Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Archives

Previous discussions are here: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9

Disscusion Topics

Please be reminded that this webpage was created with one purpose in mind. To disscus the content on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wiki. Comments or arguments that do not contribute to the construction and improvement of this article are not neccesary, and only hinder this wiki's progress. These include arguments on items not discussed in this wiki, such as reasons why the LDS religion is wrong as compared to others, hate messages, unprovoked arguments on undiscussed topics, and messages advocating the LDS religion without an opposing argument. Please keep Wikipedia a constructive and hate-free community. Thanks, 70.65.169.165 21:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I propose merging Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with this article. If it is as important a topic as the people supporting the page on the AfD think it is, then it has every reason to be a bigger part of this article and not just a See also link. Peyna 02:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

- Other than the original proposer there was no others that unreservedly supported merging Animals into this article; thus, I am copying the discussion below to the animals talk page.

Please direct futher discussion of the target merge location to that talk page. --Trödel 03:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I continue to question your motives in suppressing this discussion and will leave this comment as a standing protest to your actions. Peyna 03:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Supressing - are you serious - additional info here Talk:Animals in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Response to Peyna --Trödel 03:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a response on your talk page. I think you may have taken my comments a bit more harshly than intended. Peyna 04:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

== New merge request. ==

This page and all LDS pages should be merged under the title Mormonism. All LDS pages are talking about Joseph Smith's teachings, the page is about his teachings anyway, so that goes to reason they read the book of Mormon therfore Mormons.You may want to seperate your modern church from its past however its past can't be changed. The current "big" branch is still preaching about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and they were part of the Latter Day Saint movement, Church and Mormonism.

This is not the main reason I suggest the change however. They should be merged because all the other religions I've read about on Wikipedia include the movements or beginings, middles and currents on their main (only) page. As in Buddist getting only a Buddism page, Hindus getting only a Hindism page and so on. If they are not merged then I feel that all of the other religions should have similar adjustment to the Mormons. As Mormonism has three (3) different listings as of today, Sept. 26 2006, Latter day Saint Movement,Latter day saints and Mormons. They should all be listed under Mormanism. Anarcism, Capitalism, Communism have many forms but only one (1) page each.

lol: I was wrong there are nine (9) pages on Momonism as of today (maybe more are hiding) Latter day Saint Movement,Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ,History of the Latter Day Saint movement,Jesus in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Missions of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormon, Mormonism, and there are lists with (small) pages of even more sects. I'd be willing to wager that all of the different branches not only follow the book of Mormon, but also all but one originated in Utah.

Joeseph Smith's MORMONISM and the book of Mormon is what all the above pages are all refering to.

And a quote from Latter Day Saint movement page shows the connection."The Latter Day Saint movement spawned many religious denominations, some of which include a set of doctrines, practices, and cultures collectively known as Mormonism, although some do not accept the designation Mormon."

There is a link to this article from the Exmormonism article, backed up in the discussion section of Exmormonism. It seems only logical that there should be a link back. greenw47

Restorationist Christianity

Hi there. There has to be a neutral way of expressing what is meant by the words "Restorationist Christianity" in the opening paragraph. The current pair of words is non-neutral since it implies that the Latter-day Saint movement is Christian, which is a widely contested understanding. My formulation "Restorationist view of Christianity" was reverted, so I think a better phrase needs to be found. Sincerely, 82.181.198.55 14:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please review previous discussions regarding whether the Mormon church is Christian. --Kmsiever 14:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Kmsiever, I read it. But I can't help thinking that it's still non-NPOV. Couldn't we work on it a bit, trying to find a more neutral solution? WP cannot take a stand on such a controversial matter. --82.181.198.55 15:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, but what is your definition of Christian? Evangelicals believe that if one accepts Jesus as the Christ and their personal Savior, one is saved. If Jesus extends being saved to those who accept him as their Lord and Savior, would that also qualify the indivdidual as a "Christian"? The Roman Catholic church teaches a very similar doctrine, but has a different view of works.

No where in any doctrine on Salvation in any Christian church, to my knowledge, does it define being saved as accepting specific doctrine. If accepting Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior , or being saved, makes one a Christian, then LDS are Christian.

However, I believe your point is that LDS are not part of Historic Christainity or that Christainity formalized after the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. That is the importance of calling it part of the restorationist movement. It views all of the creeds as the result of the of councils of men formulating the doctrines of men. The very fact that men voted is evidence of this. Previous to this time doctrine was never "voted" upon, or created by agreement, but rather it was the result of a prophet claiming, "thus saith the Lord".

Anon 82, you are correct that LDS are not part of Historic Christianity, but claiming a group, any group, is not Christian is of itself POV. I look forward to your thoughts. These conversations are fascinating and I appreciate your willingness to interact. Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider, thank you for your compliments. I guess it doesn't matter how I define "Christian"; the matter at hand is which questions are highly controversial and which are not, i.e. which statements about these questions are non-NPOV and which are not. By no means do I propose that the article should claim that LDS are not Christian! I am just reluctant to believe that it should claim the opposite either. When a reader finds such a controversial statement right in the beginning of an encyclopedic article, he/she may easily be reluctant to believe in the neutrality of the rest of the article.

