Talk:Mormonism and Christianity/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk archives for Mormonism and Christianity (current talk page)
<< 1	< Archive 2	Archive 3	Archive 4 >	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.

Older discussions are archived here:

Talk:Christianity and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive1

Who is a Christian?

Agreed. Faith in Christ is definately the most important (and first) step. And as God is no respecter of persons, this places us all on the same playing field as far as ordinances are concerned. He is the Judge, just as Wesley said. Wesley does make some interesting philisophical points that can be carried to other denominations. Are Protestants truly Christian because they don't accept Church authority? Are people who are baptized in a non-trinitarian way not Christian, as Orthodox don't accept their baptism as valid? This would be very interesting to explore in an article, however I'm not sure how it would be titled/organized. Who does hold the requirements on who is Christian? Catholics? Orthodox? Protestants? Restorationists? The believer?

By the way Wesley - what is a non-trinitarian baptism? Latter-day Saints are typically baptized with the following said: "Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, Amen (see D&C 20). The person is then completely immersed in the water and brought forth agains - similar if not exacly in the manner that Paul descibes in Romans (laying down his old life and being buried in the water and coming forth "out of the grave" as a disciple of Jesus Christ). -Visorstuff 20:32, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The formula you give above is certainly trinitarian; a non-trinitarian formula that is used by a few protestant groups is along the lines of "... I baptize you in the name of Jesus ... " I'm not certain, but I think in principle a trinitarian baptism would be baptism into a trinitarian Christian faith, so the profession of faith that precedes it and so forth would also be trinitarian in spirit as well as technically. But this is something that might possibly vary from bishop to bishop, too, as far as the exact criteria for a trinitarian baptism or the application to specific cases. A non-trinitarian baptism in Orthodoxy would I think be roughly comparable to an "unauthorized" baptism in Mormonism; that is it doesn't really count and the person is still in need of a "real" baptism. Please treat this answer as unofficial and half-informed at best. :-) Wesley 18:28, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks - this has been a very interesting dialogue. -Visorstuff 00:16, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi, DJ, the last phrase in your latest edit oversimplifies:

They accept as scripture several books which most other Christians group do not recognize, and in practice treat them as superior to Christian scripture.

I'll substitute it with some similar language from the Church's main article. B 17:48, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

Genealogy

Does this seciton belong in this article? Shouldn't it be in the the main (Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints) article only? How does this section clarify that LDS is or is not Christian? UtherSRG 18:35, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

By golly, you're right! It should go in the main article. How'd it get here? Any opposition to moving it? —Frecklefoot 20:21, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ok. If I hear no objections before midnight tonight locally (NY State), I'll move it to there. UtherSRG 21:37, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yah, move it. I think it was origionally tied to the Baptizing Jewish dead deal. Visorstuff 22:35, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Done. UtherSRG 19:18, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Differences between LDS and other Christian churches

I think the article is pretty objective overall. The only line that I think should be changed is this one (which is very subjective):

"While claiming to affirm many traditional Christian beliefs, they substitute radically different definitions of key terms and phrases so as to disguise the differences."

The way it is written, it makes judgments: "substitute", "radically", "disguise."

I think the following would communicate the point more objectively and fairly:

"While affirming many traditional Christian beliefs, the LDS church differs in some of their definitions of key terms and phrases. Some non-LDS churches feel this is done to disguise differences."

I think this changes help maintain NPOV status. I'm good with it. UtherSRG 19:19, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm fine with dropping "substitute" and allowing that it's an outside perception that the purpose is to disguise the differences. However, I think the differences are great enough to justify the "radically", or another similar phrase like "differs greatly". Regardless of whether you prefer one definition or the other, or neither, I think it's objective to say that the differences are significant. Wesley 17:20, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In the "baptism paragraph", I deleted a... clause? that said roughly that LDS distinguish between Christians and non-Christians except when it comes to ordinances like baptism. On the face of it, this is nonsense. Many, many protestants can attest that they have been targeted for evangelization by Mormons carrying out their missionary work. There's a substantial amount of published literature about this, as well as anecdotal evidence. If that clause were true, the Mormon missionaries would quickly end the conversation with a "God bless you" instead of spending time in lengthy arguments. If I'm missing the point (a distinct possibility), then what was the point? Wesley 05:20, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think your edit/point is fine, and actually reads well. The semantics versus the perception is small. You may want to clarify that Mormons accept people who proclaim themselves as Christians as Christians, and believe that they are at a different stage (farther ahead) than non-Christians in their eternal progression, and will have less steps to complete, or have less to accept/obey than non-Christians. -Visorstuff 08:44, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Kudos

Excellent work on this page! Very insightful and informative. Masterfully worked. Hawstom 06:33, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

When Did Mormons Leave Christianity ?

I have a fun question that might even be useful: When did the Mormons leave Christianity? Please put your name under all of the items that would have alone been sufficient to show the Mormons had left Christianity. Add items if needed. Discuss below if needed. Hawstom 09:06, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Smith family, Whitmer family, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris weren't Christians to begin with in 1815.
When Joseph Smith decided to ask God which local church was true.
When Smith saw two personages.
When God told Smith everyone who professed the creeds of the churches were corrupted.
1. Wesley,
When Smith told his Mother he had learned Presbyterianism was not true.
1. Wesley,
When Smith ignored his local minister friend's advice that the vision was not possible and was of the devil.
1. Wesley,
When Smith saw an angel named Moroni in his bedroom.
When Smith and Cowdery said they received priesthood authority from angels twice in May 1829.
1. Wesley,
When Smith published the Book of Mormon as holy scripture.
1. Wesley,
When Smith organized The Church of Christ with himself as prophet and seer.
1. Wesley,
When Smith began teaching and practicing polygamy.
1. Wesley,
When Smith explained that God was once a man.
1. Wesley,
When Smith instituted closed temple ceremonies.

If you all don't mind, I'd like to take the votes, add them to the list like above, and delete or archive the discussion. It looks like Wesley is the only one who has voted so far. Hawstom 18:18, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to vote, but all my answers would be negative on all items. My own POV is that Christianity is a very big tent. Who am I to disagree with someone when she says she's a Christian? The word "Christian" is just a label. Pre-Christian Romans would have lumped us all together, regardless of who practices polygamy or prayer circles or who has X opinion concerning the true metaphysical nature of Jesus. COGDEN 18:07, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to vote too--none of these things makes Latter-day Saints non-Christian. There are references in the Bible that agree with these things... ;)

-wynndow Feb 6, 2004

Deletion of sloppy edits

Hmmmm...I posted a sentence on original sin, as the desire to be "as gods," which was promply deleted by BoNoMoJo, with the comment: Christians disagree on what original sin is. I will concede BnNoMoJo's comment and rephrase my own entry to be less controversial. Im not trying to be unkind or start a range war. On the other hand, to simply delete one of the principle "bones of contention" between Protestants and Mormons (in the section that is headlined to feature the areas of disagreement) is POV... Pollinator 00:34, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It has less to do with POV, censorship or whatever and more to do with you fixing your own sloppy statement. On a potentially explosive article like this, wikipedians need to exercise care to make accurate, relevant edits especially if that wikipedian isn't a regular contributor to such an article because it wastes all the other regular contributors time fixing sloppy edits. B 04:25, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

OK, point taken. Pollinator 04:34, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Question about hyphen in a word

BTW - why the insistance on hyphens in a word that's not commonly spelled that way? -Not a big deal, but puzzling? Pollinator 00:34, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please clarify the "word" to which you are referring. "Latter-day"? B 04:25, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

post-humous Pollinator 04:34, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Changing the name of this article

In conformance with Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Mormonism), which now seems to be congealing into a form that is NPOV with respect to any one Latter Day Saint organization, I think the name of this article should be changed to Mormonism and Christianity. There is very little in this article about the LDS Church that would not also apply to other Latter Day Saint organizations. Moreover, the word Mormonism should come first, because the article is more about Mormonism than Christianity. Please comment. COGDEN 03:54, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Seconded. Althought the current article specifically refers to the LDS Church repeatedly, I agree with COGDEN's conclusion that there is not much that would (or should) not apply toward other Latter Day Saint organizations...I've also been thinking for some time about having this restyled as Mormonism and Christianity (in that order for the reason COGDEN states) in accordance with Wikipedia: Naming conventions (Mormonism). B 14:20, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I also think that the article should be copyeditted to reflect the generalities, and specific differences added where applicable. (Not that I know where that would be... *grins*) - UtherSRG 14:27, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

COGDEN, (ignore if you already know this) it would have been better not to have created Mormonism and Christianity (even as a redirect) prior to moving this article because now we will not be able to "move this page" there but will have to cut and paste it and its talk page without being able to transfer the history of edits that were associated with it.

I'm not sure of that. I'm pretty sure I've been able to "move this page" to an existing redirect before - UtherSRG 16:58, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My bad. I"m wrong. - UtherSRG 17:22, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You can move pages as long as the page you're moving to is either blank or a redirect. COGDEN 17:43, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I see that it was not a problem. Pardon my earlier warning, COGDEN. B 21:00, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

I wonder why when I tried the same with another article it wouldn't let me. text in the talk: of the redirect page? - UtherSRG 21:08, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why Do Mormons Want to be "Christian" Anyway?

I still have no idea about why LDS are so keen to be thought of as Christians, when their whole church was founded on a rejection of the Christian church? DJ Clayworth 17:34, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, when you love Somebody above all else, you kind of like to be able to say you are His disciple. Sorry "the Christian church" feels rejected. It is really just certain doctrines that Mormons reject conscientiously. Hawstom 18:13, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, the LDS use a definition of what is a Christian which includes all "Christian" churches. The definition that the other Christian churches formulate excludes the LDS Church.

