Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity

McConkie reference

It appears that this guy's book (ref 3) shuold be replaced by something accepted by this religion. Mormon_Doctrine_(book) indicates it is controversial. Someone who knows something about this topic should get a better ref. --Fremte (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The book reflects the most popular LDS position on most issues (often because Mormons have just adopted his views), but it does not reflect the official position of the LDS Church. I see nothing wrong with citing him as "a prominent Mormon position". You have to be careful, though, because parts of his book either contradict the current official doctrine of the LDS Church, or are considered obsolete or quaint. As to footnote 3, I don't think we ought to quote his exact language, because it is misleading. His point is that Mormons believe their religion is the same as the Christianity of Jesus. Most Mormons would not argue that traditional Christianity (i.e., Protestantism, Catholicism, etc.) is not Christianity. COGDEN 18:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please rewrite or leave as you think best in this case. Your suggested resolution to the main LDS article convinces me you have a gift for finesse with such matters. --Fremte (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I kind of did more than just rewrite. I kind of just revamped the first two paragraphs. Hopefully the revised version is better. In particular, I thought the prior version implied that violent conflicts between Mormons and non-Mormons were about whose religion was right. Actually, the conflicts and wars were about the fact that non-Mormons viewed Mormon doctrines and practices (such as alleged abolitionism, block voting, theocracy, and later polygamy) as subversive. COGDEN 00:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the McConkie reference is important. It is succinct, clear and representative. I think that Mormon editors who worry that mainstream readers will misunderstand it are worrying too much. The article only confirms the quote, and effectively removes the risk of misunderstanding.

The expansion of the introduction to, now, two rather long paragraphs explaining the Mormon version instead of the previous one, is not helpful if the goal is to introduce the comparison and contrast that follows. If there's another goal - perhaps, for example, to make the Mormon position more clear and complete even at the risk of redundancy - then the two paragraphs do that. Is that really what you want? — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 18:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I just read the intro, changed a few words, but then began to read the rest and I am not comfortable with the language. The LDS Church teaches an apostasy, which was not an absence of truth, but the presence of error. The LDS Church does not teach that it is the only Christian church, but rather it teaches it is the true church within Christianity. The current intro uses statements and language that are not common within LDS teachings and in fact conflict with doctrine. -^StormRider 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

StormRider, Maybe you could give some examples. I'm not sure I understand the distinction between the absence of truth versus the presence of untruth, which in my mind is the same thing. Mark, as to McConkie's view that Mormonism was "indistinguishable from Christianity", I just don't think it accurately reflects the most common Mormon perspective. That predominant view is that Mormonism is a subset of Christianity, though the only true and valid subset of Christianity. As far as I know, this was the predominant view both in early Mormonism, as well as later Mormonism. McConkie had very strong opinions about other Christian religions, once going so far as to call the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon, for which he got scolded by the more temperate and moderate David O. McKay. So I wouldn't necessarily take his views on this subject too seriously. COGDEN 09:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Better said would have been not an absence of truth, but a presence of error. For example, the teachings of Jesus have been present since the time of Christ. This is the presence of truth. An absence of truth would be complete i.e. there is no truth, which does not make sense given the teachings of Jesus presence. To have a presence of error does not deny that presence of truth, but that the teachings of man entered into theology. LDS teaching would say the doctrine of the Trinity is a teaching of man and that it is error; that the simple truths of the scriptures have been confused by the teachings of man. Trinitarian doctrine did not fully flower until 325 when it became a prerequisite for the faithful. The doctrine and the requirement of belief in it are viewed as having nothing to do with Jesus Christ and his teachings. Does this clarify better?

I agree completely with your summary of the LDS view of Christianity. The LDS Church has never denied the Christianity of others; however, there have been individual members/leaders who have made some outlandish statements and have been scolded for such. Early McConkie writings were quite strident, but as he aged I found that he softened considerably. He is an interesting fellow.

I don't have time today, but will give examples later. Always good to have your input, COgden. -^StormRider 17:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

COgden, maybe the statement reads differently in its context, but it sounds no more strident than it is to say "Mormonism and Christianity are not two different things". I find such anti-abstractionism refreshing, in the context of debate on this topic. But it's up to you. On the other topic, I would like to see the two paragraphs shortened to essentials. Since they state the Mormon side, I would rather see the Mormon editors try to fix them. To me, they sound desparate, argumentative and preachy, and I doubt I can do justice to their intention. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 01:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If McConkie's statement were a Venn diagram, I would interpret him as saying that the circle labeled "Mormonism" and the circle labeled "Christianity" were equal and co-extensive. That differs from the most common Mormon perspective, which says that Mormonism is a subset of Christianity--that is, that Mormonism circle is entirely enclosed by the Christianity circle. Other possible non-Mormon views might be that the two circles partially intersect--that is, that some of Mormonism is Christianity, but some of it isn't--or that the circles are nonintersecting and separate--that is, that Mormonism is entirely outside of Christianity.