My understanding is that although Christian denominations don't define salvation as accepting specific doctrine, they are very united in viewing the LDS church as a non-Christian religion (which is not the same as saying the LDS are outside salvation, or course). Although some denominations disagree about the administration and precise nature of baptism, it is generally understood as something performed upon a person who comes to Christ, i.e. a convert or revert to Christianity. I have never heard of denominations that do not baptize ex-LDS people who join them.

So in my view, since there are different opinions about the matter at hand, the article should use language that does not prefer one view over another, but expresses the meaning with words that everyone can agree with. If I understood correctly, in this case the meaning is: a movement that views itself as the restoration of original Christianity. Since that is quite short, I would propose the following as the opening phrase of the article: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, widely known as the "LDS Church" or the "Mormon Church", is the largest and most well-known denomination within the Latter Day Saint movement and views itself as the restoration of original Christianity (see Restorationism).

What do you think of this? In my opinion, that doesn't claim that Mormons are right or wrong; it only tells what their beliefs are. Sincerely, 82.181.198.55 22:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Good questions and statements. I think you will find on the Mormonism and Christianity article several instances of the stance of several churches and their opinions of Mormon baptism. Incidentily, Mormons baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost". Also, LDS don't accept the baptisms of any other church; even those that are part of the Latter Day Saint Movement.

Many churches do not feel Mormons are Christian. You will notice that they are really saying Mormons are not part of the historic Christian church, which Mormons freely admit. They do not descend from any 4th century church, but believe they are the restored church of Jesus Christ. Protestants are more adament that Mormons do not follow the Bible; but whose interpretation of the Bible is used as the standard? Is it the Catholic standard, in which case all Protestants are wrong on several points? Is it the Evangelical standard, in which case Catholics are not even Christian?

Do you think the article should be written from a standpoint of how others feel about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or do you think articles should be written from the perspective of the group. Is a group Christian because they claim to be Christian or because another, larger group says they are Christain? Who has the right to claim to be Christian?

I find it humorous when Protestants will state that all are saved if they accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior...except for Mormons and not only do they have to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior, but they have to also must believe certain other doctrines. It is the one area where the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ is insufficent. Is salvation possible for non-Christians? I know of no Christian church that believes that salvation is possible except for Christians. Logic would say if salvation is offered through Christ, then Mormons must be Christian.

Do you think it is acceptable to list these issues in a controvery section? If so, you will note that these issues are already covered in the Criticism and controversy section of this article. Even more importantly the first paragraph ends, "Thus, they consider themselves Christians, but not part of the Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant traditions". (I added the bold on consider for emphasis.

I believe WIKI requires balance. There are virtually a plethora of articles that list criticisms of the LDS church: Anti-Mormonism, Criticism of the Mormonism, Mormonism and Christianity, Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Exmormonism. These are only those that come immediately to mind. I am not familiar with all articles on religion, but I am willing to guess that there will be few other religions with such a multitude of articles all centered on how other people view a church. Much of it is repetitious and wholly redundant, but they meet the needs of respective interests and they certainly meet the requirement of balance. I would submit that not only is this article balanced, but WIKI is balanced when it comes to Mormonism. Forgive the bit of rant; it is a pet peeve of mine and I am overly sensitive.

I look forward to more conversations and would enjoy answers to my questions. These types of conversations are very interesting to me, but I hope we don't stray too far. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think your proposal is good. Go for it. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it's there now (thanks to Pahora513). Thank you for cooperation. --82.181.198.55 10:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Consider themselves..."

This conversation is fascinating, even though some of it isn't directly related to the article. I'm not sure if most Christians make any essential difference between "Christianity" and "Historic Christianity" (as groups of people, not as concepts); when viewing Mormons as non-Christians, their reasons are surely based on the Mormon doctrines that differ from those expressed in the patristic and conciliar writings. I could imagine that you believe the same, but we seem to draw different conclusions from that. If I understood you correctly, you stated that they actually think Mormons are Christians but just different Christians. My understanding is that they really do think Mormons are non-Christians and base this view on the mentioned differences. Even if you or I were of the opinion that the differences are not such that would make Mormons non-Christians, it is a non sequitur to therefore conclude that the opinion is generally shared. Or more simply put, when they say "Mormons are not Christians, you know, they don't believe in the Trinity" I would be very hesitant to interpret it as "Ok, Mormons are Christians but they don't believe in the Trinity." More likely, the correct interpretation is "Mormons are not Christians precisely because they don't believe in the Trinity." But again, this is only my understanding of what is generally held.

When conversing in the context of WP, I find the whole concept of "the standard interpretation of the Bible" very difficult. The essence of the question is, what should the encyclopedia say if a group holds a self-understanding that has very little support from outside? At least not bluntly state the Mormon position as a fact. I could say that numbers do matter in the case of an overwhelming majority (this is in the WP instructions, if I remember correctly), but the case is special because the group disagreeing with the others is the one the whole matter is about. Therefore, the article shouldn't state the matter from a non-Mormon position as a fact either. It should only say who thinks what, and I think the opening paragraph is good now. It states the Mormon position, not as an uncontested fact, but as a position. The counterexample about the Roman Catholic Church is not applicable, in my view, because the percentage of people who view Roman Catholics as non-Christians is small.