Also, when you start a new topic in the Talk section, please give it a heading so it is easier to edit the content of just that discussion. :^) —Frecklefoot 18:34, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Rant - Arrogance

If I belong to the only local Jewish Temple and I leave it because I disagree with how they are doing things, am I no longer Jewish? If I'm so thoroughly disgusted with how all the major branches of Judaism interpret scripture and I go through all the work of writing new scripture and founding my own branch of Judaism, am I no longer Jewish? Since Kosher foods were defined by what kinds of foods a nomadic desert peoples would best eat to survive and be healthy, if I start eating (by Orthodox standards) non-Kosher foods because I've redefined Kosher in terms of what kinds of foods an American city-dweller would best eat to survive and be healthy, am I no longer Jewish? Etc, etc. And who are you to tell me I'm not Jewish? This is the arrogance that most Christians wrap themselves in when they say Mormons aren't Christian. (It's the same arrogance when Protestants say "other Christians and Catholics", calling Catholics non-Christian.) What would be right is that non-Mormon Christians should say "Yes, Mormons are Christians, but they are far removed from our kind of Christianity." As a non-Christian, all I have to do to know a Christian is say, "Do you believe that Jesus is Christ an not just a man?" If the answer is yes, that's good enough for me. All the rest is petty in-fighting. Um.... </rant> - UtherSRG 18:40, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I usually leave this sort of comment uncommented upon, but in this case it seems to be relevant to the article. If it is arrogance, UtherSRG, then arrogance is basic to the Christian religion itself. Galatians 1:8,9 — "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." There is little controversy about Mormonism teaching another gospel. Either they are not Christians, or they are the only Christians. Your alternative forces an irrational interpretation of what Paul means by the "gospel", or else makes the Apostle's views irrelevant to the issue. As it is, it is more likely that Christians will regard your frustration irrelevant to the issue. Mkmcconn 21:10, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks UtherSRG for your comments - it's nice to have a non-Mormon perspective agree that some of the comments are "petty in-fighting." It reminds me to be a bit more tolerant of what I think is a cut-and-dry issue. -Visorstuff 01:03, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) - UtherSRG 20:51, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

UtherSRG, I know for a fact that a number of Hindus would pass your test of Christianity. When my wife was studying Hinduism and Buddhism while working on her M.Div., she took a field trip to Chicago and visited a number of Hindu and Buddhist places of worship. At one of these, there were featured side by side icons of Jesus Christ, Mary, and Krishna; they clearly viewed Jesus as another Avatar like Krishna, probably the closest thing to "Christ" or "Messiah" in their culture, and not as just a man. Mohandas Ghandi said of himself, "I am a Christian, and I am a Jew, and I am a Hindu." (probably paraphrased). So self-designation really doesn't work. Christians have both argued in council and died the deaths of martyrs defending the truths that are at issue here. Mohammad also said he received a new revelation from an angel, including a new book of scripture, but at LEAST he had the good grace to admit that his religion was different, even though it draws much from the Jewish and Christian traditions. As it is, UtherSRG, you appear to be trying to make the pluralism of Hinduism normative of all religions, so that you can feel comfortable picking and choosing what you like from each one without fear of falling into any kind of error. Wesley 19:03, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wesley, you are getting to the crux of the matter. As I understand, NPOV demands we do our best to let that Hindu (or Ghandi, or whoever) call himself Christian if he wants and leave the burden of proof to him. It doesn't really matter to me or you who calls himself Christian. UNTIL he registers at the local bookstore or church with his Christian credentials and expects to have his books sold, his baptism accepted, or his sermons heard by the congregation. At that point we demand that he at least identify his brand more specifically. The desire to check credentials is not problematic, it is wise. Hawstom 21:21, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC) (continued below)

Perhaps a misguided ecumenism is the problem. American Protestants want so badly to realize the concept of one Lord, one faith, one baptism, that they have made a pact with the devil in that they have agreed to leave their credential checking--their brand--at the door. "Are you a Baptist? Are you a Presbyterian? Are you non-denominational? No problem! As long as you are a Christian, you are one of us; we accept your baptism and offer you communion." You find yourself unwittingly having shed your brand, which leaves you with no way to check credentials except the ludicrous attempt to make the term Christian fit your brand. So when my little girl in the school yard asks your little boy what religion he is, she gets the disingenuous, but innocent, reply, "I'm a Christian, what are you?" At this point you are in a pickle because you have no way to challenge the credentials of Mormons, Catholics, etc. at the local bookstore/church except by challenging their Christianity. Hawstom 21:21, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC) (continued below)

You can't blame Mormons or Catholics or anybody else for chafing under that condition. This page should rightly be titled "Mormonism and Western Ecumenical Protestantism", "Mormonism and the Christian Ecumenical Movement" or some other more appropriate title. And all anybody is right to demand of Mormons is that they use their brand and do their best not to confuse or deceive any of the poor children of ecumenism who, bereft of their own brand, might fail to readily recognize the significance of differences within Christianity.

I can come to some compromise with your arguement. First and foremost (even though it wasn't your main point), I can give you that we should be talking about groups/organizations and not individuals, and so in that way my 'test' was incorrect. Do Hindus (as a group, not as individuals) claim to be Christian? Do they say that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior? I think not. I'm sure there are individual Hindus that say it, but individuals are not the issue in this article. We're talking about a Mormons as a group (of individuals or of organizations). In general, do Hindus (as a group) say they are Christian? No. In general, do Mormons (as a group) say they are Christian? Yes: Mormons say that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior. The gospel of Christianity is that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior. There really is nothing as core to Christianity than that. Everything else is open to debate.

And that's my second compromise - that Christianity is monotheistic (although various branches of Christianity see the monotheism in some quite different ways). Hinduism does not make Jesus the one and only godhead. Some Hindus acknowledge Jesus as one of their many Avatars. (Read the avatar article. It's worth it to see the difference. By that definition, I can postulate that many forms of Christianity would say Jesus was the one and only avatar of God. This doesn't make Christianity Hindu, nor does it make Hinduism Christian.)

It doesn't matter how Jesus became a God. That's one of the things what makes various Christian branches different from each other. The fact that Mormonism's view (of how Jesus is God) is very different from most of the rest of Christianity only places Mormonism on a very remote part of the map of Christianity.

(And my wife's working on her M.Div, too.) - UtherSRG 20:51, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

First, you claim that only the claim that "Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior" is the only requirement to be a Christian. Christians have never thought so, and the history of Christianity is full of schisms, anathemas and excommunications between people who agreed on this point; Arius, Montanus, and many of the Gnostics could have supported this claim, just to name a few. Historically, Christianity has always been about more than that statement, as both the New Testament and other Christian documents from the earliest centuries will attest.

Thank you for making my point. Christians have been doing this for generations. Some Protestants don't call Catholics Christian. From their perspective, they are correct. But from the larger perspective, they are wrong. Split split, schism, schism, excommunications galore. How many different denominations are there? Which ones are real Christians? Which ones are fake ones? To answer that question with anything but "They are all Christian if they (reasonably) say they are," is (and here's my only point again) arrogant. Individual denominations can accept or reject the rites and rituals of other denominations as they discern the truth to be. That's their right and perogative and responsibility. That discernment is correct from their sectarian POV, however the study of the entire movement of Christianity can not be limited by those sectarian POVs. - UtherSRG 02:07, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As Mkmcconn said near the top of this thread, "If it is arrogance, UtherSRG, then arrogance is basic to the Christian religion itself." It's an arrogance that comes not of thinking that we're smarter or holier or in any way better than others, but of believing that God has revealed Himself to us. (Which is the theme of Theophany, yesterday's Great Feast, incidentally.) Joseph Smith Jr. was no less arrogant when he said that God revealed to him that all the other denominations were wrong and he needed to restore true Christianity. A scientist displays the same kind arrogance whenever she announces a new discovery that contradicts the prevailing conventional wisdom in the scientific community; it's simply announcing the truth as one has learned it. Despite all the current disagreements and denominations, the vast majority of the probably over 30,000 denominations do acknowledge each other as Christian, even the Catholics. But the vast majority also do not recognize Mormonism as a sister denomination, but as a foreign religion. This is a NPOV observation of how Christians respond to Mormonism. Wesley 16:58, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Second, you grant that Christianity is monotheistic. Well and good. Mormonism is not monotheistic, except by defining the word to be more or less the same as henotheism. So Mormonism fails this simple test, even given your compromise. They differ from the Nicene Creed within the very first few words, "I believe in one God..."; one need go no further in the creed than that to see where they part ways with Christianity, as well as with Judaism and Islam. They are at variance with Christianity as it has been historically preached and practiced for 2000 years on this most fundamental of points, as well as other matters of Christology, not just at variance with American Ecumenical Protestantism. Wesley 21:51, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Whoa! Straw man. Mormonism requires belief in one God, quibbles notwithstanding. See Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, McConkie's Messiah Trilogy. Hawstom 23:39, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Worship one God (or God the Father or the Godhead), but belief in many Gods. In some respects Mormonism is like monotheism and in some respects it is like henotheism. This doesn't really need to be hashed into another long, tangential discussion thread. B 00:25, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, which is it? Hawstom says Mormonism requires belief in one God, citing most or all of the Mormon canon. BoNoMoJo admits Mormonism believes in many Gods but worships only one, which I thought was the very definition of henotheism. Who's right? If BoNoMoJo, then my arguement is not a straw man. Perhaps Hawstom was simply using "belief" to mean "worship"? Hmm. Maybe one would need to finish the Creed's first sentence before finding disagreement, depending on the definitions you try to employ. Wesley 16:58, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mormons are free to speculate all they want, but they are also required to believe their own canon, which clearly states in all four books that "Hear ye oh, Israel, our Lord is one God," and "The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which is one Eternal God." This is orthodox Mormon belief, and anybody who tries to tell you otherwise is putting their systematic theology before the duty to accept the canon. As to what, why, and how the canon means what it says, that apparently has acquired a unique Mormon slant. But the canon simply does not allow Mormons to orthodoxically (hmm. Interesting word.) deny there is one God. Hawstom 05:08, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The doctrine of how Mormons believe can be summed up in 1 Corinthians (ch8v4) by Paul speaking about earthly idols and heavenly beings: "[There is] none other God but one, for though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things, and we by him."

