian by Scripture shouldn't be our concern. I certainly don't see any relationship between the Bible and the LDS, and neither does anyone I know who isn't LDS; but to take that approach is to enter a debate. Let the travesty of presuming that Wikipedia can define Christianity be worked out on the article dedicated to that purpose. Here, let's just confine ourselves, as far as the LDS view is concerned, to determining what the LDS means by Christianity. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

74, re-reading what you've said, I see that I read it too quickly and really missed what you were saying. I'm sorry about that. "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." - should this be the central issue that everything is concerned with? Does it hold up, for example, that this is the reason for the temple ceremonies, the priesthood, the word of wisdom, the importance of the family - pretty much everything? Because, it seems so to me from the outside. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Mk, you missed the point completely. The point is to use the bible to create a definition of what is Christian. The fact is that the definition you want to use is a 4th century construct and has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, his gospel, or his Church. It has everything to do with the evolution of 4th century Christianity and present day orthodoxy. We are not trying to "prove" Mormonism is Christian in this article; our job is to report positions as referenced by reputable experts. LDS will use the Bible as a basis for a definition of being a Christian and Christianity and you will use a definition created no earlier than the 4th century. This is important and significant; that difference needs to be highlighted.

Contrary to your position I see a corrolation between Roman Catholicism and/or orthodoxy and the bible. In fact, I see a corrolation between any group that preaches Jesus Christ and the Bible. I find it virtually impossbile for any intelligent person to come to an contrary conclusion. In fact, that idividual would not be looking at reality, but would be similar to the proverbial ostrich with his head stuck deeply in the sand and thinking that he sees the whole world clearly.

Being blunt can too often be interpreted as rudeness, but given your previous statement I see that you appreciate directness as I do. LDS are amazed that there are so many people who claim to read the bible and yet remain blind to the simple truths it proclaims; like what it means to be a follwer of Jesus. However, given that there are over 32,000 denominations in the world it is obvious that there must be an excessive amount of disagreement on what is truth or correct doctrine. It is remarkable that the very foundation of their church depends not on the words of Jesus Christ, but on the words of men or what we call now Tradition. One would think that if it is going to be the cornerstone of "Christianity" it would have at least been clearly announced by the Son of God with his declaration that to not believe this single doctrine you "have no part of me". Thank God that at the end of the day it is He that will be my judge and not Tradition. My request is that when we clarify that when churches say Mormons are not Christian it is also clarified that the definition of Christian is dependent not on the words of Jesus, but on Tradition. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider, it would be sufficient to say from Scripture that Christianity is a monotheistic religion, if the LDS didn't believe that the Father is an exalted man, just one of countless uncreated intelligences, and that Jesus is the incarnation of the god of the Old Testament, Jehovah the God of Israel. If it weren't for the problem that to the LDS, the atonement means a transference of ownership of debt from the Father to the Son, maybe we could just define what Christianity is from the Bible. I did not miss your point completely. But, you are always arguing, rarely discussing - even as above - so we aren't getting anywhere. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"Mk, you missed the point completely." Storm Rider, I'm trying to follow your preference here and add my response to the end. The problem with this format is that I can't tell for sure what you're responding to. If you're responding to Mark's most recent comment, then I think that in his most recent response, Mark did get much of what I was originally trying to say. I also agree with your statements about the biblical definition of Christianity, but I don't think that is where Mark was trying to go with his original question in this section. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Mark really does not think that we should be trying to come up with an objective, bible-based definition of Christianity. The reformers have been trying to do this for centuries, we can see the result. The closest anyone has come is the ecumentical movement which basically says, declare your allegiance to the trinitarian doctrine, acknowledge that there is no 'one true church' and sign this mutual non-aggression pact.