My understanding of the Protestant (or generally Christian) view of Mormon faith is that they think that one doesn't believe in the same Jesus as they do, the Jesus of Nazareth, if one rejects the understanding of him as the man-God. I agree that it is not self-evident where they should draw the line, but on the other hand, it is understandable that the line is drawn somewhere. If they viewed the Mormon understanding of God as being within the boundaries of Christianity, the next question would be, what about Hindus who feel highly of Jesus and view him as one among millions of gods - are they Christians, too? I also think that most Christians do believe in the possible salvation of non-Christians - for instance, the Roman Catholic position is that they can be saved (by and through Christ) if they are outside the visible boundaries of Christianity without their own fault and if they follow the law written in every heart. This has quite little to do with the article, though.

I think the word "consider" doesn't entail any rejection of what is considered; it simply states it as a position. This is very apparent because the same clause can speak of considerations opposed to each other: "Harry considers the apple tree as his own; Barry, on the other hand, considers that he owns the apple tree." Neither position is either supported or rejected. They're just mentioned, neutrally and accurately. I would of course find it understandable if the article on Harry told Harry's understanding first and vice versa. --82.181.198.55 11:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue with "consider themselves" is that other Christian denomination articles don't have "Roman Catholics consider themselves Christian," or "Baptists consider themselves Christian," or "Lutherans consider themselves Christian." Thus the language doesn't sound NPOV - only one denomination is pointed out as only considering themselves Christian.

As Storm Rider said - normally a Christian will say that all you need to be saved is to proclaim your faith in Jesus Christ and you will be saved. If you say I do - then they will start to argue that you don't believe in the same Jesus Christ. Then if you say, "Well I believe in the Jesus, the Son of God, that was born of the virgin Mary, whose birth was foretold, who lived at the meridian of time, suffered for the sins of every person, died on the cross, three days later was resurrected, and who provided the means by which everyone may have eternal life." Then they will start the trinity argument. Which, by the way, although settled today, was not such an obvious view of God. There were several councils of theologians who voted to determine the nature of God - and then proceeded to exile, and then kill those who professed a belief in the nature of God different than the pronouncement of the council. So the claim is that one can't be a Christian, a follower of Christ, if one has a disagreement over the nature of Christ (and God). Thus, if you don't believe in the trinity you are a heretic, and unlike those that are oustide the visible bounds of Christianity, can not be saved.

(See also: First Council of Nicaea, which established the 325 version of the Nicene Creed; First Council of Constantinople, which modified and confirmed the Nicean Cread as orthodox; Council of Ephesus which confirmed that Jesus was complete God and complete man(the later councils are also interesting reading); Servetus, executed for his On the Errors of the Trinity; Catherine LaCugna, a modern catholic who favored the persons description of the trinity; Specific teachings|Tertullian, whose description of the Nature of God significantly influenced the Nicean Creed; Origen, tortured to death after being labeled a heretic because of his trinity beliefs (but considered a Church Father by some); Nestorianism, a belief that tried to explain how the divine and human became Jesus - later labeled as heretical; ...)

If you read through the above you will see the attacks are the same - accuse those who understand the nature of God differently as heretics or today as not being Christian - but fortunately the result is different. (We have seperation of church and state so death is not a likely consequence.)

Since most members of the Church of Jesus Christ take a covenant at Baptism to be a "witness for Christ at all times, and in all things... even unto death"18:9 it is particularly irksome to be accused of not being Christian. I think that is why there is so much opposition to this - and the acceptance of members of the Church of Jesus Christ as Christian is unthinkable because that would imply that one would have to take the Book of Mormon, and the claims of continuous revelation seriously, instead of just dismissing them because the followers worship the wrong Christ. --Trödel 19:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the essential difference between "Mormons consider themselves Christian" and "Roman Catholics consider themselves Christian" is that an overwhelming majority of self-described Christians disagree with Mormons but agree with Roman Catholics.

It is correct that the doctrine of Trinity was not settled as a dogma until centuries after Christ. Different denominations have different views concerning this - e.g. Roman Catholics believe the Ecumenical Councils really did have authority to decide on dogmas, whereas Lutherans would say their decisions are binding insofar as they represent the truth of the Bible. But I think both would agree that the core of the doctrine of Trinity, i.e. that there is only one God who is the Father, the Son (who is also human) and the Holy Spirit, has been a binding Christian belief since the days of Christ, and that even in the days before the councils, one could not have rejected it without rejecting Christianity altogether.

"Heresy" is a term referring to any false belief held by a self-described Christian; it takes no stand on whether the heretic is really a Christian or not. Concerning the salvation of heretics I believe your understanding is incorrect; the concept of the possible salvation of non-Christians is also applied to the salvation of the non-orthodox, i.e. heretics.

