Talk:Mormonism and Nicene Christianity

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)

The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthdox Church both use person(s) when discussing the Trinity. For example, the Catholic Catechism states: "255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance." Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship." "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son." In fact, there are 121 uses of "person(s)" in that document. The Nicene Creed uses the term "Being". --^StormRider 21:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

One God in three Persons is the classic Protestant expression, same as Catholic and Orthodox, e.g. Westminster Confession: "In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost." [God, and of the Holy Trinity] Actually, three "forms" sounds like Modalism, a 3rd century heresy that taught one God simply had three faces as perceived by men. Scoopczar (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you are correct most of the writings I have looked at use the word persons, I was meaning that in the context of the section, this is a very distinct difference between mormonism and christianity, and readers who belong to neither faith may have problems understanding the difference. The term persons is used in protestant, etc. church literature, with the understanding that they are one and the same, like scoopzar said God the father, etc. & John 1 says the word(jesus v14) was God. Many of the church statements have cited this difference as major. Maybe the words are fine, it just seemed to me to be very similar to the LDS perspective and that is not the case. --Alan355 (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the language is very similar between LDS doctrine and Trinitarian doctrine. Trinitarianism focuses on One God in three persons whereas the LDS Church focuses on three persons in One God or Godhead. The LDS are comfortable stating there is One God as in God the Father because that is the God Jesus taught everyone to address in prayer. On the other hand, LDS are just as comfortable acknowledging there is one Godhead made up of God the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit and each of them are God or Gods. We see them as one in purpose, but not a single entity. Trinitarianism states they are three distinct persons, but one God sharing the same substance. LDS doctrine does not have a concept similar to substance; it is unknown to us. LDS are not Trinitarian because they acknowledge that all three members of the Godhead are a God. Either doctrine is very difficult to comprehend.

Unsigned author, I appreciate youe efforts to make LDS theology on this issue sound more like traditional Christianity, but this is a major difference in understanding that is not as similar, as you describe it. TC, as quoted by the official statements of the Lutheran, Baptists, Methodists, etc. churches believes that God, Jesus & the Holy Spirit are not 3 seperate beings serving the same purpose like an earthly committee, rather they are all forms, persons or extensions of one being described in a way that is understandable in our physical realm. The Gospel of John states that that Jesus is the word and the word was God, not that they worked together. This was an important theme in early Christian creeds as it is today in modern Christian theology, that the LDS and Smith denounced. Mormons are welcome to believe differently, but this article is supposed to deal with the relation to Christian, similarities and differences. If the LDS perspective sub-division of that section needs to make the case for similarity that is reasonable, but TC views the LDS perspective on this to be very divergent, some consider it heretical, and it should be recorded thusly, I can provide references if needed.--Alan355 (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This quote from the Bruce R. McConkie might distinguish TC from mormonism: "Plurality of Gods: Three separate personages: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship. But in addition there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods" (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 576-577). Smith even described it as a "plurality of Gods" in "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" so can we discuss how to more accurate portray this difference, these teachings are not even in the same ballpark as trinitarianism. Can we include the McConkie quote in the LDS section, he is quoted in other places?--Alan355 (talk) 13:29, 7 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)