Mormons worship God through his Son, and don't worry about other gods, (idols or beings).

Incidentally, it is interesting that on [[1]] they are trying to figure out if most Christians belief in four gods rather than three (Father, Son, Holy Ghost and Mary) Perhaps more Christians are Henotheistic than what is portrayed above... -Visorstuff 19:55, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So you're taking Paul's reference to "so-called gods" (as most non-KJV translations say) that are here on earth or in heaven, to be referring to Mormonism's other gods of other universes?? I don't think so, but then my interpretation doesn't matter. It's enough that no Christians are on record believing in the multiplicity of gods in other universes, or for that matter believing that matter is eternal and uncreated, until Mormonism came along. Unless I've overlooked some of the 100+ gnostic sects, which I suppose is possible. To claim otherwise and quote verses like that is just like the earlier contributor who tried to prove that Mormons believe in British Israelism based on their reading of the Book of Mormon. You argued well that Mormons don't interpret those passages that way and never have. I have tried not to disagree with you about what Mormons believe, only to show how what you (and other contributors here of course) differs from what Christians have always said they believe.

As for veneration of saints, traditional Christians have dealt with who they are and how to treat them for centuries; they haven't ignored the subject. Mormonism doesn't appear to have any solid answers for who the other gods are, even though this subject goes to the basic issue of what exists, and how the things that exist came to be, who we are and who God is. These are the fundamental questions about which we disagree, and which to me seem to go much deeper than the issues that divide most other groups of Christians. I say this not to be argumentative, but only because several people here seem puzzled by what the big fuss is about.

Excellent comments - I can understand. I think the issue you are having with the division is not the traditional Christian heresies that others feel the Mormons believe in, but that Mormons combine so many of the various traditional Christian heresies that have accumulated over the centeries. I think your point is that Mormons adhere to too many of them, which creates a larger division than a sect that would adhere or believe in only one or two of the referenced heresies. Am I correct? -Visorstuff 18:16, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

First Commandment: I am the Lord your God, you shall have no others before me. How can there be others to not have before him. Must be a form of henotheism. So I won't quibble wth Wesley's strawman anyway. If we want we can move this thread to another location. - UtherSRG 02:07, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is rather obviously a misunderstanding of an English sentence. It does not mean that other gods exist, but only that because the Jews are set apart as the people of God, and are special beneficiaries of his presence among them, they are not to adopt other gods. They are not to have other gods in his presence, before his face, at all. This excludes having other gods in addition to God, even if God is preferred "before" the other gods. Mkmcconn 23:41, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is apparent from many sources that the Israelites and ancient Hebrews worshiped other Gods besides Yahweh (Jehovah) prior to the ten commandments. In this context, God is prohibiting them from worshiping "other gods" as part of a special relationship and covenant with him. Not only do Jewish scholars agree that this does not rule out the possibility of other gods, but they often say that it was one of the primary reasons of the "bargain" between Abraham and his sons and Jehovah. These scholars say He was in essence saying worship only me and I'll bless you with this land, children without number, etc. The other gods did not offer this type of deal, so that lead to the foundation of the Jewish religion and monotheism. It still does not rule out the possiblility of other gods. Read the Hebrew and see the words they use for gods. They are living gods, not dumb idols that Jews are prohibited from worshiping. -Visorstuff 00:28, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is apparent all through the Law and the Prophets that the Israelites and ancient Hebrews worshipped other gods, even after the ten commandments were given. Mkmcconn \

A vested interest in reading an evolutionary scheme into the Biblical account of history could force an interpretation that, this points to an evidential artifact of true polytheism in the Jewish scriptures. This evolutionary scheme of interpretation must be bought into presuppositionally, before it bears the weight of evidence. It is pointless to call this a "scholars" view. The fact that these scholars hold an anti-monotheistic interpretation of ancient Judaism is not fully accounted for by their scholarship. Something more basic than this motivates their conclusion. Mkmcconn 00:50, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Whoa there, slow down on the vocabulary test. In English, please spell out the bottom line of your argument? In your intepretation of the Torah and rabbinical commentary, does the Jewish religion hold out for the possiblities of other gods or not? From my readings it does. -Visorstuff 01:10, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Jewish religion does not hold out for possibilities of other gods; but some comparative religion scholars, who see monotheism as a form of religion that gradually evolved out of polytheism, think that they see their evolutionary scheme supported by the Bible and other writings. Rejecting this evolutionary idea, the Biblical picture is clear. Yes, there are many gods. They are all idols and deceitful, created spirits, except for the uncreated Creator, the God of Israel. Mkmcconn 01:23, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think our point is that these scriptures and others do not rule out the possibilities of other gods, although we don't concern ourselves with (or worship) them. I know there have been some heretical sects (mostly gnostic) that believe this, but there is also evidence that some ancient hebrews (or israelites) may have not ruled out the existence of other dieties. A typical Mormon will not concern himself with this doctrine as it has little application to life or our own exaltation. This has been a great discussion, and hopefully beneficial to other readers that want additional understanding on this interesting topic and obviously controversial division between "Mormonism and Tradional Christianity" (which I think should be the title of this article). -Visorstuff 18:16, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree. "Mormonism and Traditional Christianity" certainly sounds like a more NPOV title. It puts Mormonism on the same pages as (Traditional) Christianity, while still demonstrating that it has significant differences. - UtherSRG 21:04, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually, "Mormonism and Greater Christianity" would be most NPOV and fitting to an encyclopedia. Hawstom 05:08, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The title "Mormonism and Christianity" is NPOV--it doesn't imply that "Mormonism" isn't "Christianity" any more than "Blacks and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints implies that blacks aren't LDS. COGDEN 04:08, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Rename

So it seems something good came of my rant. Ah it seems so long ago now... (I'll try to not wax poetic...) I'm going to put the notion to a vote:

Keep the article name as is ("Mormonism and Christianity")
1. ~~. This article isn't just about "Mormonism and Traditional (or Greater) Christianity". It is also about Mormonism and heretical Christianity, such as Gnosticism or Arianism, as well as off-beat Christianity, such as Restorationism and the Jehovahs Witnesses. Moreover, to define it, we would have to create a messy article named "Traditional Christianity" or "Greater Christianity", and who is to say precisely which groups fit within the "traditional" or the "greater" category? COGDEN 04:08, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Rename to "Mormonism and Traditional Christianity"

I think traditional Christianity is inclusive of heretial sects - as it is part of the tradition of Christianity. This gets my vote -Visorstuff

Rename to "Mormonism and Greater Christianity"
Rename to "Mormonism and its relationship to the rest of Christianity"
Rename, but undecided as to new name

Place your vote how ever you wish. - UtherSRG 05:23, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

When does a religion become a "new" religion?

UtherSRG writes: "If I belong to the only local Jewish Temple and I leave it because I disagree with how they are doing things, am I no longer Jewish? If I'm so thoroughly disgusted with how all the major branches of Judaism interpret scripture and I go through all the work of writing new scripture and founding my own branch of Judaism, am I no longer Jewish? Since Kosher foods were defined by what kinds of foods a nomadic desert peoples would best eat to survive and be healthy, if I start eating (by Orthodox standards) non-Kosher foods because I've redefined Kosher in terms of what kinds of foods an American city-dweller would best eat to survive and be healthy, am I no longer Jewish? Etc, etc. And who are you to tell me I'm not Jewish? "

There is a huge difference between a person being a Jew, which is a matter of ethnicity, and being a person who adheres to the religion of Judaism. If a Jew did what you described above, they would still be a Jew, but they would no longer be practicing Judaism. They obviously would be following their own brand new religion. RK 21:17, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

(Yes, I know that being a Jew is perceived as being both ethnic and racial... but that's just silly says this raised-Jew. If two people convert to Judaism, have a kid and raise the kid Jewish, is the kid an ethnic Jew? Of course not. I used Judaism as an example because it isn't Christianity and I wanted to put the discussion about Smith 'leaving' Christianity into a different perspective.)

Why is it not so when various Christian denominations schism (and the adherents of the 'new' religion are excommunicated by the 'old' religion) that they are all still Christian, yet the schism between the non-Mormons and the Mormons isn't? And again: how arrogant of you! The next line of my text that you copied here says that to do so is arrogance! A religion becomes a new religion when its adherents as a group say it is so. When its adherents don't say it is a 'new' religion but rather it is a reforming of the 'old' religion (or some other such statement that links it with the 'old' religion) the field of that religion has been broadened.

Example: At one point the American Unitarian Assocation and the Universalist Church of America were Christian denominations. In 1961 they merged to form the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA). Around that time or a little later, the UUA is no longer a Christian denomination. Why? Because we Unitarian Universalists (UUs) as a group say we aren't. As a group, we have reject most Christian dogma (and the concept of dogma!). As a group, we have rejected being labelled as a Christian denomination, even though many UUs are Christian.