Sorry, new ip. --85.188.63.93 12:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You should consider registering so that you can use the same username, regardless of where you are located. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're absolutely right. Perhaps I can determine after this discussion whether I'm staying or not. --85.188.63.93 19:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Then the proper terminology would be somthing like "Roman Catholics are popularly considered christian..." or something like that to be NPOV; however, I gave the analogy not to say that those articles should be changed but that we should stick to a standard of what a Christian is - someone who professes a belief in Jesus as the Messiah and follows his teachings - rather than trying to define in an NPOV manner which groups are Christian and which ones are not - as I don't think it can be done. I think this approach is consistent with the definition of the term, not popularity.

• "(noun) 1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus." (American Heritage Dictionary);
• "(noun) 1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ" (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary);
• "noun - someone who believes in and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ" (Cambridge Dictionary).

I would view a heresy as any belief that a specific denomination believes is false, and a heretic one who believes the heresy. As what is false belief - who is to define false versus true. Denominations can determine what is doctrine/orthodox for them and label other beliefs as heresy - but there is really no way to define a universal heresy.

Thus, although the acceptance of the Trinity may be well settled now, that IMHO, is more due to the elimination of those with other beliefs about the nature of God by killing them, than because it is a universal truth.

Finally, the above references provide information re those that believed something other than how you describe the Trinity - i.e. there were subtle differences in the belief about God. For example:

• Origen Logos is subordinate to God and not "of the same substance with the Father" and Christ was as an incarnation of the Logos, where the resurection meant that the mortal body of Jesus was transformed by God into an ethereal and divine body. Thus Jesus on earth was an image of God. This doctrine, his belief in pre-mortal existance of souls, and universal salvation got him labeled as a heretic, tortured and killed.
• Tertullian "These three are one substance, not one person; and it is said, 'I and my Father are one' in respect not of the singularity of number but the unity of the substance." The very names "Father" and "Son" indicate the distinction of personality. The Father is one, the Son is one, and the Spirit is one (Adv. Praxeam, ix.).
• Nestorius Jesus existed as two persons, the man Jesus and the divine Son of God, or Logos, rather than as a unified person.
• Eusebius Who defined God as the cause of all beings, the highest God to whom Christ is subject as the second God. Christ is the only really good creature, and possesses the image of God and is a ray of the eternal light; but the figure of the ray is so limited by Eusebius that he expressly emphasizes the self-existence of Jesus. Killed as part of the eradicatin of Arianism.

These are all different than the creed, some more subtly than others, but they are all considered Christian.

By the way, I would love to see some references re the catholic redemption of non-Christians and heretics, as I have heard that before but never seen a authoritative source for it. --Trödel 14:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your first clause; massive consensus agreeing with the self-understanding of the group is enough for determining whether an encyclopedic article can call a group Christian or non-Christian. In the case of massive disagreement with the self-understanding, qualifications are required. But again, this is only my opinion. As I said, the problem with the objective criteria is that there are always people who consider themselves followers of Jesus in the way they believe Jesus intended; many Hindus, for example. So it only prompts us to define the definition, and so on ad absurdum. Moreover, we cannot ignore how people define Christianity or "following Christ", even if the definition is non-NPOV.

I agree with your definition of heresy, but my point is there is no reason to presuppose that all heretics are Christians; I think we agree that there are heresies that can exclude the heretic from Christianity. But this doesn't necessarily agree with the self-understanding of that person. However, calling a false belief of a self-described non-Christian a heresy is just absurd; he doesn't claim to be following Christ, therefore it doesn't matter whether his specific beliefs are true or false.

And I'm well aware of the doctrinal quarrels of the first millennium (Origen's name is written with an e, btw; just being accurate). I'm not sure if all of those heresies would be classified as being within the scope of Christianity (they're "Christian heresies" sure, but that's because of the self-described Christianity of the adherents). Adherents of some heresies were baptized, those of others (less severe) were not.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EENS#Roman_Catholic_interpretation which cites the Catechism which in turn cites the Second Vatican Councils (it could cite e.g. Saint Thomas of Aquinas or Pope Pius XII too). --85.188.63.93 19:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that not all heretics are Christians - my point is that one can call a self-described Christian an heretic but that doesn't change whether or not he is Christian. In the example you give, a Hindu who follows Christ in his own way, will not (in my acknowledged limited experience) call herself Christian.

While I agree that on wikipedia concensus trumps even known truth - i.e. if we can reach a concensus that π = 3.14 exactly - that is what the article would say regardless of the truth; so, the need here is to find some way to phrase this concept that can reach concensus. --Trödel 21:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What I didn't understand is, do we agree that not all self-described Christians are actually Christians, or do you disagree with that statement? Surely there can be self-described Christians with beliefs just as far as Hinduism from what you or I would perceive as Christianity.