The whole section is rather iffy, and cites no sources besides scripture. I've tagged the section as original research. We should try to find scholarly sources and/or official church publications that make these explanations. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read the statement about this off the official LDS website, "Heaven and Eternal Reward", here is a little of what it says about this issue: "Those who are worthy to return to the presence of our Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ become “heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ”... Those who choose not to follow our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ will receive a reward according to what they have done in this life, but they will not enjoy the glory of living in the presence of God... After you are judged, you will live in a state of glory. Because everyone’s works and righteous desires vary, heaven includes different kingdoms, or degrees of glory." This tells me that the LDS perspective is that good works are more for reward than any other purpose, do better earn a better reward in heaven. This is very different from TC, which teaches all are unworthy and require grace for the same reward. Could we include some of this in the LDS section to clarify the position?--Alan355 (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I edited the section a little bit and added a citation link to article "The Restoration of Truth" at the official LDS website explaning the doctrine. I think this is a very brief neutral explanation of the doctrine. alan355 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.109.196.226 (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I reverted because you're engaging in some original synthesis of the sources (saying "This tells me that..."), which synthesis also contradicts more explicit statements on this topic within LDS theology. Just because people are judged according to their works in the finally judgement (as described in Revelation 20:12) does not mean that the works earn them the rewards. Earning implies an exchange of goods of equal (or comparable) value. Quite the contrary in LDS theology, an earlier page on the same site you mention states (emphasis mine): "Eternal life is a gift of God given only to those who obey His gospel. It is the highest state what we can achieve, and it comes to those who are freed from sin and suffering through the Atonement of Christ." This is similar to statements from the entry Eternal Life in the LDS website Gospel Topics section. There it states that the obedience and the ordinances are a requirement of and a preparation for Eternal Life, but in the end it is a gift (therefore not earned) made possible through the Atonement, ie Grace (see also 1 Nephi 10:6, Moroni 10:32; "Have you been saved?", Dallin H. Oaks, Ensign, May 1998; "What think ye of Christ?", Dallin H. Oaks, Ensign, Nov 1998). As Oaks points out in those references, the works, obedience, and ordinances are necessary but not sufficient for salvation/exaltation therefore they cannot be truly causative - the grace of Christ is both necessary and sufficient (Moroni 10:32), and (in LDS theology) conditional on (but again, not earned through) faith and obedience. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point that grace is important, but it is not all that is important, the official website clearly states, "After you are judged, you will live in a state of glory. Because everyone’s works and righteous desires vary, heaven includes different kingdoms, or degrees of glory." I am not making any conclusions other than it is clearly stated that people will receive different degrees of glory based on works. I sounds like grace gets you in the door and works decides what floor you go to, so my edits are accurate. The edit is not discrediting or minimizing Mormon belief in grace, it is just mentioning another important factor in exaltation. Further the original version had no citations. --Alan355 (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This article compares and contrasts Mormonism and the rest of Christianity, and so it is important to note how Mormons place more emphasis on the importance of doing good works in this life in order to be exalted. Some of the grace doctrine can be explained here for correctness, but detailed discussion of such is better suited for articles dedicated to Mormon teachings. The "Eternal life is a gift" quote would be a good one to include in the article, perhaps as a box quote. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the section works fine without that opening paragraph that I took out, which bordered too much on the OR. If we can better cite some of the information, we could fold it into the existing section. I also much prefer using the lds.org site for statements of LDS belief rather than "Mormon Doctrine" or other non-official sources. I agree with you, B Fizz - it is important to note the LDS emphasis on works, but not at the expense of misrepresenting LDS beliefs such as saying that the works result in the reward. Oaks, probably because he was a lawyer and judge, has a number of talks on the subject. With regards to the kingdom of glories and works, Oaks has this to say in "Apostasy and Restoration" (Ensign, May 1995) (emphasis mine): "In their final judgment, the children of God will be assigned to a kingdom of glory for which their obedience has qualified them...The righteous—regardless of current religious denomination or belief—will ultimately go to a kingdom of glory more wonderful than any of us can comprehend. Even the wicked, or almost all of them, will ultimately go to a marvelous—though lesser—kingdom of glory. All of that will occur because of God’s love for his children and because of the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ, “who glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands” (D&C 