But, Storm Rider, I agree that it is important that the non-Mormon Chrisitian position be presented as well as the basis for that position which is less than biblical. But I also agree with what Mark said a long time ago, we must allow believers to explain their belief without interruption. Then we can respond. 74s181 12:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"74, re-reading what you've said..." Mark, you are correct, your original response did miss much of what I originally meant. I think you are now much closer, but I think maybe you are focusing more on "immortality and eternal life of man" than I am. That is an important part of my response, but I was also trying to answer the 'mystery' part "...what is the central mystery of Christianity according to Mormonism?" Let me give you a couple more scriptures, please read them as a preface to those I gave earlier. Then, at the risk of making "the lights go out again" (<g>), I'll try to explain what I mean in my own words. 74s181 12:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Moses 7:29,32,33

29 And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity?

32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

33 And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood;

Now my own words. LDS have more scripture about the nature of God than most Christians, I think this makes Him even more infinite and unknown to LDS than other Christians. But not unknowable, that is a key difference. 1 Corinthians 13 contains many truths, like all true scripture can be interpreted in different (but not contradictory!) ways for different circumstances or questions. For this question I'll interpret it this way, note that this is my personal intepretation, not necessarily an official LDS interpretation, but I don't think it contradicts any LDS doctrine.

Paul said that no matter what works of righteousness we do, if doing the works doesn't help us develop Charity or, IOW, the pure love of Jesus Christ we have wasted our time. Paul then attempts to describe this special kind of Love and how critically important to our salvation it is for us to develop it as individuals. It is so important that even when prophecies, spiritual gifts, and knowledge of the true gospel is lost, or, in other words, when the apostasy comes (a future event from Paul's perspective), the pure, undeserved love of God for his children will remain, and some of God's children will continue to develop and exhibit this Love for their brethren.

But having only words on paper, Paul fails to capture the infinite nature of this kind of Love. He recognizes this and says, today we know in part, we prophesy in part, but when we stand before God our partial knowledge will seem to us as childishness, because our childhood will be over and we will be like (but not equal to) Him. Now we see the truth thru a darkened glass, but then we shall see and know God even as He sees and knows us today.

All the scriptures, prophecies, doctrines, ordinances, talks, church hierarchy, temples, etc., exist for three reasons. Again, a personal interpretation.

1. Proclaim the Gospel - help people find the truth and the organization that will help them complete their journey back to their Father in Heaven.
2. Perfect the Saints - once people are found, help them in their journey.
3. Redeem the dead - help those who have passed on complete their journey.

Bottom line, if you're looking for a mystery in LDS belief it is this. God is so infinitely greater than we are, yet helping us achieve our eternal potential is His whole purpose. God Loved us so much that He sent his only begotten Son and allowed us to torture and kill him, and then forgave us for it. I know this is true, I can't really say more than that. This is why I and many other LDS labor as little children, fumbling around, trying to understand and please our Father. And Mark, I know that you do the same with the knowledge that you have. 74s181 12:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

But what about the article? I think we first need a bilateral consensus (both Mormon and non-Mormon editors) on what the article is really about. I think this discussion has been useful to help us understand what some of the differences are, but I still think we need an outline. Then we can work as a group to develop the Mormon consensus, find references, and present it, and work as a group to develop the non-Mormon consensus, find references and present that. 74s181 12:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So far, I think that its about what Mormonism means by calling itself the restoration of Christianity, with some brief comparisons to the mainstream view: This part is structured as though it were a discussion of two different versions of Christianity. The second half discusses various arguments concerning whether Mormonism is true. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