I do agree that the intro needs a bit of shortening, and that there are redundancies that need to be removed. I might take a crack at it if I have time, or someone else can take a stab. COGDEN 18:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"That differs from the most common Mormon perspective, which says that Mormonism is a subset of Christianity--that is, that Mormonism circle is entirely enclosed by the Christianity circle. Other possible non-Mormon views might be that the two circles partially intersect--that is, that some of Mormonism is Christianity, but some of it isn't--or that the circles are nonintersecting and separate--that is, that Mormonism is entirely outside of Christianity."

This is precisely what needs to be in the article I think. That these are the viewpoints or perspectives. And the reason the article is important, is that the containment or overlap (either) is quite substantial if when of considered at its minimum levels. --Fremte (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The terms: Mormon & 'latter day saints'

Are members of the Mormon church themselves called 'latter day saints', and if so, is the convention to capitalize it to 'Latter Day Saints', or does the capitalization belong to the formal church title? This also might represent a contrast in that the term 'saint' is reserved for the officially canonized by the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches (ongoing) and for those canonized prior to the reformation in the case of most of the others. Thanks. --Fremte (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

When identifying members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we write Latter-day Saints. The shorter designation LDS is also used and refers to the members and their church.

When Latter Day Saints is used, it can refer to some of the small denominations within the Latter Day Saint movement. You will also find some that will write it in all caps (the same way) to designate all members of the entire movement. There are additional prefixes that are used, Fundamentalist or FLDS, and in the past the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was RLDS (they are now the Community of Christ), but they have off-shoot groups that still use the term RLDS. I hope this helps; it can be quite confusing. -^StormRider 19:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Saved by Grace

It is LDS belief that we are saved by Grace i.e. that we cannot earn salvation by ourselves. However, LDS do believe that faith demands good works and that there are sacraments/ordinances that are needed. These sacraments/ordinances do not earn salvation but demonstrate willingness to obey and follow Christ. --^StormRider 21:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

New Christianity

The LDS Church does not teach or think of itself as a new Christianity. It teaches that it is the literal restoration of the primitive church organized by Jesus Christ. It does not even think of itself as "true" Christianity, but more the one true church of Jesus Christ. This does not mean that other Christian churches do not teach truths, but that the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ is found within the LDS Church.

The Apostasy as taught by the LDS Church is the loss of the authority of God. The loss was complete in that the keys of the priesthood were lost. This would mean that all eternal ordinances or sacraments were without any sealing in heaven i.e. in the sense that what is sealed on earth is sealed in heaven. Thus baptisms, confirmations, ordaining of religious to the priesthood, etc. were done after the 4th century without the God's authority. In addition, truths were both lost and new doctrines created. --^StormRider 02:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Poll vs. general references

@Scoopczar - the main reason I removed your statement citing the general references was because it was OR and the cites really don't support the claim, at least as I read the sources. For example, I see no where in the CIA where it talks about self-identification - it simply categorizes Mormonism as part of Christianity. Likewise in the EB, I do not see where in the article it discusses or even mentions the "nuances of categorizing the religion with reference to Christianity". At best the EB discusses similarities and differences in doctrine b/n LDS and orthodox Christianity, and makes only one statement (when talking about LDS views on the apostasy and restoration) where you can maybe read in that EB puts LDS outside of Christianity, but such a vague read-between-the-lines claim is way too much OR and certainly doesn't even approach a description of such nuances of categorization. On the other hand, the statement that cites the poll on the other hand is simply restating one of the findings of the poll with little to no OR on our part as editors. It's also relevant and fits the summary nature of the introduction - we have a statement that summarizes the view of mainstream Christianity and the poll summarizes the view of the US public at large. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, Fyzix. I'm okay with leaving it at that. Scoopczar (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Trinity discussion

Can we change the references that state traditional Christianity believes in God as "three persons" or "persons", The Gospel of John says "God is spirit", God, Jesus & Holy Spirit are one and the same just in different forms. So could we change all instances to say "three forms", this is a very distinct difference, that christianity doesn't recognize God or the Holy Spirit to be "persons", only Jesus was God in human form. --Alan355 (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Alan, do you have any references for such a statement? Does any Christian church use the term "forms" to describe the members of the Trinity? --^StormRider 20:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you I don't know of any that use persons, let me get back to you with more specifics.--Alan355 (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Faith and works contradiction

"Mormons do not believe they can "earn" their place in heaven through good works, but rather provide services because they believe that is what Jesus wants them to do and they feel an inner motivation of charity toward all mankind, as explained in Matthew 25:40.[94] Latter Day Saints do believe, however, that the degree to which an individual exercises faith and works diligently to serve Christ throughout their life, will have a direct impact on the glory and reward that individual receives in heaven." Based on the second sentence it does appear that the goal of the good works would at least have something to do with earning a higher level, level may not be right term. So in essence a mormon would be earning either a high place or a lower place. Wouldn't that be more accurately stated with something like they do good works to earn higher reward and also because it's what Jesus would want them to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan355 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)