Well, if a majority of mathematicians would agree that constant x = 2, it would be very hard to state something else without mentioning the disagreement; and if the article said "x = 1 although most mathematicians believe otherwise" if would be quite the same as saying "most mathematicians believe x = 2 but they're wrong". That's non-NPOV if anything. You would agree that the article should tell about the different positions without lifting one over another, wouldn't you, instead of artificially defining something that most mathematicians don't agree with and then calling it an "objective" definition? Surely there is a definition for "Christian" or "follower of Jesus" that most self-described Christians would agree with. But that definition excludes Mormons; and if you simplify it to just being a self-described Christian, the definition lacks consensus. --85.188.63.93 04:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the strained math example. I do think that anyone who self-describes as a Christian is a Christian - basically, I can not think of a counter example - a self-professed Christian who is not a Christian - now that is a very strangely cosntructed sentence. --Trödel 13:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if "Christian" means "follower of Christ" then anyone who says he is following Christ is also in practice calling himself a Christian. Many Hindus do, for example. --85.188.63.93 20:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We are getting a little further afield on this question; let's bring it back to the question as it relates to the LDS church. LDS prefer a 1st century definition of Christian. If one accepts Jesus Christ as the Son of God, that he lived, was crucified, made the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and rose the 3rd day and now sits on the right hand of the Father; then one is Christian. This would fit some of the definitions that Trödel has stated above and.

Some Historic Christian churches have added another layer in order to define Christian: not only must you believe in Jesus in the manner stated above, but you must also accept certain additional 4th century beliefs i.e. the Nicene Creed. Those who accept this doctrine are rightly called part of the Historic Christian churches. LDS and others do not share in this genesis and are appropriately identified as such.

Being Christian does not require being part of Historic Christianity, being Christian means one believes in Jesus as the Christ. The problems develops when Historic Christian churches attempt to claim ownership of the term Christian. They are quite capable of saying "you are not part of us" or "you are not part of mainstream Christianity". However, I am loathe to reject any individual's claim they are Christian.

Your example above seems rather extreme. Is one Christian if one simply follows the teachings of Jesus? Many of our Christian brothers and sisters seem to doubt the divinity of Jesus Christ. At times I am thrown to feel that the label of Christian is not merited if one thinks Jesus was simply a good teacher, a bodhisattva, a philospher, or a prophet, etc. I want to make the standard higher; that they must accept him as the Son of God. However, I think when I do that I create possible distinctions where none should be. I think Christian should be an inclusive term. If we are to make distinctions it would have to be in beliefs. Accepting Jesus as the Christ is not the end of a journey, but it is the beginning of one. When then must strive to emulate His example and teachings. It is at the end that we wish to hear, "Well done thou good and faithful servant". Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

From the viewpoint of what you call Historic Christianity, it is oversimplification to say that "the 1st century definition" of Christianity included nothing more than the acknowledgement of Jesus as the Son of God who was crucified for the sins of humankind and resurrected. Explicit metaphysical definitions rose much later, definitely; but as I previously stated, their essence - especially consciousness of Jesus as God Almighty - was already there in the faith of the 1st century church. And again, disagreements exist between Protestants and others concerning whether church councils actually add a binging layer or explicit beliefs or just describe an already existing one.

I think all self-described Christians agree that Christianity is belief in Jesus as the Christ, but that only rises the question, what does that mean? The last part of your comment is especially interesting, but I didn't understand the words "it would have to be in beliefs". Could you clarify that, please? --85.188.63.93 05:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a widespread acknowledgement that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God, but what does that mean? The Jews were waiting for a Messiah, but there was no expectation that the Messiah was also going to be God. The Messiah was expected to be a man who was able to save Israel. He was God's annointed, but wasn't expected to be God himself. Paul was the one who introduced suggestions that Jesus was also God. You can find statements by Jesus that he was God, but it isn't clear (to me, anyway) that many fully understood and appreciated that. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 12:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Storm Rider that when we start to try to define what "Jesus is the Christ (Messiah)" means - and who meets that definition and who doesn't - we are getting into trouble (NPOV that is). Because then we are trying to assert what the "truth" is about "Jesus is the Christ" and then labeling groups as meeting that truth or not - but we aren't here at Wikipedia to assert truth but to assert views in a neutral way. The definition of Christian is one who professes a belief that Jesus is the Christ, members of the Church of Jesus Christ profess a belief that Jesus is the Christ; therefore they are Christian. --Trödel 13:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then e.g. many Hindus are Christians too. --85.188.63.93 20:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Except they do not self describe as Christians... --Trödel 02:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't find that important since it's just a custom that evolved in Antioch. Were the apostles Christians before the word came up? Yes. The bottom line is that many Hindus profess belief in Jesus and consider themselves followers of Jesus in the way they believe Jesus intended. You cannot claim to be a follower of Christ or a believer of Christ without simultaneously claiming to be a Christian. The attempt to define the word as simply "self-described follower of Christ" or "one who professes belief in Christ" does not meet your ends (i.e. getting a definition that includes Mormons but excludes Hindus). On the other hand, if you make further conditions for the profession to be qualified as Christian, there is no difference between that and what the mainstream denominations do. --82.181.198.55 06:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Except I never proposed that definition - I proposed the definition that it was one who professes a belief that Jesus is the Christ (meaning the Messiah) ∴ Christian - they can follow Jesus as an incarnation of one of the Hindu trinity or as another avatar - and if they want to call themselves Christian - that would be fine with me. --Trödel 15:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We tend to see the same problem over and over again, Trödel: that of definition. It would not be hard to integrate the Messianic concept in Hinduism or some other very diverse religion (I would not be surprised if that already has been done). I agree that the etymology is the best argument for the Jesus=Christ condition; besides that, the Bible only talks about "the disciples", which could mean anything - but I think so can "Messiah" (or "Anointed One") mean just about anything. I thank you very much for the last part of your comment, I find it logical and worth thinking. --82.181.198.55 15:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I have no trouble with somebody calling themselves Christian, based on any criteria. I also have no problem with somebody calling themselves not Christian, regardless of what I think of them. I don't mind somebody calling someone else Christian, as long as the other person doesn't object. What I have a problem with, however, is somebody calling someone else not a Christian, if the other claims to be one.