So, you think one part should be 'Mormons believe they are a restoration of the original Christian faith because...' and the other part should be 'Non-Mormon Christians (or whatever label) believe that they are a continuation of the original Christian faith because...'. 74s181 00:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say this is what it should be about - I said it is what it is about so far. Mormonism claims to restore Christianity - as though it went away. It appears to me that the article exists in order to explain how Mormonism is different from what has come down through history. This seems to invite an explanation of how "mainstream" Christianity is different from Mormonism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"...various arguments concerning whether Mormonism is true." How is this different from "Mormons believe they are a restoration of the original Christian faith..."? Maybe what you mean is, after Mormons present their case, following is a non-Mormon (or whatever label) response to the Mormon assertions, and perhaps a Mormon followup. 74s181 00:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that there might be a reason for having an article like this on Wikipedia, but I don't see it in the second half of this article. It is a Mormon essay. To answer it would require a debate - and that does not fit the purpose of Wikipedia. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"...the atonement means a transference of ownership of debt from the Father to the Son..." Huh? LDS believe Jesus Christ paid the debt that we owe, and asks us to accept him as our Savior, repent of our sins and obey his commandments. Maybe you meant is that you think LDS believe we have sinned against the Father, the Son intercedes on our behalf so that now we owe the debt to him? Maybe you got this impression from the 'mediator' parable, but that isn't quite what it means. Yes, in the parable the mediator says "“If I pay your debt, will you accept me as your creditor?” But the debt that we owe for our sins is a debt we could never pay on our own, not in all eternity. Jesus Christ has paid the debt for all mankind. He asks us to do certain things in return, but the debt itself is cancelled. That is the point of the mediator parable, it is explained at the end:

Unless there is a mediator, unless we have a friend, the full weight of justice untempered, unsympathetic, must, positively must fall on us. The full recompense for every transgression, however minor or however deep, will be exacted from us to the uttermost farthing.

But know this: Truth, glorious truth, proclaims there is such a Mediator.

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim. 2:5.) (Boyd K. Packer, “The Mediator,” Ensign, May 1977, 54)

74s181 00:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see one deity in this scenario, but two. Isn't Jesus the incarnation of Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament? Who is the Father? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There is only one God, just as in the trinity, God is three persons, so God the Son is also Jehovah and the mediator, but the Father and Son are still one God, despite having different roles and being separate beings. I think - and this goes deep and metaphorical, so bear with me - that when the quote says "there is one God" it means not litereally the Father, or one being, but rather one perfection. There is one mediator (Jesus) that can bring man to that one perfection (God). I try not to think of God as a person or being, but as a state of being - pefect oneness. It makes it easier to understand comments like this, as well as difficult concepts like the trinity (or if you like, Godhead). Bytebear 20:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You say "just as in the trinity" - are you under the impression that you are describing Trinitarianism? Anyway, I'm still puzzled about who the Father is, if Jesus is Jehovah. Is the Father also "Jehovah"? Is that nothing more than a title of office, like "God"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that just as in the traditional Christian Trinity, that it is not as easy to explain or understand as you may think. Jehovah is another name or term for God represented by Jesus Christ. Remember, God is no a person. God is perfection, and sometimes the Father (El) represents perfection and sometimes Jesus (Jehovah) represents perfection. God is not a title or office (although I have heard that theory) but a state of being. Hense, we all may become gods (or one with God) when we also become perfect. Will we be separate, or individual gods? No, at least not in the sense of a pantheon like Greek deity, but we will be one with God. If that oneness is perfect, we could be considered God in the universal sense, and maybe even represent that perfection to some lesser perfect beings, but that too is speculation (and to some heresy). So God is singular and universal, but has different manifestations (just as the Trinity teaches), but LDS teach that these manifestations are not manifestations of the same being, but of different beings, and yet one God. This idea actually makes John 1:1 much more clear (to me anyway). Bytebear 22:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that you might be confusing modalism with Trinitarianism, when you speak of "different manifestations". God is only ever known manifest through his eternal Word, by his Spirit, according to trintarianism.