76:43)." Again, in this quote the causative agent that allows people to receive whatever final judgement blessing is the atonement and Christ, not the works themselves. I am not adverse to using the word "qualify" or "prepare" to describe the relationship between works and the final judgement, but words like "result" or "earn" that imply causation are not part of actual LDS theology. I also find Oaks' "Have you been saved?" (Ensign, May 1998) a good clarifier on the subject where he states (emphasis mine) "As Latter-day Saints use the words saved and salvation, there are at least six different meanings. According to some of these, our salvation is assured—we are already saved. In others, salvation must be spoken of as a future event (e.g., 1 Cor. 5:5) or as conditioned upon a future event (e.g., Mark 13:13). But in all of these meanings, or kinds of salvation, salvation is in and through Jesus Christ." --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes there was a lot of OR in the paragraph that’s why I tried to add sources that were more than a Bible verse. Again fyzix nowhere is anyone discrediting the importance of grace to LDS theology, however it is clearly taught that the degree of glory or heaven or reward are in correlation to the good works performed in life. One definition of earn is: deserve something: to acquire something as a result of personal actions or behavior. This definition accurately portrays the that a higher degree of heaven is acquired as a result of personal actions or behavior, in this case good works. "The Gospel of Jesus Christ is called the plan of salvation. It is a system of rules by complying with which salvation may be gained"—Elder E. F. Parry, in The Scrap Book, Vol. 11, page 321, lines 26-28. "Redemption from personal sins can only be obtained through obedience to the requirements of the Gospel, and a life of good works"—A Compendium, by Apostle F.D. Richards and Elder J. A. Little, page 9, lines 28-3 1. "Salvation comes to the individual only through obedience"—The Articles of Faith, by Apostle James E. Talmage, 1899 edition, page 93, paragraph 26. "The Sectarian Dogma of justification by Faith alone has exercised an influence for evil since the early days of Christianity"—The Articles of Faith, by Apostle James E. Talmage, 1899 edition, page 120, lines 29-30. These are quotes from authorized leaders of the church. Two of those quotes don’t mention grace or faith at all, and Talmage clearly believed that grace wasn’t even a factor, only works. The section you deleted didn’t emphasize works over grace, it merely stated that grace and works were both important factors in exaltation. Phrasing it any other way would not be neutral. Traditional Christianity teaches that no one is worthy and all are saved by grace alone, all gaining the same reward in Heaven. How do you recommend we phrase this difference?--Alan355 (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are reading an interpretation into those quotes that differs from how LDS. Yes, there is correlation and obedience and ordinances are required, but correlation is not causation and in no way in LDS theology do the works make someone worthy or deserving of the blessing. None of those quotes makes a definitive statement that the works cause the blessing - you have to read in that meaning. However, the statements from Oaks and from lds.org clearly point out, no one is deserving of salvation and the works qualify us but do not make us deserving. What makes us deserving is the action of the atonement in our lives, cleansing us from our sins. The LDS would fully agree with the TC statement that no one is worthy of salvation. The works in LDS theology are not to make us worthy or deserving, but to prepare us to receive the gift. That's why I said I'm not adverse to using "qualify" or "prepare" or "required" (as those are phrases directly from the sources) but I'm against using words like "result" or "earn" or "deserve" which imply causation. --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That is fair that I may be interpreting that different, but I don’t think I’m reading extra into anything, one of the quotes states “Redemption…can only be obtained through obedience… and a life of good works”. I personally think that statement is going further than either of us thinks is the correct phrasing of the concept. I think the point you are trying to make is that according to the LDS, salvation and heaven are a gift, and the level of gift is decided by the level of works, but that focus should be put on the gift and not works. I guess I don’t understand what you mean by “prepare us to receive the gift”. What determines which level of heaven is obtained if not works? It seems like the word earn is upsetting because of it’s perceived connotation? --Alan355 (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Alan, can you please differentiate between your concept of Grace and Works with the Catholic doctrine of faith and works? --^StormRider 22:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am no expert on the Catholic doctrine of Faith and works, I do know that the protestant perspective encourages works but all Christians will receive the same reward in Heaven through grace, up front my personal concept isn’t really relevant. My goal is only to clarify this concept in a way that it makes sense to every one Mormons and Non-Mormons alike. That may require phrasing it in a way that is not necessarily a Mormon description. I think the problem is in understanding the different levels of heaven and the theological impact of that. Can we add some paragraphs one that discusses grace and how it is similar to TC, and another discussing works and the levels of heaven and that relation, since there is no TC equivalent that I’m aware of.--Alan355 (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Baptism section