In most cases, when somebody tries to draw up criteria for classifying others as Christian or not, it becomes very subjective. On one extreme (and my brother is one of these), the definition becomes "if somebody believes what I believe, they are Christian." The more liberal version is "if somebody believes what I believe on what I think are the important points, they are Christian." I reject any such effort. Christians are told not to judge one another. Further, from parables we learn that in the last days there will be a group of people who think they are Christian, but will be rejected by Jesus, saying he doesn't know them.

For that reason, I avoid passing judgement on who is and who is not a Christian. I have my doubts about certain people who claim to be Christian but act in a way that I believe is contradictory, but that is up to the Lord to decide. Not me. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 16:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion? I have seen a lot said about whether Mormons are Christian or not, and it seems pretty clear that the ones claiming they are not Christian are debating based on their own Christian beliefs. I think the best way to look at an issue like this in a NPOV way is to see it from the perspective of someone outside of Christianity, say a Budhist, Hindu, Muslim, Athiest, etc. For example. "Mormons are not Christian because they believe X about Jesus" is completely irrelivant to an Athiest who doesn't care if you believe that Jesus is purple. It just doesn't matter in the definition of a Christian. All the little points (and I know you all think they are big) just don't matter a hill of beans to an outside observer. This article isn't here to prove or disprove the truth of the LDS Church. It is here to inform the uninformed. So try to write as if you are a Muslim explaining things to a Hindu or a Budhist explaining things to an Athiest. I think, by the way, that they would all classify Mormons as Christian. That's all. Bytebear 00:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

---

"the Latter-day Saint movement is Christian, which is a widely contested understanding."

I'm amazed at how so many who rely so heavily on the words and writings of others claim we Mormons are not Christians. Call me crazy, but my definition of being "Christian" implies that one follows the teachings of Jesus Christ. Christ is at the center of this Church. No one has a greater love and reverence for the Savior than do the members of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." It is His Church and in fact is named after Him. The Book of Mormon testifies of Him in numerous ways. It is in fact a second witness that HE lives. This is why we don't use the symbolism of the cross in our buildings. It is because we worship the LIVING Christ and not the one who died on the cross. The Book of Mormon explicitly teaches of Jesus Christ and of His mission here in the Western Hemisphere. It is in His sacred name that we do all that we do, including prayer and the performing of various ordinances. We open and close our meetings in his name. It is in His name that we bless our families and friends. It is in His name that many thousands of our members, young and old, at personal expense and without compensation, embark on missions to spread His message around the world. Their only reward is the joy of bringing the Gospel of Jesus Christ into the lives of those we come to know. All that we do is in hope of someday being reunited with Him and once again living in His presence. Spyneyes 02:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we really have to get into this again? And Spyneyes, while I agree with you, let's not open up this can of worms yet again. Why don't we all have a nice cup of tea (or for those of us of the Latter-day Saint persuasion, a nice cup of hot chocolate) and forget about this. We wouldn't want to cause poor Storm Rider an ulcer or Bill Pringle a stroke with the reopening of this discussion/argument/unnecessary discussion. And people, if we do open this up again (which I will pray we don't), let's be civil. I'm sure all of us would appreciate that. Pahoran513 05:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd address you personally, whoever wrote the following, but you haven't bothered with a user page, something that I generally frown on. "Although some denominations disagree about the administration and precise nature of baptism, it is generally understood as something performed upon a person who comes to Christ, i.e. a convert or revert to Christianity. I have never heard of denominations that do not baptize ex-LDS people who join them." I fail to see what relevance that has, as there are numerous Christian sects which do not accept baptism when performed by a different Christian denomination. Perhaps the best well known example is the Catholic church. Just as many Christian denominations fight over exactly whether the wafer is changed just before the priest says some words or while he saying those words or just after those words, many Christian denominations fight over whether baptisms of other sects are valid or not. Banaticus 22:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

It seems to me that the this LDS article is a good example of the weakeness of Wikipedia as a whole. This article has turned pretty much into an official sanitized description of the LDS faith and not an neutral one. Even the "Criticism and Controversy" section has turned more into a defense of any criticism than an explantion of the crisiticism themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.88.121.162 (talk • contribs) .