Isn't "El" translated "God"? Is this an example of how the Bible is mistranslated? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, you've said that God is not a person, but a perfect oneness, a state of being. The Father "represents" this perfection and Jehovah also represents this perfection called God. When Jehovah says in Isaiah 43:10, "... I am He. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me", how does this fit into your scheme? It sounds to me as though the Lord is saying through Isaiah that He alone is God, and that there is no other besides him either now or ever. In Isaiah 45, he says "I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me." If the Father is not Jehovah, but Jehovah is God, who is the Father? How can the Father also be God if Jehovah says that only he is God? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, which gods was the LORD condeming? They were man made gods, and it is true that God (or this perfect existance) is eternal and was never created. Now I could argue that Isaiah understood this philosophy as I do, but I doubt he did, for him Jehovah God was the one God he knew, and although I think he understood a relationship between the LORD and a deeper concept of who God is, he didn't have the full picture. He didn't know of the trinity, and certainly there was not even a concept of the Holy Ghost in his time, so for him knowing the LORD Jehovah (Jesus Christ) as God was all he could do,but there are some interesting instances where the OT uses the term the LORD God (Jehovah El) and where it uses Elohim, translated as "us" and "we", so I think the concept of a singular God nade up of possibly many beings is concievible to Isaiah, but that wasn't what the LORD was condemning. He was condeming idolotrous gods created by man. The gods he was condemning are the same gods Mormons condemn, and as such Mormons feel quite at ease with Isaiah and his writings. Bytebear 23:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question, the Lord is obviously condemning every so-called god: any god at all except himself. I can't imagine looking at it differently than that.

For what it's worth, Isaiah did know that the God of Israel revealed himself, only by the angel of his very presence and by his Holy Spirit (see Isaiah 63:9-10, for one example): just as in the beginning, God created all things visible and invisible by his Word and Spirit. Before Isaiah and since, we've believed that the Lord creates, redeems and judges by his "glorious arm". This is not a pre-creation, a mere emanation, but rather exists in Him eternally, and proceeds from Him without separation from Him or change in Him, so that His true presence is manifest; this angel or messenger is the Lord revealed: "I am", who spoke to Moses. This eternal word "became flesh and dwelt among us". The Spirit which he caused to save Israel is not any other than his own spirit, and to have this Holy Spirit is to have communion with God, just as your own spirit is in communion with your own mind. We haven't ever known the only God otherwise than this, but we know him more nearly and fully now. This same Spirit in whom the Father dwells has been sent to dwell in our hearts, where the Scripture say he 'cries out "Abba Father"'. So, God, his Word and his Spirit, has always been our salvation.

But what you are describing, this ideal, this level of cosmic attainment or state of being, this principle of perfection or impersonal state of oneness that would be mute unless it had a representative to speak for it, all this seems quite different, frankly, from anything I would call "God". I'm not sure, but it also sounds a bit different from what Mormonism teaches - although perhaps Mormonism can tolerate such ideas, as speculations or theories, I'm not sure that it can be called teaching. Is it? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) The ideas I present are mostly my own (and others that I have studied). The LDS Church keeps things simple: The Father, Son and Holy Ghost is one God (2 Nephi 31:21). The Father and the Son have bodies of Flesh and Bone, the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (D&C 130:22). Jesus Christ as Jehovah created everything visible and invisible as described in the creation story, but the spirit of man existed eternally and was organized by the Father. Therefore we are both eternal and created. I also believe all of these doctrines are well stated and understood from the Bible, but you have to look past the interpretations and views of 2000 years of Christian tradition to understand it. otherwise you have to justify the many references to pre-exsitant man, which is to you heretical, and yet Biblical (as one example amongst many). Bytebear 03:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, to find such an interpretation, you must ignore 2000 years of Christian tradition. Thank you for your frankness and clarity. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 05:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"...ignore 2000 years of Christian tradition..." Isn't it more like 1700 years? The Arian controversy was so serious that 300 Bishops traveled great distances, spent a month arguing about it and even with the threat of excommunication and exile, still failed to reach a true consensus. Doesn't sound like there was a clear understanding of the doctrine prior to the conference. 74s181 06:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The "2000 years" refers to the notion that souls have no beginning - we are uncreated intelligences; the Father is being with a flesh and bone body; the Father of whom Jesus is the Son is not Jehovah, etc. These have not been taught, and to see them in the Bible one must look past 2000 years of what has been taught. Regarding the Arian controversy, yes, there arose a need to clarify the doctrine. And since then, there has been more clarification. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"...sounds a bit different from what Mormonism teaches..." Strictly speaking, this is true, some of what Bytebear is saying would not be taught in any LDS classroom, but it is within the parameters of what is taught, and I know many LDS who would agree with much of what Bytebear has said. 74s181 06:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"The LDS Church keeps things simple..." This is very true, those who teach in LDS classrooms are instructed to try to keep classroom discussion focused on the more essential doctrines. By that I mean, there are many things about the Father and the Son that we don't fully understand, but we have enough knowledge for our current needs and there are other doctrines, more fundamental and important that we haven't mastered yet. 74s181 06:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You expect to grow up, no longer to be like a child tossed to and fro on every wind of doctrine, carried about by waves, from one opinion to another. Common sense tells you that maturation in your understanding does not mean apostasy. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's my two cents worth on the LDS view of God.