Counter example: As a group, the Mormons reject or reinterpret some concepts accepted by other Christian denominations. As a group, the Mormons accept some concepts that other Christian denominations reject. But as a group, they do not reject being labeled as Christians. It is ok (although arrogant) for other Christian denominations to call Mormonism non-Christian, but that doesn't make it so. Mormons call themselves a Christian denomination and that self-determination only widens the field as to what Christianity is. You can now talk about Mormon Christianity vis a vis non-Mormon Christianity (or Traditional Catholic and Protestant Christianity). - UtherSRG 18:48, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Interesting point. I still think we should go back to an earlier argument that the LDS Church sits on various national (US) christian coalitions, while Jewish groups and other non-Christians don't participate (although they do participate in other religious coalitions). -Visorstuff 19:56, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes! That's another good test to see if the religion is 'new' or 'reformed' - if the denomination maintains or creates ties with other denominations within the religion that are not made by those outside of the religion. I'm going to start a decision tree:

Do the adherents of the split off group claim they are a new religion?
- Yes - Then they are a new religion
- No - They claim they are a new form of the religion. Do they maintain and/or create ties that are consistant with being a variant of the religion?
  - Yes - Then they probably are a broadening of the religion
  - No - Then they may be a new religion

What more could be added to the tree? - UtherSRG 21:01, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This question was addressed long ago by Vincent of Lerins in the fifth or sixth century. He identified three criteria: universality, antiquity, and consent. See this translation of his paper: [2]. The principles he spells out have been widely affirmed by Christians for centuries. There is no need for us to invent our own criteria. Wikipedia is not for doing original scholarly work. Wesley 00:55, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree with not creating new scholarly works, but the fact remains while many or most christian adherents may not accept Mormons as Christian, most denominations officially do. It's not a democracy as to what the adherents believe, it is what is officially endorsed by the religious organizations. Does the Roman Catholic Bishops in America accept Mormon baptisms as official? No. But many other groups are excluded as well, including some penecostal sects and others who I would say are obviously Christian. But I digress. Let's change the name of the article? Visorstuff 20:55, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jesus Edits

COGDEN, I have some major historical issues with your recent edits. I, however, don't have time to list them all out or even edit. You are taking your information from one or two sources again, not taking a holistic approach to other records kept at the time. Look at newspaper entries, Mary Whitmer Journals and other family member journals from the 1830s that proclaim JS saw God and Jesus BOTH. Smith's understanding did not morph over time - he had the understanding from the time of the 1st vision of who they were. In addition, most of the early brethren saw a difference between the Holy Spirit and Spirit of God and Holy Ghost and Light of Christ and the conscience. The reference to Lectures on Faith is also weird to me and out of context - lecture five starts by saying "[Lec 5:1c] We shall in this lecture speak of the Godhead; we mean the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." The next sentence says that the Father and Son are the creators of all things (not the only two members of the Godhead as your edits read). The "Mind" if you read the context is who the Godhead operates through - which is the Holy Ghost. Read later into the lecture: "[Lec 5:2m] and these three constitute the Godhead and are one: the Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power, and fullness."

Re-read the lecture with the difference between Holy Spirit and the Spirit of God, etc in mind and with the speculation that the Holy Ghost does not yet have a body (is not a glorified immortal resurrected being) and perhaps it will make more sense to you, and fit more into what is now stated correlated Church doctrine. I think most Mormon historians would agree with me on this, I think I understand where you are going and how you got there, which is good, but how it is worded is not holistic or historically sound. -Visorstuff 19:26, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Maybe there are different interpretations of Lectures on Faith that should be included here (I've seen lots revisionism from the likes of FARMS), but I don't think you can say that Smith's view of the Godhead never changed over time. The view that Godhead doctrines have remained unchanged since 1820 is a POV of only some (not all, and not me) Latter-day Saints, and not the POV of the Community of Christ or many of other Latter Day Saint sects. Because of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I don't think that our goal here can be to state "correlated" LDS doctrine or history. Probably the best thing to do is just to quote LoF. For example, we can quote the "Questions and Answers" section: "Q: How many personages are there in the Godhead. A. Two: the Father and the Son". That seems pretty clear. In fact, this was one of the things that prompted the LDS Church to de-cannonize the Lectures in the 1920s. COGDEN 21:02, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much time you have spent reading primary documents, newspapers, journals and so forth (at Church historical office, BYU, UofU or elsewhere), but I'd encourage you to spend a day at the historical office in SLC reading copies of journals and affadavits from the 1830s and before, which will lead you to believe that he did, in fact, see two people in the first vision, and stated that at the time to family and other close associates. I believe in letting the history speak for itself, rather than the harsh interpretations that un-academic historians seem to put on the history. State the facts, don't interpret. Many of the historians you are reading get too into the interpreting aspect. There is much we don't know - simply because we don't know and the info is not available.

I also don't think FARMS or BYU Studies are revisionist historians as you suggest. I know the people involved and yes, they try to build faith, per Elder Packer's request, rather than introducing information that we don't know a thing about rather than one or two paragraphs of history. They discuss only things that are relevant and seem to affect us today. The rest is left to let others deal with as more information becomes available. It is impossible for BYU, FARMS or the Church to deal with every criticism or point of history that comes up or was at one time written about. I agree that one statement may seem problimatical until you speak to the writer to get the intent. As historians, we don't have that luxury since they are dead. Was there weird things that happened? Yes. We simply don't understand in many of the cases. Take the Adam-God Theory for an example, Young said he wouldn't discuss what he meant, as it would be too complicated for many of the saints. From my research, I personally believe he was talking about how adam was created, not that he was Eloheim like many Mormon fundamentalists. However the point is, we don't know cause we are not him, he didn't expand on the doctrine, and there is not enough data available. So most of us just let it go. Same thing with some interesting two member of the godhead statements. Smith, from my primary research, always taught that the godhead had the father, son and holy ghost. I don't see a change in any of my readings, but I can see how someone could make and support that thesis. However, most primary documents would not support it, not serious historians accept it. There is simple too much information out there against it.

In addition, there is disagreements in the Community of Christ Church between the traditionalists and the non-traditionalists on the nature of the Godhead. Bringing them into this only confuses, as they are still going through many doctrinal changes that are not accepted by the membership at large.

As for your assessment that this issue is one of the primary reasons lectures on faith was removed, I also disagree with. The Improvement Era taught that they were removed because they were not given by revelation or accepted (or given) to the Church at large (was also stated in conference). Nearly all sections in the D&C were given by revelation, are church policy or were instructions (letter) to the church by Smith, execpt the statement on Goverment which is official church policy, and the ODs which are announcements that revelations were recieved (not the revelations themselves). Lectures on Faith was for the School of the Prophets, not for the Church at large and was not given by revelation. The Church is very open about changes to doctrines, it's canon or policy. One has to read the Church News or the Ensign to see today's changes (incidentally, the changes to the BofM were discussed in a 1982-3 ensign article, but hardly anyone references it), because it is not controversial enough. anyway enough of my rant. I still disagree with your thesis/conclusions that you've posted.

Also, two personages versus beings in Mormon semantics have a very different meaning to your lectures on faith edit. Let's put the whole thing in there, including the parts from the talk page I included. -Visorstuff 23:12, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My edits don't say anything about what Smith believed in the 1820. Whether or not he saw one or two personages in 1820 is for the First Vision article. What's relevant here is what Smith taught. In 1830, he translated the BofM, which to a Protestant reading it for the first time in 1830 (i.e., most early Mormon converts), without the benefit of D&C 130 or insider knowledge about the First Vision (official 1838 version), has nothing in it that is inconsistent with Trinitarianism (three beings with one substance) or maybe Modalism (one being with three manifestations). And in 1834-35, Smith was teaching (or failing to object to Rigdon's teaching) that the Godhead had two personages. I'm probably going to start a Godhead (Mormonism) article that can explore various sectarian interpretions of Smith's teachings, and go into detail on what Smith, Rigdon, and Young may have actually believed. For the purpose of this article, however, what matters is the descriptions of Jesus Christ in Mormonism that were taught by early leaders with any degree of authority, or that are taught today in various Latter Day Saint sects.

That should read "three persons of one being and substance", rather than "three beings with one substance". Although trinitarianism is traditionally expressed in terms of Greek metaphysics as an aid toward intelligibility, it does not rest upon a particular metaphysical construct as your definition does (as per the distinction between "being" and "substance", whatever that would mean). The three persons of trinitarianism are not three beings, or three pizza-slices of God; speculative philosophy has no terms to precisely express this. Mkmcconn 23:32, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the Community of Christ, we can only refer to their official doctrine (and possibly note any significant variations). And I think we have to include their POV to the extent it differs from that of the LDS Church. Just as the LDS Church interprets primary documents in light of later theological developments such as D&C 130, the CofC and others such as the PLDS Church interpret primary documents to conform with their own later developments such as Trinitarianism. The best course is to discuss the documents and teachings as they would have been understood by a non-prescient person who heard them at the time they were made.

While the difference between a "personage" and a "being" might be apparent to some Mormons today, I am aware of no Latter Day Saint document prior to 1834 that makes this distinction. If you know of one, it would be excellent material for a Godhead (Mormonism) article. COGDEN 17:53, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I like your edits better, but still needs some work - hopefully I can get to it soon. By the way, I think the change in the Community of Christ is significant, as their doctrine in this regard is drastically different than it was 50 years ago - as are a lot of their doctrines. Perhaps adding that point in (or one about the traditionalist in the church don't subscribe to this change) would satisfy one of my issues with the section? -Visorstuff 19:52, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll leave it to you to make those edits. COGDEN 01:06, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I will start making those changes this weekend/early next week. Incidentally, the way the section was originally worded was nearly too close to Luke Jeff's essay, titled "Joseph Smith's Changing Doctrine of Deity" or something like that, to be considered original work. With so many references and passage paraphrasing to his and Boyd Kirkland's works, you may run into some copyright issues if it really came down to it. Be careful not to get this page (or the godhead mormonism) page on Lists of Copyright infringements/list of deletions. However, the authors you tend to use seem to leave out the other mounds of evidence that does not support their thesis. They are trying to prove their thesis, not give an honest look at what really happened (I even say grabbing at straws). Even Dean Jesse went down this road and concluded in different ways than the thesis you've presented. I still don't understand why you use such controversial one-sided work for references, but if you think it rounds out the articles, you must have a direction you are going, and I'll trust it. Oh well. Keep up the good work and good additions. -Visorstuff 21:57, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Historical facts, as opposed to their expression, are not copyrightable, and there is no copyright infringement unless you actually base your work on theirs. I'm not familiar with Luke Jeff, and I probably read something by Boyd Kirkland before, but I'm not sure. So any copying would have been subconscious. Is there any potential copyright problem as the articles stand now?