We have had a number of non-LDS people contribute to this article, and help balance the POV/NPOV issue. You are likewise encouraged to assist in making this a better article. The goal that we have tried for is NPOV text, not a balance of POV opinions. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 16:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying it doesn't seem like a NPOV text. It seems like the official view including the controversy and criticism section which defends each criticsm with more strength than the description of the criticism itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.88.121.162 (talk • contribs) .

I just reviewed that section. It seem to me that it identifies the areas of criticism and references articles that go into more depth. That seems pretty NPOV. Perhaps you could give an example of what you think an entry should be? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 01:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Major Beliefs Section

I was just looking at the major beliefs section, and it is my prominent belief (get it) that it would be better in a different order. I propose the following order:

1-First Principles, with all of its sub headings in their current order

2-Plan of Salvation

3-Scriptures

4-Priesthood

5-Godhead

6-Church Leadership

I believe that this order is more conducive to the precedence that Church members place on their beliefs, as is evidenced by the order of the missionary lessons (Plan of Salvation second) and discussion during Sunday School, along with sacrament meeting talks. We rarely have a talk on the Godhead's composition during sacrament meeting, but talks on the Plan of Salvation, the Book of Mormon, and each of the 1st principles, are much more prevalent. Likewise, testimonies concerning the nature of the Godhead are rarely borne, but testimonies on the value of faith, the Book of Mormon, and Priesthood power are frequent. The order which I proposed, I feel, is clearly more adequate than the current one to express this. Any objections or agreements? This is a rather major change, so discussion would be nice. --Pahoran513 17:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The above order seems fine to me. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 22:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think agency deserves its own section in that list. --Lethargy 05:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Would you write it? --Pahoran513 16:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

No promises, but perhaps I could work on something... --Lethargy 22:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There. I did it. --Pahoran513 17:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

New Article on Spirit/Holy Ghost/Light of Christ/Intelligences

I am proposing that the Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be merged into a yet to be created, and named, article that would cover the following subjects:

1. Intelligences
2. Spirit bodies
3. Light of Chirst
4. Holy Ghost
5. Teaching that flow from above:
   1. Acquiring knowledge/truth spiritually
   2. All men have ability to discern truth
   3. Animals have spirits too - and we should respect them - Animals article merge
   4. others stuff...

The article could pull together some info from the following articles: Holy Spirit#Non-Trinitarian Christian views, Pre-existence#Pre-mortal existence in Mormonism, Godhead (Mormonism), Plan of salvation, First War in Heaven, Animals, etc. Light of Christ could also be merged and redirected to the new article.

This would be a more coherent presentation of the theology and its implications. It would also allow sections on the related topics in the Mormonism articles - or in the non Latter Day Saint movement related articles to be summarized more succinctly while pointing those interested to a full treatment of the information. Comments, thoughts? Help on a name would be especially helpful (see also: Talk:Animals in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#New merge target) --Trödel 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. How about "Spirituality (Mormonism)" for a title? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm - I was thinking of an article that would be specific to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - that way we can summarize on the Mormonism articles some - which has the benefit that the CJC would not dominate those articles in a words/article sense. It has the additional benefit of being able to pull all related info into a coherent theology, being able to be specific rather than general (as in most Mormonism articles), and the source material for other groups within Mormonism - at least from my research - was sparse. --<font color="Trödel 20:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

An LDS-specific article is fine, but I'd really like to see an article that reviews multiple religious treatments on the significance of animals in relation to the human family. CS Lewis wrote a fascinating essay titled "Animal Pain" compiled in "The Problem of Pain" (ISBN:0006280935/0805420495). Potential issues that could be addressed in a general religion perspective article may be the significance of animal sacrifice, dietary and food preparation customs, animals as deity (literal or metaphorical scriptural presentation and varying religious interpretations; mythological importance and its influence upon religion and culture), among other issues. I'm not launching an objection to your proposal, Trödel, but I think we could take this idea one notch higher that could serve your proposal better in the long run. A premature disentanglement from other Christian/religious perspectives may have people thinking this may yet be another visit to the strange world of LDS peculiarity. A general religion article on animals may be a little more solidified as a root concept, and thus may not have as many merge proposals because it could bring users interested in the topic together from multiple religions to describe their perspectives. The general quality of such an article would most likely reach a larger audience and probably be of better quality simply due to magnitute of traffic on its discussion page. LDS perspectives could certainly be represented there briefly and also internally linked to page you propose. Piewalker 19:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I like your suggestion also - I think both would make good articles. --Trödel 00:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

New Article

In the archives there was talk about shortening this article by creating a new article about the Culture of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I went ahead and created it. However, it is mostly just a copy and paste from this article with a brief introduction added. Please contribute to it. --Pahoran513 04:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Financial prosperity of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

I am suggesting that the above article be merged with the main LDS article. It is little more than a paragraph critical of the church Tithing program and looks more like a blurb on corporate Mormonism than a legitimate article. Bytebear 18:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That is fine by me, though I wonder where you will add it; we are trying to reduce the size of this article (or at least keep it from growing). But overall the concept is good (but the Financial article will have to be re-written for redundancy). Pahoran513 23:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the suggestion to merge this article with "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", I believe it should not be merged.