• God the Eternal Father is the father of our spirits. He has a body of flesh and bone. Shortly before his martyrdom, Joseph Smith, Jr. spoke about the nature of God, much of what he taught has been repeated by successor prophets. There is some mystery here, but LDS don't worship the mystery aspect and are discouraged from spending a lot of time speculating although many do so at some point during their lives. 74s181 06:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Jesus Christ is a spirit child of the Father just as we are. However, he holds a unique status as the "only begotten son" of the Father. Again, there is speculation and some controversy on what that means, but officially, it means that He distinguished Himself in some unknown way and held a special status in the pre-mortal realm. We can 'become' begotten sons and daughters of God, that is the purpose of the Gospel plan. 74s181 06:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Jesus Christ created all the worlds that are, including this one, under the direction of the Father. He did this as a spirit being. We may have participated in this work in some way. 74s181 06:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Jesus Christ has spoken to many prophets over the ages. Sometimes he speaks in the first person on behalf of the Father, I believe this is called "Divine investiture of authority". Sometimes he speaks for himself in his role as shepherd of Israel. 74s181 06:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Jesus Christ was born to the virgin Mary, lived a sinless life, was baptized by John the Baptist, performed many miracles, was crucified and rose on the third day. Although sinless, he was not 'perfect' (complete) in mortality (see Mark 10:18), and did not become so until after his resurrection. He still inhabits this resurrected and glorified body today and will do so throughout eternity.
• The Holy Ghost is a spirit being who acts as a witness of truth. He provides knowledge directly to the mind, bypassing the five senses. There is official doctrine that he will receive a body at some future time, this is one of those 'mystery' areas where some people speculate, but such speculation is discouraged in LDS classrooms. 74s181 06:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• In My Humble Opinion, polytheism implies a multiplicity of Gods that are often in conflict. This is radically different from the LDS 'plurality of Gods'. Conflict between the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost or any other being that can be called 'God' is inconceivable, although separate beings they will always make the same decision, come to the same conclusion, act in the same way, there can never be more than one perfect answer to any question. Thus they are 'one', and we can use the term 'God' to refer to any individual member of the Godhead, or to the Godhead as a whole. Yet they are separate beings. The only mystery for us mortals is how any two beings, much less three, can be in such harmony. This is what perfection means. Yes, there are things about the past that we don't know today, but we will learn these things eventually, when such knowledge is needed. 74s181 06:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Also, In My Humble Opinion, those who formulated the Nicene Creed were faced with a real quandary. The majority rejected the idea of Jesus Christ as a 'creation', yet they were concerned that a statement making the Son equal to the Father would confirm the accusation of polytheism coming from the Jews. Thus the three-in-one 'mystery'. 74s181 06:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

74, guessing about the psychology of the Council of Nicea doesn't seem profitable. Athanasius is a remarkably clear writer. If you want to know how this doctrine was defended and why, you can read what he wrote concerning that controversy. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 22:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you asked "Who is the Father?" The Father is the being whose work this is, Jesus Christ is his servant.