If my edits seem one-sided right now, its because I'm trying to focus my initial efforts on (1) the predominant secular historical view (especially if it differs from the official LDS view, to make sure it gets in the article) (2) significant minority secular views that differ from the official LDS view (as long as they are serious scholarship), (3) any significant Latter Day Saint views that differ from that of the LDS Church, and (4) any relevant direct quotes from the primary sources which speak for themselves, such as the "two members of the Godhead" cite in Lectures on Faith. I trust that there are plenty of people out there who can include the official spin of the LDS church and FARMS, which is relatively easy. After the apologetic spins get added, the articles probably won't seem so one-sided. The only place I draw the line is with anti-Mormon views not shared by serious secular historians (unless they represent the views of a significant constituency, and not just the rantings of a disgruntled ex-Mormons). COGDEN 04:08, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You may want to check out how closely your edits followed this paper found at http://www.irr.org/mit/changod.html. They are almost too close to be a coincidence, that was my point in the copyright infringe statement. Incidentally, some of Quinn's work from the 70s on succession that you put in another article was based on Hoffman documents (the Joseph Smith III blessing was a Hoffman document - I believe from the McLellin collection in Texas) and is now considered to be of skeptical orgin according to Linda Sillitoe and Allen Roberts who wrote "Salamandar" back in the late 80s. I don't think many non-Mormon historians that study the church really come to the same conclusions that you mention. I am not affilated with FARMS, but I do think that the "Official Spin" as you put it, is based on much more than random documents that are sensational or seem contradictory to other LDS Church doctrines. The grasping for sensational straws is dangerous historically and leads to the destruction of belief in any thing, whether secular or religous. Look at the loss of faith people have in Jefferson because we impose our standards on his time and hold him to what we think is right, not what he thought was right or what was culturally acceptable at the time. Any way, thanks for moving much of the info to a more appropriate place. To me though, it's frustrating to read more-than-would-normally-be-included-details, when the simpler explanation would suffice. All of us realize that you are very knowledgeable and read a lot of material that I personally consider not in harmony with the official stance of the Church or most objective historians. You are smart, no doubt about it - you know your stuff. But your edits seem off-base and historically questionable. But that is fine, as they do round out these articles. Visorstuff 08:08, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The article (http://www.irr.org/mit/changod.html) does look familiar, and I'm sure I read it, but I've looked over the article and my edits, and I cannot find anything in it that is even close. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place. When I use the source material of others, I use only the facts they state, and consciously avoid using the same expression. If there is still anything in the article that might be a copyright infringement, please let me know.

You are correct that the Joseph Smith III blessing is a Hoffman document. However, as I look into it closer, it appears that there are at least five other sources of testimony (from Joseph Smith III, Lyman Wight, and James Whitehead, John H. Carter, Sophia Cook) to the same effect, that Smith III received a father's blessing on two occasions designating (but arguably not ordaining) him as a successor. (I'm making no judgments as to their credibility, but the Community of Christ credits them.) I don't have my copy of Quinn, Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (it's been in storage for a while) so I can't check to see if Quinn cited the Hoffman document or these independent accounts. COGDEN 20:42, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I just made some further edits that I thought were necessary for the flow of the article. I removed some material I though didn't add anything to this topic, and I just included all the relevant Lectures on Faith quotes in a list without much commentary. Let me know, Visorstuff, whether these edits are true to your earlier edits and meet your concerns. COGDEN 20:40, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Looks better and more neutral to me. -Visorstuff 22:10, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Cross

Okay - have you been to any of the early temples? No crosses. The article stated the following:

Latter-day Saints do not typically use the Christian cross as a symbol of their faith. While the cross was built atop the earliest Latter Day Saint temples, many modern Latter-day Saints are disturbed by this symbol of Christ's death, and prefer instead to focus upon his life.

Weather vanes and christian crosses that adorn church buildings - even during the 1800s are very different and not sure how that conclusion was obtained (no cross on Kirtland - just a weathervane. Same with St. George. Manti didn't even get a weathervane, and Logan's weathervane is an arrow - each of the weathervanes are nearly equidistant crosses, not a traditional Christian cross). In addition, the Nauvoo Moroni (definitely not a cross), parallells masonic symbols in some respects. I've revised, but still unhappy with it. Not sure what was meant by the statement in the article - it seems out of place. -Visorstuff 22:10, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Many" or "Most"

Regarding this text:

However, the Latter Day Saint movement has had an uneasy relationship with orthodox Christianity. Despite adamant Latter Day Saint professions, very many

Let's see, how much of Christianity is trinitarian? The Roman Catholic Church alone accounts for just over half of self-labeled Christianity. Add to that the Eastern Orthodox Church (second largest single denomination), the Anglicans and at least a simple majority of the remaining Protestant denominations, and we can easily estimate more than 3/4 of self-labeled Christians are trinitarian. This is without including those Hindus and other pluralists who may call themselves Christian in addition to calling themself a member of another religion. Adding such pluralists to the equation would lower the percentage of Christians who are trinitarians; is that what is intended? Wesley 03:57, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's one thing to say that most Christians are trinitarian. It's quite another to say that most Christians think Mormons are heretics or non-Christians. There is a sizeable population of trinitarian Christians who are open the idea that people who believe in an alternate metaphysics of Jesus are still Christians. COGDEN 05:34, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

How is this "sizeable population" quantified? Is there any research to justify this assertion? Wesley 16:56, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have a book that goes into much more detail, but here is an example that is easily accessible to readers. We may want to look at how the Biblical "world view" of Christians and Christian leaders view Christ (see research at http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/MainTrends.asp. Sizable is an interesting word as it could mean the millions of Unificationists, Mormons, Baptists or any other denomination or grouping of them who beleive that. The statement is correct enough, but not descriptive as it probably should be. Since only 9% of all born again adults and just 7% of Protestants possess a biblical worldview (the accuracy of biblical teaching, the sinless nature of Jesus, the literal existence of Satan, the omnipotence and omniscience of God, etc.) in the US, and only half of the country’s Protestant pastors – 51% - have a biblical worldview, I think it is very safe to say that the majority of Christians and just under half of Christian leaders in the United States are more progressive and open in their interpretation of Christ and Christianity. Does this not make them Christian? No - that would cut the Christian population to only a few millions. It simply means today's Christians are more liberal in their interpretations of what exactly a Christian is. If only 9% believe that Christ was sinless and God is all powerful, I interpret that to mean they believe in an alternate metaphics of Jesus from traditional or conservative Christians like yourself - and most of those in that study are "born again" Christians. According to this study 91+ percent of born again Christians in America have an alternate view of Christ from traditional, conservative Christians. I would say that constitues a sizable population. If you'd like I can dig up other more accurate numbers on non-protestant sects, but Catholics in the US tend to be more liberal than Born Agains. Not quite sure how to change the wording. Sizable? Majority? Other thoughts? -Visorstuff 19:31, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The survey you cited defines a biblical worldview as: "believing that absolute moral truth exists, that it is based upon the Bible, and having a biblical view on six core beliefs (the accuracy of biblical teaching, the sinless nature of Jesus, the literal existence of Satan, the omnipotence and omniscience of God, salvation by grace alone, and the personal responsibility to evangelize)" (http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=156&Reference=B). It's worth noting that the "salvation by grace alone" would exclude most Catholics and Orthodox who may be otherwise more conservative theologically, not less, since the idea of sola gratia was introduced in the Protestant Reformation. This may explain why only Protestant pastors were surveyed. Also, headlines of the past few months have observed that Anglican churches in Asia, Africa and South America are generally much more conservative than Anglicans and Episcopalians here in the U.S.; I would suspect the same to be true in other denominations as well. That definition of a biblical worldview also doesn't exclude non-trinitarians, directly or indirectly. I don't think it contradicts my initial assertion at all. Wesley 17:32, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't disagree - sorry if it came across that way. I think "sizable" is a relative word, subject to interpretation of the reader - especially those who seem to be more liberal versus those who are more conservative. We can't make those assertions (about size and majority) in this article, as it really depends on factors including thier POV toward the particular denomination at the time, geography, historical changes and trends in Christianity and more. Sizable and majority are too relative. -Visorstuff 18:08, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There's nothing relative about "majority"; it has a well accepted mathematical definition of "greater than half" or "greater than 50%". Words like "sizable" and "most" are more relative terms, by comparison. The question of geography is easy: take the whole world into account. I still stand by my initial statement, though perhaps we should strike the word "most" from every wikipedia article even slightly controversial, since it's POV to actually quantify the term??? Look out, science articles, all the fringe theories are about to get more respect in wikipedia through a simple s/most/a majority of/ edit. Wesley 15:21, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

LDS: Who they are and who they are not

I have seen a number of references on this site now that classify Mormons as LDS (Latter-day Saints) as well as break off groups from the "Mormons." Just to clarify, the term LDS refers to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Break off groups should not be confused with members of the former because there is a big difference. I hope that helps.

Also, I would simply invite anyone who is wondering if or why Latter-day Saints are Christians to go directly to the source, that is, read the information on their websites (http://www.lds.org or http://www.mormon.org ), read the Book of Mormon (http://scriptures.lds.org/ ), talk with a faithful member of their church and see what you find. There are a lot of "conclusive" judgments made based on things people hear or are wont to believe but simply do not add up. This site is all about "developing a common resource of human knowledge" for everyone's profit. A serious investigation will give you the insight you are looking for in this and any other endeavor to find out the way things really are. I think you'll find that Latter-day Saints are indeed Christian, very much so. -wynndow Feb 06, 2004

calvinism

I can understand why calvinism was chosen as a contrast; but, editors here have chosen a badly mangled version of calvinism. I'll fix that; but watch to see if the contrast to Mormonism is hurt in the process. Mkmcconn 18:30, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Time For Weeding

This is one of those pages that just seems to attract problems. This subject is not my forte, but I can see this page is already headed for trouble like the old Book of Mormon page was. The tell-tale sign is that redundant statements are popping up all over the page. For example, at the bottom, these two statements are identical and repeat what is said at the top. I don't know what the vision is for this page, but it needs help!

Most other Christian churches, the Catholic, Orthodox, and many Protestant, do not recognise Mormons as even heretics, because of the massive belief difference.

Most Christians hold that the tremendous doctrinal differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity are significant enough to define Mormon teachings as non-Christian.