In case anyone is wondering why I reverted this section again: The text as written by Alan355 included general interprative titles of the references, so I standardized them to use the actual titles of the webpages cited. The Lutheran statement only supported The Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod, not the Lutheran denomination as a whole, so I removed it, although it could be put back if someone feels particularly attached to pointing out the views of the Missouri Synod. I also removed some other ambiguous words such as "larger denominations" and "do not accept Mormon baptism as authentic" and replaced the end of the paragraph with a quote to remove further ambiguity there. Hopefully this explains my actions. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for reverting, your edits are correct, I thought you had deleted to whole thing. Thanks for your help.--Alan355 (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a question about the sentence that begins, "Some denominations, such as Catholic and The United Methodist Church, do not accept Mormon baptism...." Are there any non-Mormon denominations that do accept Mormon baptism? If not, should the sentence not simply say "Non-Mormon denominations generally do not accept Mormon baptism...." and add the citations of Catholic and United Methodists beginning with "E.g.,..."? Scoopczar (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't done the research so I don't know either way. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have read many sources and opinions, not all wiki-reliable and haven’t come across a denomination that does accept mormon baptism though there is some evidence that there are individual churches that will. I don’t know what would constitute sufficient references to support that wording. I think your recommendation is accurate, but without further discussion or citation I think it may be best the way it is. --Alan355 (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem may be that we are dealing with a type of systemic bias, ie that only the denominations which do not accept Mormon baptism make public statements, making it difficult to identify those that do. Also, I think the current wording is probably the most accurate with the data we currently have. If we say "generally..." it implies that a survey of some kind has been done of the numerous Christian denominations on their stance - so either we ourselves do a survey (which begins to border on OR) or we rely on a reliable published source (the preferable option) that claims to have done the survey and puts forth the "generally..." statement. As it is right now we have statements from some well known denominations, but without knowing and without reliable sources for the position of the more numerable other denominations, I don't think a "generally..." phrasing is warranted. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think lack of acceptance implies bias, maybe lack of acceptance would be a better description, but you could be correct. There is a plethora of religious, scientific, etc. literature at best skeptical or questioning and at worst attacking and hateful towards Mormon beliefs. However there doesn’t seem to be much support material other than what is generated by the LDS church itself. This could just indicate apathy to state support or denial. This could also indicate lack of acceptance such as when Mormon views are not considered when discussing textual issues and doctrine in multidenominational settings or publications, which is common. Also many of the medium sized denomination have no central leadership and therefore finding enough authoritative sources to support such language is massive and various preachers, pastors, etc. making claims may not be indicative of the overall opinion. I agree with Fyzix, I think the wording as is, is sufficient and appropriate. --Alan355 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate and accept the caution about the word "generally." I believe, however, that the current wording is quite misleading unless there are non-Mormon denominations that do accept Mormon baptism as valid. We're talking about factual information here, not judgments. The LDS does not accept any non-Mormon baptisms; that is simply a fact. The article should be factually accurate on the other side of the equation as well. To say, "Some denominations, such as Catholic and The United Methodist Church, do not accept Mormon baptism...," if there is little or no evidence that any traditional denominations do accept it, is like saying "Some Europeans, such as Englishmen and Lithuanians, do not not live under the ocean." It is true but misleading. Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant denominations are Trinitarian and baptize on that basis. I don't see how any of them would accept a non-Trinitarian baptism as valid, whether Mormon or Unitarian or whatever. And I don't believe that any of them do, but it's hard to prove a negative. I'll search around for some RS basis before I write an edit and see what kind of response comes back from there. Thank you for your preliminary comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scoopczar (talk • contribs) 03:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Oops! Forgot to sign, thanks SineBot. Scoopczar (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice find with the Washington Post reference. I tweaked the wording a bit and replaced the religioustolerance page which just has the quote with a page which reproduces the whole article. The last sentence with the two examples seems stilted to me, but I can't think of how to reword it to make it flow better. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements, VW. The last "stilted" sentence could be removed from the article and added as a footnote. If you like that idea, go for it. You are better at reference form than I am. I would still feel better about "Most" if someone could cite at least one example of a denomination that accepts Mormon baptism. But it's a big improvement over "Some," and it does track with the W.Post citation. So it works for me, pending any new finds. Scoopczar (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This looks fine to me, the source looks good and well researched and neutral, I think the statement in the article by the Episcopalian leader that stated it was on a case by case basis is evidence that warrants "most" though not all. I agree that you could delete the last sentence and leave the footnotes after the footnote for the Post article as further support. Fyzix what do you think about this? --Alan355 (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, the preferable way forward was to find a reliable source that said as much, and the WaPo article does just that. Although, guys, as I was looking to improve the formating of the references, I found that the nonrecognition of rites (ie baptism) already has it's own section, which mentions both the Catholic and Methodist views along with a couple others. It kind of seems redundant to say the same thing twice in the same article. What do you all think about removing the last paragraphs in both the LDS perspective and Traditional perspective sections under baptism and including any additional material from those paragraphs (like the WaPo reference, which I think is far superior to ref 135 which I think fails RS) into that later more comprehensive section. That way the baptism section can focus more on the purely doctrinal points and leave the ecumenical points (with their doctrinal reasoning) for that section. Thoughts? --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Good catch on the redundancy Fyzix. I had already deleted the last sentence about Catholics and Methodists. Now I have deleted the references to them as well in favor of the "Non-recognition" section. I like leaving the WaPo reference in the Baptism section, however, and I added an internal link from that sentence to the Non-rec section. Scoopczar (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What about moving the whole Baptism section to the Non-recognition section and make it a sub-section there and just combine all the information that way, and so that baptism will still show up in the content tree at the top? Since there appears to be lack of acceptance on both sides this might be appropriate. I think deleting paragraphs will still keep the information segmented.--Alan355 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