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

Mark, while I was looking for the above references I found this, it is relevant to the 'debtor' question.

John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

Mark, earlier you sort of dismissed my comments about charity, you said, more or less, 'yes, but what really motivates you?' Here's a Book of Mormon scripture that may make it a bit more clear.

Moroni 7:47-48 But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.

Right now I feel like this charity, this special kind of love isn't just the greatest virtue, it is in fact the greatest mystery of all. But I don't know if this helps the article, I don't know if I can find references that say this is the core of LDS belief. But many references can be found supporting "This is my work and my glory...", which, in my opinion is the same thing. 74s181 06:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Whew, 74 you have said a few things that I have never heard before within the doctrine or theology of the LDS church. There is most definitely a mystery about Jesus Christ, as the only Begotten. This is a mystery beyond our understanding, but we believe to be true. We have no teaching to comprehend this fact other than that simple statement. Too often, the speculation of men, even those we know as prophets, has been repeated by members of the church, but at no time has their speculation been deemed doctrine.

I have never heard the statement that we can become "only begotten sons" of the Father. That is a vastly different statement than becoming co-heirs with Christ as the scriptures tell us. Christ prayed for his disciples to be one as he and the Father are one; that is the greatest gift offered by God to us; however, in that oneness our Father is always our God and the division is eternally clear. There will never be day when God will cease to be our God and there is only a single, only Begotten Son; that is an eternal truth.

Jesus Christ proved the value of a physical body by the mere fact that the ressurection exists. I have heard this concept of the Holy Spirit one day obtaining a physical body, but to my understanding that is pure conjecture and is not doctrine. You spoke as if it was; I would appreciate some support for that statement.

You are correct that the mysteries are discouraged. Our focus is on our personal salvation and the salvation of our brothers and sisters upon this earth. Knowledge of the mysteries provide no saving grace and are as difficult to grasp as the wind. Attempting to describe mysteries too often puts an individual in the position of presenting speculation as fact and worse, moves the topic away from that which offers salvation. That which should garner our focus and attention is summed best by the 4th article of faith, "We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost." When we step outside of the fundamentals found in the standard works, the scriptures, we begin to enter into the realm of speculation.

This is one of the difficulties or complexities of the LDS religion. It is taught that whatever is said by inspriation of the Spirit in general conference by the general authorities is the word of God and what is presented in church publications likewise. This is too often construed to be all words spoken by them is the word of God (notice the absence or clarification of direction of the Spirit). The church has always been quite clear when something becomes doctrine it is presented to the body of the church for support to add to scripture. Not surprisingly, very little of the speculations of the prophets or leaders of the church has made it into modern day scripture. Coincidentally, it is also the area that poses the most problems for critics of the church; they spend an inordinate amount of time on the writings of leaders of the church, which has not been accepted as doctrine. If we can be edified by their writings, then let the Spirit guide; but if not, then wait for the day when the Spirit does so. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say we become "...only begotten sons...", we will never equal Him but can become like Him. More correct to say we can become 'also' begotten sons and daughters - D&C 76:24 "That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God." Given time I might find a better scriptural reference for becoming begotten sons and daughters than this, but seeGordon B. Hinckley, “Daughters of God,” Ensign, Nov 1991, 97 74s181 14:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the idea of the Holy Ghost obtaining a body is 'out there' in more ways than one. You have heard it, I have heard it. Doctrinally it makes sense. But I would have a hard time finding a reference for it. I agree, 'official doctrine' was a bit strong, maybe I'll see what I can find. 74s181 14:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"The church has always been quite clear when something becomes doctrine..." I taught Gospel Doctrine class for a long time, and I am pretty sure that the official curriculum, approved by the First Presidency, says that we should treat the conference issue of the Ensign as scripture. It isn't canonized, it doesn't have the same weight as the canonized scripture, but I'm pretty sure that if someone speaks on a topic in General Conference it is something that someone, somewhere, needs to hear and accept as the word of God. 74s181 14:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Overall, if my excessively long posting focused too much on 'mystery' that was not my intent. I'm fishing, I'm trying to understand what it is that Mark is looking for. I think he made it pretty clear that he believes the 'mystery of the Trinity' is the defining doctrine, the heart and soul of non-LDS Christianity, I'm trying to figure out exactly what he means by that by exploring LDS belief. Right now I think that the love of God, AKA charity or the pure love of Christ is the core of LDS Christianity. It is central, clear, yet has aspects of mystery. As I said earlier, "For God so loved the world...", "This is my work and my glory...", "...faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity", or, as Mormon phrased it and JS,Jr translated it:

But charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.

I think obtaining this attitude, this love for God and our fellow men is a mystery that is worth pursuing, I think that the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, and all the General Authorities would agree. I just don't know if any of them have spoken on it in just this way. 74s181 14:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Far too many words. I can't respond. God Himself is what Christianity is concerned with. Eternal life is to share in the life of God. We are united to Christ in his death, and raised up with him by the Spirit unto life in communion with the Father. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 17:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what we would mean if we speak of the Trinity as the central mystery of the Christian religion. What I'm looking for is something that occupies such a central place in the LDS, as this central concern with knowing God. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider wrote:

"That which should garner our focus and attention is summed best by the 4th article of faith, "We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost."".

Thank you, Storm Rider. I'm still a bit unsure of what it means to have "faith" in Jesus Christ, according to the LDS, which you defined in part as ... "to know Him and become alive in Him". What does it mean to be "alive in Him?" In what sense are you "in Him"? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"What I'm looking for is something that occupies such a central place in the LDS, as this central concern with knowing God." That is also the central concern for LDS. Knowing God, learning and doing His will. Mark, it seems as if you think the central concern for LDS is something other than this. What do you think it is? 74s181 01:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, here's another thought on the importance of love. 74s181 01:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Matthew 22:36-40

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Short enough? 74s181 01:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Much better for me, thank you. I'm sorry that I don't have more patience to read everything - I'll work on that.

These are familiar commands, of course - because they did not originate with the LDS. But we have certain expectations of those who recite them - that they believe something familiar, that we understand. But you have surprises, that lead elsewhere, as when you interpreted this to mean that the LORD is not the first or the the only God:

""You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me."

So, yes, "Love the Lord your God" is what we mean if we say that Christianity is centrally concerned with worship and obedience from, through and to the Only Uncreated, the Father, Son and Spirit, The Holy Trinity, the eternal LORD. I recognize the commands. But, to assist an article like this, it seems to me that you should focus on clarifying as explicitly and clearly as you can what you mean, so that the reader would never confuse what you mean with the familiar interpretation of these familiar words.

I still suspect - I don't know, but I would have thought - that the central issue of Mormonism is your eternal progression - that formative process, from uncreated intelligence to spirit offspring, to embodiment to holy life, to resurrection, and finally to God. Why is that the wrong answer? Because, that's what I fully expected you to say. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 04:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

Yes, Eternal Life is the goal for LDS, I assume it is the same for you, although we have a different understanding of what that means. LDS believe that 'Eternal life' and 'immortality' are two different things, all in mortality will receive immortality, but only those who obey the commandments and endure to the end will receive 'Eternal life', which is to live the kind of life that God lives. 74s181 04:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You keep bringing up Isaiah 43:10, but you keep leaving off Isaiah 43:11:

10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

There is only one and will only ever be one Savior, I think He is speaking about that. But even if we attribute verse 10 to God the Father, God is, after all, the Eternal Father, can there be anything 'before' Eternal? How about 'after'? But a lot can happen 'during'. 74s181 04:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

74s181, This is a helpful explanation of the concept that you have in mind, when you say "Eternal Father", and that, because the concept of "eternal" has nothing before, and nothing after, you may yet find infinite room "during". Our thinking is unchanged, and only confirmed, by quoting verse 11. I'm unsure of why this changes anything for you. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

LDS: "Alive in Christ"

Mark, you asked what it means to a LDS to be alive in Christ. We do not have creeds that provide a ready answer that can be repeated with the often mistaken assumption that because words can be repeated that universal understanding is achieved. LDS use scripture and though I believe it will be a long response, I hope that by the end of reading a few scriptures, some quotes by Robert Millet (an LDS scholar), and some of my commentary you will understand what it means to a LDS to be alive in Christ.