Hawstom 22:50, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes - I've noticed that there is a lot of redundancy, especially due to trying to properly place critical views. I think that you can safely prune these out as you discover them, without worrying that you are over your head. Mkmcconn 23:13, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree. There's a lot of redundant material that doesn't fit within the structure of this article. I've moved it to Talk:Mormonism and Christianity/Redundancies. I've found some useful non-redundant NPOV material there, but there is probably more, if someone can find a place for it in the article. COGDEN 21:11, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the article title. It implies that Mormonism and Christianity are two distince things. Yet one of the controversial issues about the Mormons is whether or not they are Christian, isn't it? --Uncle Ed 19:39, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. It doesn't seem any more prejudicial than "Presbyterianism and Christianity". It might communicate bias, but only to those who are either defensive, or to those who are hostile; to those who are neutral, I think it sounds neutral. But, what would you suggest instead? . Mkmcconn 21:50, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think it's pretty neutral. If we start adding words like "traditional" or "orthodox" Christianity, these words have their own connotations, because then we have to define what it means to be an "orthodox" Christian, which is a thorny question in itself. To some, Protestantism isn't orthodox, and the "traditional" Christianity is Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, or Coptic/Gnostic/Essene/whatever. Certainly John Calvin and Martin Luther didn't consider themselves to be traditional Christians. And even the apostles and their followers would seem quite unorthodox to us today, what with all their communism, miracles, glossolalia, secret meetings and rituals and stuff. COGDEN 02:22, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, Martin Luther did see himself as a traditional Christian, and started out trying to "reform" Catholicism by calling it back to what he believed were the original teachings of Christianity. He affirmed many Catholic teachings that later Lutherans abandoned. And whenever I read about the apostles and Christians of the first two centuries, they don't seem unorthodox at all. The Orthodox Church still practices "communism" in the monasteries, and the miracles etc. are still reported to occur. Secret meetings probably still happen in Muslim countries like Egypt, though I'm just guessing. The early church is still here AFAICT, warts, sinners and all. As far as the title goes, I think the current one is more current than some of the previous attempts; any suggestions for a better one? Wesley 17:43, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

opening paragraphs

It's absurd to leave the impression that Mormonism is only superficially different, and then follow this with details that go to the heart of everything that trinitarians believe about God, Christ, revelation, the Church, and the history of redemption. This is the impression left, by using phrases like "not within the range of permissible practices": as though the exclusion of Mormon doctrines from the fellowship of Christian teaching is only a matter of taste and politics, or irrational prejudice at work.

The opening paragraphs could be simplified.

"Christianity has been defined in many ecumenical and denomination creeds. Those who self-consciously accept those definitions view Mormonism, when they learn of its teachings, as by definition, a non-Christian movement. Mormonism challenges the very idea that Christianity's doctrines are valid; and consequently Mormons view themselves as being Christians - even Christians par excellence.

Mkmcconn 20:13, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think this paragraph has some useable points, but it is still too POV and it is overgeneral. There is no support for the general assertion that those who accept trinitarianism or various other creeds view Mormonism as non-Christian, whether they "learn of its teachings" or not. The fact is, most Christians probably haven't even heard of Mormonism, and if unless they studied it in depth and were good friends with a zealous evangelical, they would think Mormons were generally Christian, but maybe a little weird. Certainly, most Christians don't think Mormons are going to hell simply because the metaphysics isn't quite right. If you took a poll, I doubt most Christians would care. Of course, some do care very much, but we can't paint that POV as a mainstream POV. A more accurate statement (but POV, maybe, in the other direction) would be something like this: "Regardless of Latter Day Saint professions of belief in Jesus as the Christ, some Christians define Christianity in such a way as to exclude Mormons and others who do not share their view of the Godhead as a metaphysical Trinity." Moreover, the purpose of the creeds was not to define Christianity, it was to define who was a heretic. COGDEN 01:51, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Defining Christianity

You don't seem to be thinking of creeds, but of councils. The councils addressed heresies. A creed is precisely, a definition of belief. Catechisms and creeds define what is believed, what Christianity is, over against its innumerable alternatives. For example, the smallest children in some traditions learn this:

what is God?

God is a spirit, infinite, eternal and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.

Are there more gods than one?

There is but one only, the living and true God.

Now, while this is a definition of doctrines adopted by a particular sect of Christianity, I would predict that it would not be considered sectarian in what it affirms. If Eastern Orthodox and Catholics would also affirm that these statements are true (and in fact they do have statements that are substantially equivalent), then upon the discovery of what Mormonism teaches about the changeability and non-eternality of God, they can predictably be expected to call Mormonism false, as long as they hold to what their church teaches. There is no predicting how someone will think of Mormonism if they do not hold to what their church teaches - but these are excluded from the statement, and no prediction is made about them. So, you are wrong to say that there is "no support". The support is that the creeds intentionally affirm certain things, and logically exclude what contradicts them. Whoever holds to these affirmations, also holds to what they exclude. Mkmcconn 04:09, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree, the creeds are intended to define, or at least draw a boundary around, what it is that Christians believe. The creeds or "statements of faith" adopted by any denomination are generally intended to do just that. And many such creeds and statements are deemed to be compatible with one other, as Mkmcconn's example illustrates. Mormonism's teachings conflict with most or all such creeds. Perhaps the neutral way to state this would be, "Most Christians are members of churches whose creeds logically conflict with or exclude the teachings of Mormonism." Wesley 15:31, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wesley, that is very well stated. Why don't we say it thus? Hawstom 18:40, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Judging by the foregoing discussion, using the word "most" is not permissible, because the definition of "Christian" is questionable enough that there is no way to demonstrate what the majority represents. If Christian embraces every individual who might apply the name to himself, then surely they constitute a majority, and surely they are not necessarily "members" of anything, let alone of "churches". That's a fair extension of how the argument went above. If it doesn't apply to Wesley's summary here, then while I would be glad, and think it's the right conclusion, I would not be sure of the real state of the earlier contention that we cannot say "most". Mkmcconn 18:19, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree that creeds are intended to define the "true" faith, and the "true" Christianity, but not to define Christianity itself. For example, when the Church of England made the Westminster Confession of Faith, they didn't intend that people who didn't agree with "such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters" (chapter XXIV) were non-Christian, only that their faith was incorrect. COGDEN 23:46, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

But this avoids the simple fact that there are definitions which are broadly (ecumenically) agreed upon, which distinguish Christianity from rival religions. Anyway, I assume that this is a doomed argument. Wikipedia is consistently proactive in denying that Christianity corresponds to anything definable. Here, it is a name that belongs to anyone who uses the name to describe himself - including Hindus, theosophists and gnostics, panentheists and pantheists, and Mormons. Here, it is a label designating nothing in particular, because it is used irrationally, and meaninglessly, to embrace practically all things. It's just the way of things, and I suppose it costs very little to acquiesce to it once my objections have been noted (for conscience's sake). Mkmcconn

Unfortunately, the Master isn't here to separate out his true disciples. But I have a hunch he would exclude many who think they are in and even include many who have never heard of Him. But I think we Mormon editors can appreciate your position. You are merely wanting to draw a clear line between your ecumenical efforts and Mormonism. I don't think we balk at that. We just think it is poorly supportred to fancy your ecumenical efforts as blanket Christianity. Hawstom 18:40, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Certainly there are broadly-agreed definitions of Jesus, the Trinity, virgin births, etc., but there is no broadly-agreed-upon definition of Christianity, which is why some (rare) Hindus call themselves Christians. All my point is that there are two things: (1) Christianity, which started out vaguely as members of a Jewish sect that followed Jesus and gradually evolved into a complicated metaphysical framework of definitions, and then most recently evolved into a more pluralistic, nearly indefineable idea, and (2) "true" Christianity, which is represented and enforced by the creeds, and about which Christians differ. They aren't the same. COGDEN 05:29, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

So, that being said, "Mormonism and the Christian churches" seems like a somewhat neutral title. It is not acceptable, strictly speaking, to any Catholic or Orthodox, by the way; but, it fits colloquial speech (as opposed to correct doctrine) to talk of multiple "christian churches". And further, this proposed new title doesn't entirely abandon the case that Wesley and I have been arguing. Mormonism from the outset was presented to the world as the alternative to any of the Christian churches then existent; so this label doesn't seem at all prejudicial against them. What do you think? Mkmcconn 00:08, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think the title as it stands is about as good as we are going to get unless we were willing to use something like Mormonism and Traditional Christianity or Ecumenical Christianity or what have you. Hawstom 18:40, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Moreover, Mormonism isn't a church, but a religion and a culture, and thus it isn't quite proper to draw a parallel between Mormonism and "Christian churches". I agree with Hawstom that the present title is about the best we can do. COGDEN 05:29, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No to both of you. Christianity, rightly or wrongly, is something. It is not everything, and it is not nothing. It has a history. It is a quantity. By applying the name so liberally to everything in sight, you reduce your knowledge of it. That is the issue. Mormonism, among the many things that it denies, denies that the God of Christianity exists. There is no known creator of all things. But there is an architect, who himself in some forgotten cycle of unfolding universes arose to greatness - a pattern which you also may follow. This is not Christianity, and has never been Christianity as it has been known. Only one group in all the world thinks that it is. By elevating the POV of the Mormons, you lose all sense of proportion. By embracing them with this name, you degrade your own understanding of the name. But this is not the first place that it has been done, that ignorance has been used as the excuse for destroying knowledge. I can't stop you. So, go ahead. You are doing your job. Mkmcconn 16:36, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that the word Christianity has no meaning. The point is that it has numerous meanings: the more doctrinaire among us believe that Christianity is only what they believe and nothing else. Others use the word Christianity to apply to early Roman Christians, Coptics, Essenes, the disciples of John the Baptist, Arians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Universalists, and Mormons, and possibly anybody who follows the teachings of Christ. The point is, restricting the definition of Christianity to exclude any group who calls themselves Christian is a Point of View, and therefore we can't give it a privileged position in a Wikipedia article. All we can say is that some ("most" is not supported with hard facts) Christians exclude Mormons and other non-Trinitarians from their definition of Christianity because they don't see eye-to-eye with them metaphysically, and they are a minority, even though they define themselves as Christian. COGDEN 19:41, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually Christianity seen this way is not a point of view, but a concordance of multiple views. We are talking about the concordance of Trinitarian Christians across a great variety of denominational lines, and despite some very immovable lines of mutual hostility - these lines are nevertheless intramural, within Christianity, in a sense that has nothing to do with Mormonism and other non-Trinitarians. In contrast to this continuum, this family of perspectives, Mormonism truly is a point outside the circle. Somehow, this article appears intended to account for that fact, but at places is ambiguous and somewhat confusing in its terminology. Mkmcconn 21:09, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have an interesting question for the Mormons present in this discussion. I've asked it before and never got a good answer. When one Christian denomination accepts that another is also Christian, it carries the implication that the others are also true followers of Jesus, who don't need to be 'converted'. Do the Mormon churches accept that about the other Christian churches, i.e. that Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics etc. are also true followers of Jesus who don't need to be converted? DJ Clayworth 16:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

IMO, they have already clearly answered this by post-humously baptizing Anglicans, Baptists, Catholics etc. with the same post-humous baptism they extend to Jews, Muslims, etc. In their belief system, all of the above groups are equally in need of a Mormon baptism for... I forget the equivalent term for what other Christians might call "salvation". I asked the same question a while in a discussion of baptism for the dead, and that's essentially the answer I got.