John 10:16 Reference

The article (and subsequent others), refer to John 10:16 as the foundational teaching for the LDS, “…And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd”. In effect, the article(s) suppose Jesus was referring strictly to the “Ancient American People” in this passage.

Here’s an alternate view from a Judeo / Christian perspective (relative to this particular article): Contextually in this verse, Jesus was speaking directly to an audience composed almost entirely of Jews. In turn, we know that the Hebrews were God’s chosen people – the sheep of His pasture. But believers assert that one reason for the Messiah's coming was to share and extend the Gospel message to the Gentiles (the "other sheep" not of the "Jewish fold"). Until Jesus, Gentiles were a group excluded from the inheritance and blessings of Israel. I believe Christ was saying that through Him, Gentiles and Jews would together become “One Fold” with “One Shepherd”. Essentially, Jesus was including all mankind into the inheritance of God – who's presence was no longer reserved only for the Jewish nation. The Apostle Paul says something similar when he calls the Gentiles “grafted branches”. Not to mention the Bible, in several locations, clearly identifies these two named groups (Gentiles and Jews) being joined together under One Messiah. Apart from the loose application that “Ancient Americans” were by definition Gentiles, how does John 10:16 absolutely define Mormon teachings as proposed? In effect, Ancient Americans were no more “Gentiles” than any other non-Jew throughout history. Why do the LDS interpret (based on John) that Christ positively meant that he would visit Meso-America with the Gospel? An alternate view should be presented for continuity, but I would also like some feedback on this. Thanks. HBCALI (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

On an article and talk page like this one, it's easy to drift away from creating a better encyclopedia article and toward a expounding one idea or another. It would be fine to contrast the Mormon interpretation of John 10:16 with that of traditional Christian denominations as long as RSs are used and the difference is stated objectively and succinctly. Those are my thoughts. Clearly it is a pivotal passage for Mormons. We would do well to stay away from OR that draws and comments from the primary sources and injects our own analysis as editors. Those are my thoughts. Thanks for asking. Scoopczar (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested in the LDS view on this topic, you should probably check out 3 Nephi 15 (Book of Mormon on LDS.org). Particularly, verses 22-24 say this about the 12 apostles in Jerusalem:

“ And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching. And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost. But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me. ”

The Christian view that the John 10:16 passage refers to the Gentiles is, to my knowledge, quite common. Finding sources for it shouldn't be hard if required; even apologetic Mormon sources would probably confirm that the Mormon view differs from the common Christian view in this case. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Bfizz, and Scoopczar are right, you can probably get a good reference from just about any scholarly commentary on the Gospel of John, David Lipscomb stated that, “Among the Gentiles were many who, when they heard the truth, would accept and follow Jesus. These he calls his sheep of another fold.” (“A Commentary on The Gospel of John”, Gospel Advocate Company, Nashville, TN, 1939, pg 156) A brief description should serve the purpose of making this a “better encyclopedia article.” The TC interpretation isn’t really a foundation as much as it is a common understanding of direction. Since it is a common TC belief, I think it’s fair to focus on the LDS perspective of what that means and why, and a short note of how TC interprets that same scripture. Do you want to use the reference that I’ve found to support the article or I can write an edit and put it up for review?--Alan355 (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Do what you feel is best. Perhaps use that reference for now, and later we can replace it if a more suitable one surfaces. ...comments? ~BFizz 07:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with B Fizz. Scoopczar (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My only reservation is that I don't see where in this article, as HBCALI seems to have implied, John 10:16 is used or described as foundational teaching. Maybe I'm wrong and going blind, in which ignore what follows. If it's already a part of a section, then sure let's add in a reference for the TC perspective. However, I don't see a need for a new section in and of itself just for this point because it is a minor, narrow teaching imo (really a subset of BoM and scripture or House of Israel), and I think there are more significant and broader points not yet included. Is there a reason why this point of comparison is significant? Does this point come up regularly in discussion about Mormonism and Christianity? We could probably go through the entire Bible and grab hundreds of verses where the TC and Mormon interpretation differ - what rubric do we use which ones to include and which ones not to? I just don't think that this point is significant enough on it's own (could maybe fit in a discussion on beliefs about House of Israel) nor within the context of a comparison of Mormonism and the larger superset of Christianity. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Either my ctrl-F skills are waning, or your're right. I can't find any existing mention of this in the article. Sorry for commenting without checking the article. ;) HBCALI, why did you bring it up? We could squeeze in a sentence or two somewhere about it, if it fits, though not 100% necessary. ...comments? ~BFizz 15:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I'm guilty of the same thing, I was just providing support with the assumption that this topic was being discussed on the page. I think I agree with Fyzix, that there are a large amount of scriptural interpretations that vary, technically both perspectives can be right, if you assume that the message was to be delivered across the oceans eventually one way or the other. HBCALI given the more significant points of differences, why this one in a short encyclopedia article? Thanks for checking behind us Fyzix.--Alan355 (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

After this discussion of John 10:16, it seems striking to me that the article has no distinct section on the Mormon belief concerning an Israelite heritage of native Americans and a post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to them. This belief is a highly notable distinctive from TC. Mention of John 10:16 would seem to be a smaller component of this major belief that sets Mormonism apart. It could be included in an expansion of the BoM section, but perhaps that section is long enough already. Scoopczar (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)