• And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled. For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments. And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins. 2 Nephi 25:25-26

• But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism! Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell. Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell. For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism. Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear. Moroni 8:13-16

• And now behold, I ask of you, my brethren of the church, have ye spiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts? Alma 5:14

It is not enough to just believe in Christ. Those who follow the Light of the World will no longer walk in darkness; they become possessors of the light of life (John 8:12; D&C 11:28). A person who is in the process of becoming a new creature alive in Christ is in the process of gaining more and more light (D&C 50:24) and thereby learning and acquiring a new set of priorities. Such a one, though growing daily, is at the same time becoming more and more eager to know and abide by the will of God. There is less of "My will be done" and more of "Thy will be done." There is less of "But I want to . . ." and more of "What wilt thou have me to do?" In short, as we grow into a spiritual union with Christ, we begin to develop an eye single to the glory of God, a heart bent on building up the kingdom of God and establishing his righteousness. "And if your eye be single to my glory," the Savior declared in the Doctrine and Covenants, "your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you; and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things." Such consecration of the heart will eventuate in transcendent blessings: "Therefore, sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God, and the days will come that you shall see him; for he will unveil his face unto you, and it shall be in his own time, and in his own way, and according to his own will" (D&C 88:67-68).

As the Savior and foreordained Messiah, Jesus our Lord became the "author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" (Hebrews 5:9), and the Father's gospel—the gospel of God (Romans 1:1-3)—became his, the gospel of Jesus Christ. In the Book of Mormon there is a story of the people of Benjamin, who after having heard their king's glorious sermon, had been stirred in their souls by its import, and had made a covenant to keep the commandments of God from that time forward, Benjamin declared: "And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters" (Mosiah 5:7). By desire, through covenant, and through the mediation of the Holy Spirit, they had become new creatures alive in Christ.

To be alive in Christ is to know him not as some ethereal being, but as a personal Savior; this is to be born again. To be alive in Christ is to reflect His light to the world and to follow Him, to seek His will and forfeit our own will. To be alive in Christ is to fail miserably and yet know that we are washed in His blood unto forgiveness through the penitent heart of being a child of Christ. I am curious; how would you say that your teachings are different? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree! This is what I was trying to say with the charity / love comments but you did a much better job. Yes, being filled with with His Love, His Light, becoming as a little child and seeking His will, not because we are trying to 'earn' some great reward but because we love Him and our fellow men. And what you said about failure, that reminded me of President Packer's talk in 2004, "...when he falls he shall rise again, for his sacrifice shall be more sacred unto me than his increase, saith the Lord." (D&C 117:13) 74s181 12:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That's eloquently stated, Storm Rider. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

But 74s181, you are trying to earn something. Surely it's more meritorious if you do it for the right reason - love is the command. Nevertheless, by obedience you are earning your place in eternal life. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 16:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"...you are trying to earn something." That is how it starts out for most people I suppose. But no more for LDS than for one who accepts the invitation for baptism in any Christian church, or does no more than formally state: "I accept Jesus Christ as my personal Savior". All of these things are an act, a choice, performed in the hope of salvation. 74s181 02:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"...earning your place in eternal life." I believe this less the older I get. I no longer think I can prove anything to God, He is all knowing, after all, so he knows me perfectly, while I am a mystery to myself. The only person I can prove anything to is myself. 74s181 02:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I perceive that you are thinking I'm speaking of a difference in attitude, rather than a difference in belief. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 07:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)