For what little it's worth, I agree with Mkmcconn that many wikipedia editors seem to be succeeding in reducing Christianity to almost nothing. As for the claim that Christianity "gradually evolved into a complicated metaphysical framework of definitions", this framework is clearly present from the beginning, and is evident in a reading of the New Testament together with other first and second century Christian writings; the definitions became more precise only as more complicated heresies arose that required refutation. But even the first chapter of the Gospel of John takes some pains to explain who Jesus is. Wesley 17:12, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

From what I've seen, my understanding is the same, Wesley; I was hoping that one of the Mormon contributers to this page would give an answer. DJ Clayworth 17:50, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Mormon view is that other Christians are Christian if they have faith in Christ; however, Mormonism is a form of Restorationism, which includes the idea that Apostolic succession (and with it the authority to baptize) was lost at one time and later restored. According to Mormonism, baptism is necessary for salvation, and is only effectual if performed by one with Apostolic authority. Therefore, regardless of faith in Christ, you have to be baptized and confirmed by a Mormon priest to be saved. If not in this life, then posthumously by proxy. COGDEN 19:41, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Is that baptism all I need? So I don't need to believe any of this stuff that's written in the book of Mormon? I don't need to attend Mormon services or join the Mormon church? I can believe in the Trinity and so on, and still be saved according to Mormon pinciples? DJ Clayworth 14:27, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

By being baptized and confirmed by a Mormon priest, you automatically become a member of the church. After that point, the only further requirement (in theory) is that you "endure to the end", meaning that you continue to repent of your sins and do good works. Part of the repentance process usually also involves receiving the Sacrament (Communion), which like baptism must be administered by a Mormon priest, and occurs in Mormon services. So in practice, you are expected to attend church, and to do good works. Other than that, there are no requirements for salvation. Theoretically, I think you could believe in the Trinity, or various other doctrines, as long as you met the above requirements. Moreover, some LDS denominations, particularly the Community of Christ, accept the Trinity as a doctrine. Among Utah Mormons, however, there is also the issue of temple ordinances such as the Endowment, which are thought to be required for "exaltation", which is a separate concept from salvation, and means that in addition to being saved, you can also become a king or queen in the afterlife. COGDEN 17:06, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Supposing we don't classify Mormonism as a subset of Christianity, how do we classify it? Is it a new world religion? Christianity was once a subset of Judaism until it was finally universally agreed it was nothing other than a new religion. Is that what you are proposing?

Supposing we agree here that Mormonism is a new religion, what difference will it make? In 2004, the world looks at Mormonism as a subset of Christianity, just like in AD 70 Christianity was a subset of Judaism. Maybe in 50 years Mormonism will be seen as a new religion, and traditional Christianity as the old religion that begat it, but not today. There is not much Wikipedia can do about it.

How do we classify these folks--John the Baptist, Simeon, Anna, Malachi, David, Abraham, and Adam? Does our calling them Jew or Christian or simply believer make any difference? No, it is just a means of classification. Similarly, Mormonism is what it is. Maybe this page is really about Classification of Mormonism.

If we call this page Classifying Mormonism or some such, then the page has a life. Then the article becomes a history of the struggle of a new group that struggles for a peaceful identity. Hawstom 22:14, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Inevitably, yes: it is about "classifying Mormonism". However, your account of the history of Christianity fails, unless you make common cause with pagans, gnostics, atheists and others of the most radical doubters of the church -- oh. but wait. You do. All I'm asking is that you stick to your story, and stop trying for the purposes of the encyclopedia, to pass off Mormonism as the continuation of anything else existant. Let people who know nothing about either, Christianity or Mormonism, do that. They don't know any better, as you ought to. Mkmcconn \

Mormonism is not, and never has been, another Christian church, as that has been conventionally understood by anybody but the ignorant, the people whose view of things is formed from LDS television commercials. It is a rejection of all Christian churches - a substitution. These two entities only appear related to people who care nothing for either one. It is, and used to be openly so, a redefinition of Christianity. It appears in Christian eyes to be a highly spiritually destructive, but materially prosperous and (lately) socially constructive attempt to redeem a grab-bag of rejected pagan notions by recasting them in Jesus-talk and 19th century Protestant socialism and enthusiasm. The gap betweeen our perceptions of Mormonism in relation to Christendom is immense, as it ought to be if we tell the truth. Mkmcconn 23:33, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your sentences 1, 2, and 4 have good points. Yes, Mormonism is a redefinition, it is not another., and it is a rejection. But I understand the Wikipedia is not for new scholarly research. The only meaning of this discussion for Wikipedia is as it relates to the name of and existence of this page.

Two very good resources that might help establish a common agreement are adherents.com and religioustolerance.org . As for the name of this page, why don't we just either propose new names or express our support for the current one? Hawstom 23:21, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've carried on at such length, not because of the title, but because the article seems imply that Mormonism's "exclusion" from among the Christian churches, or as a "branch of Christianity", is because somebody has decided that they have more differences than are "permissible". It speaks as though Mormons wish they could be admitted to the Christian club and just be considered another among equals, but can't for stupid reasons. Examples of commonality of belief are given - as though to suggest the question "don't they sound like they're the same as other Christians, to you?". It must be Christian "arrogance" again, more senseless politics and arbitrary discrimination that accounts for this exclusion, the ariticle hints. And, it's obviously over nothing important, just a bunch of "metaphysical" issues that nobody understands anyway. Mkmcconn \

Who, of anybody who cares about this issue, Mormon or Christian, really thinks that this is the truth: that Mormons and "other" Christians agree on practically everything of importance, and divide from one another over obscure issues of "metaphysics"? This is what the article repeatedly implies, and it is absurd. Someone is not being honest, or there is some carelessness, here. Mkmcconn \

I really think that from a point of view outside partisan Christianity, that is essentially the crux of the issue. A Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or atheist would not discern much difference between Mormonism and traditional Christianity. Of course, some points of view within Christianity see a tremendous difference, because getting the metaphysics correct is extremely important among most denominational Christian theologians (though the practical importance of the metaphysics among rank-and-file Christians is debatable). So the issue is, how do we express all points of view in the article? Perhaps we need an additional paragraph explaining why the finely-tuned metaphysics is so important among most Christian theologians, and why so much of Christian history has been devoted to arguing and negotiating about metaphysical concepts like "coeternal", "divine nature", "person" and "substance". COGDEN 02:47, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've picked on the title because the article seems to struggle with identifying who the vague "they" are, those Christians who have decided that Mormon beliefs aren't "permissible", who are so insistent on imposing third century metaphysics on everyone. I think that the article is not aiming at "christianity" broadly speaking, but at the Christian churches - especially evangelical movement among the Christian churches. Mkmcconn 00:38, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To an earlier argument - Mormons do not deny they are different. They are. Yes, they see themselves as Christian. Yes they are sick of people telling them they don't believe in or follow Christ (which is the dictionary definition of a Christian). Yes they are accepted and recognized by nearly all the Christian denominations in the US and sit on many "Christian Coalitions" and "Christian Councils" that non-Christians do not. Yes many Christians do not agree with them Yes many Christians do not believe they are Christian. Mormons agree that some differences are fundamental (trinity versus godhead) while others are semantics (salvation versus exaltation). In poll after poll of Americans, Mormons are percieved as or included as Christians. Maybe I'm just missing the whole argument here, but to say someone is not what they claim to be is calling them liars. Perhaps definitions are different, but Mormons have more in common with Christians than Jews do with Christians in most cases. This is pointless. The title should be changed. The arguments are stupid. Mormons believe in and accept the divinity of Jesus Christ and His atonement. He is God. What is the point? -Visorstuff 21:31, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, my point is simply that the title and content need to avoid equivocation. If "Christianity" is so amorphous that it contains Mormonism, then the content should be meged into the Christianity article, where this view of Christianity is explained. On the other hand, if as the content of the article reflects, some contend that there is a narrower, more particular sense in which Mormons have no part in the "Christian world", and has doctrines and practices which divide them more profoundly from other Christians, so that they should properly be understood not as another version of the religion but as a new religion entirely - then, you are using "Christianity" in a very different sense than the Christianity article, and arguing with this "is stupid". Mkmcconn 21:58, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Mormonism should be in the Christianity article, if we are to follow the example of adherents.com, religioustolerance.org, or any other non-partisan view. I assume, without checking, that it is in that article. With that done, you do not see a need for this page? How about as "Classifying Mormonism"? This is really silly. I can just see the Sunni Muslims deciding they (the majority) are no longer Sunnis, but plain Muslims, and the Shiites can no longer "pretend" they are "real" Muslims. Voila! A new world religion--Shiaism! I understand there are currently recognized to be 12 classical world religions, and Mormonism is a branch of Christianity. That is not worth arguing. Only the name and purpose of this page are in question.