My reasoning: a) I feel the article is not written well, or at the very least is incomplete and unbalanced; b) I also feel some readers could regard it as somewhat inflammatory.

Perhaps if there were also articles titled "The Financial Properity of The Roman Catholic Church/Baptist Church/Methodist Church" etc., then this article could well be in order. (Ok, I didn't actually look to see if their were such articles, but I'm guessing there aren't any. Am I right?) --BigMack 20:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We should definitely merge the article into the "finances" section of this page, to the extent it is not redundant. Branch-off articles are supposed to be larger than the summaries that replace them. The time for a branch-off is not ripe. COGDEN 06:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Church Leadership and the Priesthood

Regarding the sentence: "They work full-time for the Church, and those who need it receive a stipend from the Church"

I'm not sure this statement is correct. It's my understanding that church leaders are reimbursed for expenses only, like travel expenses. --BigMack 20:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There needs to be NPOV citations. It has been a clear anti-mormon POV that there IS a paid ministry in the church, but this simply is not comparable to other churches where ministers or Catholic priests choose their callings as a career. It should be presented that although the LDS leadership is called full time for life, it is not a career, and that they have in most if not all cases already retired from their full time careers and are sustained by their own retirement funds. Bytebear 01:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Membership numbers revisited

I saw the following article in the Des News that discusses membership statistics [1] of scientology. Intereesting that the LDS church gets beat up for having incorrect statistics by Anti-Mormons (in fact, their membership numbers are probably the most accurate according to stark and others), however, when you look at the following statement it is consistent with the southern baptist's definition and american penecostal assn definiation. Seems that catholicism and mormons actually define based on baptism/confirmation stats (and a few others). Hmmm. here's the statement:

"He said membership numbers come from those "on a current mailing list and who participate in various events through the year. They don't participate necessarily on a daily basis. I think the statistics are consistent with how other faiths monitor their membership, and if anything they may be a little low."" (Bob Adams of the Church of Scientology).

In otherwords, if we used that definition, anyone who is a repeat caller to get the latest "family first" video or has visited a family history library more than once, or attended a sacrament meeting, would be considered part of the LDS church. -Visorstuff 18:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints → The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – Per Wikipedia's guidelines, this needs to be moved. As with The Nature Conservancy, the "The" is part of the name, which they specifically request be used.[2] --Lethargy 19:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. I'm actually inclined to oppose simply for reasons of simplicity in linking to the article as far as Wiki formatting goes, but it does seem that the "The" is important as can be seen in various points made in the previous move discussion. Sometimes simplicity needs to take a back seat to accuracy. Kafziel 20:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I agree that it should be moved. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. Simplicity is what redirects are for, after all. :) --Masamage 23:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I agree that it should be moved with a redirect from it's current location. --Sue Anne 23:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support there seems to be more flexibility with starting articles with "The" so the precedent is there - we should use the legal name --Trödel 02:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I just don't like unanimity! :D. It's been here without the "The" for quite a while and doesn't seem to have caused any problems. Novel-Technology 22:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I agree it should be moved. It's the official name of the church. Pahoran513 23:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support: It is the official name of the church, so the article name should reflect it. Val42 01:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- In my opinion, every organization and individual have the right to determine the name that they'll be known as. We'll just put in a redirect from "Church of..." to "The Church of..." Banaticus 23:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• Previous move discussion (no consensus reached): [3]
• I think having the article where it currently is may be somewhat misleading, causing many articles I have come across to drop the "The" from the name. At least if the article were moved people might notice the redirect and use the proper name, rather than "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" --Lethargy 02:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • If consensus is reached, I would recommend changing as many articles as possible to link directly to the new title. Articles generally shouldn't be edited to fix redirects, but in this case the capitalization is incorrect so it's okay to do it. Kafziel 11:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Members believe..."

There are an awful lot of statements in this article beginning with "members believe...". Something about these statements bothers me. Perhaps it is because in order to back up these statements we would need to cite church officials or doctrine, rather than members. Perhaps it would look better with "the Church teaches..."?

Whatever the reason, something about these statements smells a little fishy... or weaselly. Comments? --Lethargy 02:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason "Members believe" is often used is because of "Members" writing the articles. I believe therfore "Members believe" (and they might be right). I very much agree with both of your statements. I do think "Church teaches..." should also have citations.

History

The first paragraph of the History section is causing me trouble. The entire paragraph is what LDS believes is the case, not what is generally accepted. I hate the style of writing where we have to say "according to the LDS" in every sentence, but I can see that there might be confusion. I'm going to try something to make it more explicit. DJ Clayworth 20:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to revise. But, I would have as much problem with what is "generally accepted" as others would with "what LDS believes." So, please have your "general" sources lined up to support revision. Best wishes. WBardwin 17:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)