I think that the purpose of the page is clear from the content. There are difficulties between Mormonism on the one hand, and orthodox, trinitarian, biblical and traditional Christianity on the other. This is a unique issue, worthy of explanation. However, your contention seems to be that only Mormonism is a real thing, and Christianity in contrast to it does not exist. That's a rather silly notion, which shows some lack of familiarity with the way that non-"restorationist" trinitarian churches regard their own history and identity. Your idea, although you have frequently expressed it in the Talk pages, does not obviously show through in the article - thankfully. Mkmcconn 17:26, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are addressing - the author of the "Shiaism" comments or myself - please specify while insulting. Having taught and written about comparitive religions, I think I have a pretty good understanding of the differences between the Christian sects, and there is a large number of enumerical Christians who reject the "traditional" church fathers and their ties to catholicism.

I was addressing the comment directly above mine. I agree that there are many Protestants who are not fully aware that they stand in any tradition whatever. Their lack, and their inconsistency. Mkmcconn

While I don't disagree that there are doctrinal differences between mormons and Christians at large, I do dissagree with your allegations that Mormons are not Christians. Yes, we all acknowledge that Mormons probably resemble early gnostic sects more than modern Christianity in some respects and in others they look an awful lot like modern and pre-calvinistic Christians. I don't see your point in arguing this, when most of the organized groups out there officially recognize mormons as Christians. Not one person here has disagreed that there are great differences - and this is why this page exists. However, I know some southern baptist groups that say presbyterians anglicans and methodists are not Christians, but I do not see many 'encyclopedia' articles about this argument.

What I've tried to argue, and I apologize if I've slipped off track by addressing this "ecumenical Christianity" argument, is that just as there is a reason to call Mormons Christian, it is not without reason that in some contexts Mormonism is distinguished from Christianity - just as gnosticism is. You will find, in articles where gnosticism is discussed, almost precisely the same kind of discussion. I think that you know that this, like the difference of Mormonism, is a more substantial issue than the differences between a believing Baptist and a believing Anglican. Ask your Southern Baptist friend if he thinks that John Stott, J.I. Packer, and C.S. Lewis are not Christians. If not, he knows that he holds an unusually narrow view among his own co-religionists and is undoubtedly frustrated. Mkmcconn 03:19, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I believe that time and size have a great deal to decide yet on whether Mormonism is in itself a new world religion, but for now, those of us who study and write about religion on an academic level tend to group Mormons in with the rest of the Christians because of their similarities, rather than set them unto themselves as a world religion - although there is likely more Mormons than Jews, Sihks, Bahai and Zorastrians in the world (not combined). In another twenty years, perhaps scholars will begin to say Mormons are a new world religion. But that time is not yet. The title just does not reflect the doctrinal and cultural differences between Mormons and the rest of Christianity. -Visorstuff 02:43, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to changing the title to reflect the comparison more precisely. Personally, I do not think that the title is necessarily prejudicial; but, I can see how it can fairly be taken that way. Mkmcconn 03:19, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think the purpose of this article is to explain to readers how Mormons are perceived both within the church, by other Christians and by opponents. If the decision is that that relationship should not be addressed in its own article (I have not decided what my opinion is on this yet). With that in mind, perhaps the article contents should be farmed out as you suggested to articles such as Anti-Mormon, Christianity, History of Christianity, Christian Churches and into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Latter-day Saint Movement. -Visorstuff 01:20, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I moved this discussion to the archive, because after I made the edits that I was campaigning for, in my estimation that substantially closed the issues of concern that (as I understood them) characterized the discussion. I removed most of an introductory paragraph and changed some language which minimized the differences (with Mormonism) discussed in the article - especially where these differences were called matters of "metaphysics". If you do not object to those changes, I think that the issue is closed (as I had thought, but dispute continues). I've caused offense by my manner through this discussion - and that is my fault; and this undoubtedly has prolonged the debate unnecessarily, and unproductively. Mkmcconn \

Now, I am only campaigning for one more change - and this is the inclusion of those whose opposition to Mormonism, calling it "non-Christian", is not based on any reference to a "catholic" or "traditional", or "orthodox" perspective, but rather supposedly based on the Bible-by-itself without regard to any tradition. The article does not account for this kind of opposition, but unless I'm very mistaken, it is a significant front of those who wish to distinguish Mormonism from Christianity. Should their perspective really be left unreported? This is what I would like to discuss on the current Talk page, please. Mkmcconn 04:28, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A description of the Bible textualist view of would be a good addition. Regarding the recent changes to the opening paragraphs, however, I have the following concerns, which I have tried to remedy:

I don't think there is support for the statement that "Christians familiar with clear Latter Day Saint declarations of doctrine typically consider Mormonism to be a heretical form of Christianity, or not a form of Christianity at all". I don't even know what those "clear declarations" are, and whether the declarations are clear or not is a POV, and if included, should be explained and balanced. Since I don't think it means anything important, I removed it. Hopefully the language I put in its place is acceptable to all POVs.
There is no reason to remove the fact that the Mormon Jesus is central to the Mormon faith. I don't think anybody disputes this; what is at issue is whether or not it's the "right" Jesus.
It is not quite accurate to say that "Mormon interpretation of [the details of Jesus' life], especially as they bear upon who and what God is, substantially contradicts the traditional Christian account". There is not much disagreement with Mormons as to the Biblical narrative of his life. What is really different is Jesus' ontology (i.e., what he is).
Christology is a subset of theology, and using them both is redundant. I think that to be comprehensive, the differences between the Mormon Jesus and the Trinitarian Jesus should be described primarily as differences in ontology. In the context of christology and/or theology, ontology is the most precise word. If anyone disagrees, maybe we can say "theology and ontology", though I think that too would be redundant.

Interpretation is at issue, not philosophical vagueries. "Ontology" and "metaphysics" are alien words here. Theology, meaning, the purposes of God, these are at the center of what is contested. Beginning with a constructed cosmos rather than all things called forth from nothing, and ending with self-fulfillment as the ultimate goal rather than the all-embracing glory of the only God: from start to finish the meaning is consistently different. With such background it's evident that the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ is recounted by two conflicting witnesses: Mormonism on the one hand, and ... (who is that on the other side - the ones that Smith called "the Christian world"?) Mkmcconn 07:12, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Everything you just said is an example of ontology: the Being of a constructed cosmos, the Being of all-things-called-forth-from-nothing, the Being of and Ending, the Being of Self-fulfillment, the Being of an Only God. Mormons don't. Mormons would agree with nearly everything you can say about the meaning of Jesus' birth, life, death, and resurrection, but would not agree with the ontological questions like what king of a Being Christ Is, or what Is the Resurrection. I'm not saying these things aren't theological, because they are, but they are most properly ontological questions within the context of theology, and that's where Mormonism is truly unique. And in your (Mkmcconn's) recent edits, you replace the word ontology with words like is and Being, which means the same thing. Please explain what you have against the word ontology. COGDEN 03:06, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ontology in this context is too narrow to describe these differences. I certainly was not talking only about "ontology", above. But if you think that I was, why say "ontology" if "is" and "being" are just as clear? I would argue, the issue is made more plain by avoiding reference to "metaphysics", "ontology" or any other matters philosophical; and, this avoids packaging the issues as though they are only matters that a philosopher could give a bean about - which would be just plain false. Mkmcconn 07:25, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You have a pretty low view of philosophy. Saint Augustine would disagree with you. COGDEN 03:32, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I don't. I think you are misusing terms, here. Mkmcconn 05:42, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In sum, I'd say that you are stretching the meaning of "ontology" to touch on practically everything that doesn't meet the senses; and this has the appearance of an attempt to remove the differences between us to the realm of uncertainty, for speculation (or prophecy) to sort out. This comes back again to the role that Scripture and the faith of the Church play in the purposes of God, in guiding the believer, according to the catholic view of things. History matters to us in a way that appears excluded from your view. Time defeated the church, ruined the scriptures, and lost Christ himself and all authority for you in a way that it can not for us. All of these are issues of revelation and religion, not "ontology". Hopefully these comments are helpful in perceiving where the differences actually lie. Mkmcconn 00:10, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've got a compromise idea that I like even better. Why not say that the differences lie in the "description" or "portrayal" of Jesus. That way, we don't taint Jesus with neoplatonism, yet we also don't imply that Jesus has a fundamentally different meaning to Mormons than to other Christians, which is a dubious POV. COGDEN 03:32, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't even know what you mean by saying that there is no difference in the narrative, but there is difference in "portrayal". Come along, please. Admit that the difference we are talking about isn't something so vague. It is a difference in meaning. You mean something very different by almost everything you say about Christ: his origin, his life and death, his church and redemption. Why are you having a hard time with this? Mkmcconn 05:42, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The narrative of Jesus' birth, life, and death is the same, as is the symbolic (rather than metaphysical) meaning. If a Catholic narrated the meaning of Jesus' origin, life, and death, a Mormon would probably agree with her. It's only when she makes statements about what/who Jesus is (ontology) that Mormons would differ. For example, suppose she said that Jesus died to atone for our sins, and thereafter ascended to be on the right hand of God the Father. A Mormon would agree. But if she says that Being on the Right Hand of God means that he shares the Father's "substance" but not his "person", then most Mormons would disagree. To say, however, that Jesus means something different to Mormons than to other Christians is only a half-truth. The symbolic meaning is the same, as is the narrative meaning; only the ontological meaning differs.

I don't doubt that you are sincere in thinking so. But, I am trying to let you know that you are quite seriously mistaken. Mkmcconn 05:19, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)~

There are still some (minor) parts that are POV in the LDS direction, such as calling the Community of Christ an "apostate group", and the implication that the Community doesn't teach the doctrines of Joseph Smith. I tried to smoothe these out. COGDEN 06:35, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)